Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism: Pamphlets, 1754–1789 [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9780674280342, 9780674280335

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A NOTE ON THE TEXTS
PAMPHLETS 1754-1789
PAMPHLET 1.A DISCOURSE SHOWING THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF AN INTERNAL CALL TO PREACH THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL BOSTON, 1754
PAMPHLET 2. A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BONDWOMAN AND THE FREE BOSTON, 1756
PAMPHLET 3. A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET BOSTON, 1768
PAMPHLET 4. THE SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD BOSTON, 1773
PAMPHLET 5. AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BOSTON, 1773
PAMPHLET 6. GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED BOSTON, 1778
PAMPHLET 7. POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY BOSTON, 1779
PAMPHLET 8. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE BOSTON, 1780
PAMPHLET 9. TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL BOSTON, 1781
PAMPHLET 10. A DOOR OPENED FOR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY BOSTON, 1783
PAMPHLET 11. AN ADDRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF NEW ENGLAND BOSTON, 1787
PAMPHLET 12. THE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR ELECTION AND FINAL PERSEVERANCE BOSTON, 1789
APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE. Exchange of Letters between the Separates of Titicut, Massachusetts, and the Parish Committee of Titicut, November 1748
APPENDIX TWO. Petition of the Separates of Massachusetts to the General Court, June 7, 1749
APPENDIX THREE. Isaac Backus' Draft for a Bill of Rights for the Massachusetts Constitution, 1779
THE WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS. ENDNOTES. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY.
THE WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS
ENDNOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY
INDEX

Citation preview

THE JOHN HARVARD Bernard Bailyn Editor-in-Chief

LIBRARY

T H E JOHN HARVARD L I B R A R Y

ISAAC BACKUS ON CHURCH, STATE, AND CALVINISM PAMPHLETS, 1754-1789

Edited by WILLIAM G. McLOUGHLIN

THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts 1968

© Copyright 1968 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Distributed in Great Britain by Oxford University Press, London Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-14268 Printed in the United States of America John Harvard Library books are edited at the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History, Harvard University.

CONTENTS

Introduction by William G. McLoughlin

ι

A Note on the Texts

62 PAMPHLETS 1754-1789

1

A Discourse Showing the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel. Boston, 1754

65

2

A Short Description of the Difference between the Bondwoman and the Free. Boston, 1756

129

3

A Fish Caught in His Own Net. Boston, 1768

167

4

The Sovereign Decrees of God. Boston, 1773

289

5 An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty. Boston, 1773

303

6

Government and Liberty Described.

345

7

Policy as Well as Honesty. Boston, 1779

367

8

An Appeal to the People. Boston, 1780

385

9

Truth Is Great and Will Prevail. Boston, 1781

397

10

A Door Opened for Christian Liberty.

427

11

An Address to the Inhabitants of New England.

Boston, 1778

Boston, 1783 Boston,

1787 12

The Doctrine of Particular Election and Final ance. Boston, 1789

439 Persever447

Appendix One. Exchange of Letters between the Separates of Titicut, Massachusetts, and the Parish Committee of Titicut, November 1748 1 To the Inhabitants of the Precinct . . . November 21, 1748 2 To the Inhabitants of Titicut Parish . . . n.d.

475 475 477

Appendix Two. Petition of the Separates of Massachusetts to the General Court, June 7, 1749.

485

Appendix Three. Isaac Backus' Draft for a Bill of Rights for the Massachusetts Constitution, 1779.

487

vi

CONTENTS

The Works of Isaac Backus

493

Endnotes

498

Bibliographical Glossary

504

Index

513

INTRODUCTION

Religion is ever a matter between God and individuals. ISAAC BACKUS, A Door Opened

for

Equal Christian Liberty ( 1783 )

ISAAC BACKUS' GREAT CONTRIBUTION to American social and intellectual history was his vigorous exposition in theory and practice of the evangelical principles of religion and society which gradually replaced Puritanism in the latter half of the eighteenth century. In particular, he was the most forceful and effective writer America produced on behalf of the pietistic or evangelical theory of separation of church and state. In this respect Backus deserves to rank with Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. His neglect is understandable. For one thing, his writings have not been generally available. Second, he died a generation before the final disestablishment of the Puritan churches. And third, scholars of the Baptist movement in colonial New England have wrongly construed his role to have been marginal. But whatever the cause, this neglect is unfortunate. It has left an important gap in understanding the rise of the dissenting sects and the development of evangelical pietism in America. Backus' contribution in three different areas is amply illustrated by the works reprinted here. First, and most obvious, was his important contribution to the rationale of the unique American principle of separation of church and state — a contribution which differs as markedly from that of Roger Williams and John Leland as from that of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Second was his contribution to the rationale of the Baptist movement, which constituted the major institutional development produced by the Great Awakening in America. Third was his contribution to the theological and ecclesiastical rationale which, following the Second Great Awakening, reconciled Calvin's beliefs in human depravity and predestination with the Enlightenment's faith in free will and self-determination, or, to put in it secular terms, his effort to transform the corporate ideal of Puritan society (based upon a static, stratified view of class structure and a pessimistic view of human nature ) into an individualistic society (based upon egalitarianism and an optimistic view of human perfectibility).

2

INTRODUCTION

Backus' career covered the sixty-year span from the First to the Second Great Awakening. The leading spokesman for the fastest growing dissenting sect in America in these formative years of the new nation, Backus recorded a point of view of considerable consequence in American religious history — especially since that sect became, after 1800, the largest Protestant denomination in "a Protestant nation." He was born on January 9, 1724, in Norwich, Connecticut. His well-to-do family was highly respected, and his ancestors had served in the legislature and other local offices from the founding of the town in 1660. His father, Samuel Backus, a farmer, was elected a representative to the Assembly when Backus was still a boy. Though the family was no more or less religious than most in the community, his mother had had a religious experience in 1721, five years after her marriage, about which she often spoke to the children, and his father became a communicant in the parish church in 1736. Backus, like his five brothers and five sisters, was baptized as an infant into the First Congregational Church of Norwich and attended its services regularly. The untimely death of his father, in October 1740, left his mother with ten children and a six-week-old infant. She went into a state of depression from which she was aroused by the advent of the Great Awakening to the town a year later. The parish minister, the Rev. Benjamin Lord, was eager to share in the spiritual fruits which followed George Whitefield's plowing in the fallow emotional fields of New England in the fall of 1740. So in the summer of 1741 he invited some of the more powerful revival preachers of the day to come to his pulpit and rouse his people. Eleazar Wheelock, Benjamin Pomeroy, and James Davenport came in June, and for several days they preached forcefully and incessantly while the people of Norwich sought desperately to discover whether they were among the saved or the damned. Assurance of salvation came to a large number of souls in the parish, including the widow Backus. And as young Isaac saw his relatives and friends undergo the exquisite conversion experience through which God transformed the souls of his elect, he yearned for the same experience. On August 24, 1741, "while I was mowing alone in the fields," said Backus, the Holy Spirit entered his heart and cleansed it of sin; "and I was enabled by divine light to see the perfect righteousness of Christ and the freeness and riches of His grace. . . . The Word of God and the promise of His grace appeared firmer than a rock. . . . My heavy

INTRODUCTION

3

burden was gone, tormenting fears were fled, and my joy was unspeakable." 1 This direct, personal encounter, with its unspeakable experience of joy and "divine light," made Backus one of the enthusiastic revival converts soon to be called "New Lights"; this experience made him re-examine his whole world in a new light — in the light of evangelical pietism. A year later Backus joined the parish church, though he felt that not all of its members had been properly converted as he, his mother, and the other New Lights had been. As the revival spirit mounted in Norwich, the Rev. Mr. Lord began to fear that the New Light enthusiasm was getting out of hand. Not only were the new converts asking him continually to invite revival preachers to the pulpit, but they were themselves inviting itinerant exhorters, some of them laymen, to preach in their homes and barns at all hours of the day and night. Other parish ministers throughout New England also began to have qualms about the Awakening. Having decided to refuse to invite any more revivalists to his parish, Lord, like many other Standing ministers of the established Congregational churches, became hostile toward those itinerant lay preachers who came without invitation. In 1742 the legislature passed a law at the request of the established ministers prohibiting anyone from preaching in a parish without the specific permission of the established minister of that parish. Under this law many itinerant New Lights were arrested. But this "persecution," as it was called, merely fanned the flames. The religious affections of the New Lights, once aroused, were not easily subdued. They claimed that the new light they had received 1 Backus' manuscript account of this experience is among the Isaac Backus Papers at Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Center, Massachusetts. All direct quotations of Backus in this Introduction are taken from these papers, particularly from his diary, unless otherwise noted. For biographical information see W . G. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Pietistic Tradition (Boston, 1967); Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus (Boston, 1859); Milton V. Backman, "Isaac Backus: A Pioneer Champion of Religious Liberty," unpubl. diss. (Univ. of Penn., 1959); and Thomas B. Maston, Isaac Backus: Pioneer of Religious Liberty (Rochester, 1962), based upon the same author's fuller account, "The Ethical and Social Attitudes of Isaac Backus," unpub. diss. (Yale, 1939). For information on the New Light and Separate movement, see C. C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740-1800 (New Haven, 1962); Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind (Cambridge, 1966); Ellen Lamed, History of Windham County, Connecticut (Worcester, 1874); Frances M. Caulkins, History of Norwich, Connecticut (Norwich, 1845). The best contemporary accounts of the movement are Isaac Backus, A History of New England, ed. David Weston (Newton, 1871) and Benjamin Trumbull, A Complete History of Connecticut (New Haven, 1818).

4

INTRODUCTION

from God about Christian truth and ecclesiastical practice revealed many errors and corruptions in the prevailing religious system. Not the least of these was the practice of admitting persons to church membership simply because they seemed moral and respectable without requiring oral testimony from them that they had in fact been converted or regenerated by an act of God. "I never knew an instance in my day," wrote Backus, "of any who were admitted into any of those [Standing] churches by declaring personally the faith wrought in their souls." When the established clergy refused to reform these "lax errors," the New Lights rebelled against their authority and against the ecclesiastical laws of the state which upheld it. The more radical of the New Lights, like Backus and his mother, joined together to worship outside the parish meetinghouse according to the "inward teachings of the Spirit" and the "divine enlightenings" which they had experienced. Meeting in their homes and barns in these "unauthorized" services, they welcomed the assistance of traveling exhorters, and between their visits they encouraged those among themselves who had received "spiritual gifts" for preaching, teaching, prayer, and exhortation to exercise them. The more the parish ministers denounced these "New Light meetings," the more the New Lights began to denounce "the Standing clergy" as opposers of true religion and enemies of God's work. The result was inevitable — schisms and separations, followed by recourse to legal efforts to suppress the troublemakers. The radical New Lights, concluding that the established parish churches were too formal, dead, and corrupt to be reformed from within, "came out" from them and set up new churches, presumably purer churches, of their own. This only led the parish ministers to denounce these "Separates" even more harshly and to proceed to censure and excommunicate them as "deluded fanatics" and "disorderly walkers." In the heightened religious and emotional tensions of the Awakening, over 125 such separations took place throughout New England. Most of these Separate churches built their own meetinghouses, hired their own "converted" New Light ministers, and proselytized among the moderates and the undecided. The New Light and Separate movement in New England was one of those periodic outbursts of pietistic Christianity which call upon the institutionalized churches to abandon their compromises with worldly reality and to practice what they preach. To the "Old Lights,"

INTRODUCTION

5

the pietists were misguided enthusiasts wrecking the churches and disturbing the peace of the commonwealth; to the New Lights, they were the divinely appointed messengers of "a new reformation" seeking to recall church and state to their respective Christian obligations. Isaac Backus, his mother, one of his uncles, a brother, and later a grandmother joined the Separate church in Norwich and contributed money to build a meetinghouse on Bean Hill near the Backus farm. These Separates elected Jedidiah Hide, one of their group, to be their pastor because he demonstrated clear evidence that he had received the gift of teaching from the Holy Spirit. Within a year this church had almost as many members as the parish church and by 1752 a majority of the inhabitants of the parish were more sympathetic toward Elder Hide than to the Rev. Benjamin Lord. Backus was a zealous member of the Bean Hill Separate Church, and he found himself increasingly torn between his secular calling of husbandry and a divine calling to become a minister. On September 28, 1746, he tested his "inward call" by preaching a sermon to his Separate brethren. They declared that he had indeed been given "the gift" of preaching, a startling fact both to them and to him, for he had always been an extremely silent and shy youth. But the Separates, like all pietists, believed in miracles. They believed also in the priesthood of all believers. And they believed that God often chose the weak and foolish of the world to confound the wise and learned — an attitude which the founders of New England had held in theory but which in practice they denied in their advancement of learning over inner experience as a qualification for the ministry. Having received license to preach as a lay exhorter by vote of his Separate brethren, Backus began to itinerate in eastern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and southeastern Massachusetts. For a time he thought he might be called as pastor of a group of Separates in Windham, Connecticut, but ceased preaching to them when "some of them pretended to be perfect and immortal"; that is, they took with pietistic literalness the Biblical statement that those who were converted would surely never die. Backus was too conservative a pietist for this, and later spent a great deal of time trying to keep such perfectionists from leading the Separate movement into "antinomian" anarchy. In December 1747 Backus went on a preaching trip with his friend Elder Joseph Snow of Providence to a parish in Massachusetts which straddled the southern part of Bridgewater and the northern part of

6

INTRODUCTION

Middleboro. Titicut parish had been officially incorporated by the legislature in 1743 and most of its inhabitants were New Lights. But due to differences of opinion between the moderate and the radical New Lights in the parish, the inhabitants had not been able to agree upon a minister. Backus began preaching in the homes of some of the more radical New Lights and was eminently successful in rousing them to a new pitch of revival fervor. For a time even the moderate New Lights in the parish seemed willing to accept him. But when he refused to be ordained under the procedures required by ecclesiastical law, the moderates became his opponents. The radicals, however, decided that he was too good a preacher to lose, and with his help they formed a Separate church in the parish. It was organized by sixteen persons on February 16, 1748, without the formalities of Massachusetts ecclesiastical law. On April 13, Backus was ordained as its pastor with the assistance of a group of Separate ministers from Connecticut and Rhode Island. He performed his first communion for this church on May 8, 1748, and wrote in his diary "'twas the most glorious season that ever I had . . . in my life." But the moderate New Lights in the parish were not happy about the formation of this "come-outer" church in their midst. It made it more difficult for them to find a college-educated minister to serve as the "settled" or established minister of the parish. With the parish split, the established minister would face continual squabbling; he would also find it extremely difficult to collect his salary, for the salary of the settled minister and the upkeep of his meetinghouse were paid by taxes levied upon all members of the parish. The New Lights in the Separate Church would refuse to pay religious taxes to support a preacher whose views and practices they considered erroneous. The parish officers would therefore have to collect the religious taxes by force, either through distraining the goods and chattels of Separates and selling them at auction to pay the tax, or by imprisoning them until they paid. Nevertheless the supporters of the established system pressed forward, and on March 3 1 , 1748, they laid a tax of £500 for the completion of the parish meetinghouse. This was levied proportionately upon all property owners in the parish including Backus and the members of his church. When the tax collector came to the house where Backus was boarding to collect the five pounds levied upon him, he refused to pay. "I was seized by the officer," Backus wrote, "and he threatened

INTRODUCTION

f

to carry me to prison for the precinct rate, but, glory to God, He gave me a sweet calmness and serenity of soul. . . . I told him [the officer] that they were going on in an unscriptural way to support the Gospel. . . . He told me if I would not pay him he would immediately carry me to jail. But just as he was going to drag me away there came in a man and called him out and paid him the money, so that he was forced to let me go." Other members of Backus' church were not so fortunate. Several of them had their goods taken and sold at auction, and one went to jail where she remained for thirteen months. This experience was crucial in Backus' career. He was to wage a lifelong battle to abolish this system of religious taxation. His determination to put an end to compulsory religious taxation was further stimulated in 1752 when he learned that his mother and brother Samuel had been imprisoned in Norwich for refusing to pay their religious taxes to support Benjamin Lord. The Separates ran into this problem all over New England. In the process of fighting this "persecution," Backus gradually evolved a theory of separation of church and state that had far-reaching implications not only for the ecclesiastical system of New England but for the whole social theory upon which Puritanism had rested. The continued pressure by the state to enforce "double taxation" was a major factor in the decline of the Separate churches, but of at least equal importance in their breakdown was the internal quarrel which divided their members after 1749. It arose from a fundamental issue of church order and discipline relating to infant baptism, and the way it ruined Backus' church was typical. On August 7, 1749, two of his most zealous members brought up the matter of infant baptism at a church meeting. Being pietists, they were desperately eager to correct all of the erorrs which they found in the established churches and to set up their own churches upon the absolutely perfect rule of Scripture. Since they were uneducated, they relied upon a rather literalistic and often typological application of Scripture, and they sought concrete proof in the Bible for every rule or action they made in their churches. These two members of Backus' church pointed out that there was no clear-cut statement regarding infant baptism in the Bible; all of the justifications for it were based upon learned exegeses of texts, and these provided only indirect justification at best. Further, it was pointed out that the ecclesiastical laws of Massachusetts, and Connecticut, granted Baptists ("Anabaptists," they were called; anti-

8

INTRODUCTION

pedobaptists, strictly speaking), exemption from religious taxes. Those who brought this issue before Backus' church therefore suggested that this was "the way which God opened to escape such sufferings" and persecution. They proposed that the church drop the practice of infant baptism. The church postponed any decision on this proposal, and it was six years before Backus himself found the answer to it. Backus was suspicious of those who advocated antipedobaptism as the way to escape persecution; this smacked more of self-interest and the reasoning of the Devil than of new light from God. But another aspect of the problem carried more weight with him. The New Light Separates clearly were committed to the view that only persons who had been converted were proper members of a church: "regenerate souls," as Backus put it, "are the only materials for particular churches." 2 But under the system that prevailed in the established churches, infants who were baptized as the children of converted parents (or even of one converted parent) were in a special category. They were "under the covenant" or "within the covenant" which God had made with Abraham. For God had promised to save Abraham "and his seed" so long as they obeyed his laws. The Puritans believed that God's promise to save the seed of the converted was still operative. Therefore the children of converted parents were always entitled to baptism in New England, and after 1662 even the grandchildren of converted persons were entitled to it, since there was no way of knowing how far the promise to the "seed" extended. After 1700 many of the churches in New England ceased to distinguish between the children of converted parents or grandparents and the children of any upright, moral person who wished to join the church. Thus in effect the old Puritan conception of a pure church of gathered believers or "visible saints" was by 1740 verging upon a territorial parish system with birthright membership — very similar to that of the established churches in England and Scotland. This was precisely the kind of religious and ecclesiastical "corruption" against which the Separates were rebelling after 1740. They did not think it proper for unconverted persons who might be a majority to outvote the converted persons on church issues. Hence the issue of infant baptism involved the most basic aspect of the whole Awakening: the constitution or membership requirements of a true 1

Isaac Backus, History of New England, II, 232.

INTRODUCTION

9

church. The Separates proposed that the churches of New England return to their original practice of admitting none to church membership who could not give convincing evidence of their regeneration. The antipedobaptists concluded that only converted persons were entitled to baptism; infant baptism was not an ordinance of God but a corruption which had crept into the Christian church in the second or third century and was utilized by rulers of church and state to enforce religious conformity. The logic was persuasive, and though Backus originally resisted it, he was ultimately convinced. On August 27, 1748, he delivered a sermon saying that infant baptism was a mistake, and though he had second thoughts about it a month later, in the end he adhered to his antipedobaptist views and allowed himself to be immersed August 22, 1751. The fact that he had meanwhile married a Baptist, Susanna Mason of Rehoboth, was thought by some of his pedobaptist opponents to have influenced his judgment, but there seems no ground for this. Like many other Separates who adopted antipedobaptist views, Backus at first was willing to practice open communion with pedobaptists, hoping gradually to win them over to his position, though as pastor he refused after 1751 personally to baptize infants. The problem he faced in this was general among the Separates throughout New England. Many New Light pietists refused to practice open communion; they wanted no fellowship with sin and error. Once a majority of a Separate Church had adopted antipedobaptism they were apt to censure or excommunicate those who were so blind they could not see this newer light. Conversely, where pedobaptists were a majority, they often censured and excommunicated the antipedobaptists for error. Even the more broad-minded Separates found it increasingly difficult to live with compromise. In 1753 and 1754 the Separate churches of New England sent delegates to two large conventions to discuss the problem. At the first conference, in Exeter, Rhode Island, the delegates voted for open communion, but at the second, in Stonington, Connecticut, they voted definitively for closed communion. The result was a parting of the ways for the pedo- and antipedobaptist Separates. Though Backus and a few other pastors tried for a time to maintain the open communion policy, most of them soon concluded that this was impossible. On January 16, 1756, Backus dissolved his Separate church in Titicut and formed a new antipedobaptist church on closed-communion lines. On June 23 he was ordained

IO

INTRODUCTION

pastor of this First Baptist Church in Middleboro, and thereafter he never wavered in his adherence to this position. At this time, in 1756, there were only thirty-six Baptist churches in New England, twenty-two of them in Rhode Island. Moreover, these Baptist churches differed greatly from each other; it would be misleading to consider them a single denomination. Most of the Rhode Island churches were Six Principle General Baptists who belonged to a General Association which had held annual meetings since 1692. They opposed the Calvinistic doctrine of particular election, believing that Christ had died so that all might be saved; the sixth principle was "the laying on of hands upon all believers" as a requisite for church membership. A few Rhode Island Baptists believed that God still required worship on Saturday; these Seventh Day Baptists would have no fellowship with the Six Principle General Baptists who worshipped on the first day. In addition, six Baptist churches formed in Connecticut and Massachusetts between 1731 and 1756 were Five Principle Particular Baptist churches — strict Calvinists on predestination and election, who worshipped on Sunday. They had no fellowship with Six Principle General Baptists or with Seventh Day Particular Baptists. And then there were a few Baptist churches on the adjoining borders of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island which, though Calvinistic in doctrine, practiced the laying on of hands; about eight of these formed an association of their own in 1754, and held fellowship with none of the other Baptists. One of Backus' first problems after he became a closed-communion Separate-Baptist was to find three or four other Baptist churches which would have fellowship with him and assist at his re-ordination. And once ordained, he deliberately set out to persuade the pre-Awakening, or "Old Baptist," churches of all shades of antipedobaptism to adopt the New Light outlook of the Separate-Baptists, that is, the Baptists who had separated from the standing churches during the Awakening or after. He had remarkable success in this. Gradually most of the Baptist churches in New England came to be modeled upon Separate — Baptist principles and formed a united, vigorous, and aggressive denomination. Backus was aided greatly in the revival of his new denomination by two institutional developments of which he was not at first a part: the founding of Rhode Island College (later Brown University) in 1764, and the creation of the Warren Baptist Association in 1767. The

INTRODUCTION

11

impetus for both of these came from the Philadelphia Baptist Association, which had been founded in 1707, and which included most of the Baptist churches in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. James Manning, a Baptist graduate of Princeton College, became the first president of Brown, and in 1765 Backus was elected a member of its board of trustees, a post in which he served faithfully for thirty-five years, attending college commencements annually. He also donated money to it and gave books for its library. But his most important contribution toward its success was his ability to persuade the more pietistic rural Baptists of New England that the college would not produce the same kind of learned but Godless ministers that Harvard and Yale produced for the established churches. The college helped greatly to overcome the prejudice against Baptists on the part of the Congregationalists who had tended before this to consider them ignorant cranks and crackpots. The college remained small and its graduates did not greatly increase the number of learned clergy in the denomination during Backus' lifetime, but its existence added both to the prestige and the morale of the Baptists. The Warren Association was even more important, for it provided the unity and organization which enabled the Baptists to wage an aggressive campaign for religious equality throughout New England during the remainder of the century. Unity was provided by the adoption of a strict Calvinistic confession of faith to which all member churches were required to subscribe, and by annual meetings at which delegates from the member churches met to discuss their common problems. Backus and his church at first hesitated to join this association, fearing that it would threaten the autonomy of the individual churches. Both the Congregational Separates and the Separate-Baptists, like the early Puritans, were firm believers in the independence of each church from any outside ecclesiastical authority; they wanted no bishops, presbyteries, or synods to overrule the decisions of the local church bodies. As Backus put it "a particular church of Christ is the highest judicature that he has established upon earth to carry his laws into execution in his name." 3 Backus had seen what happened in Connecticut when the Congregational churches adopted the Saybrook Platform in 1708 and permitted ministerial associations and consociations to appoint and dismiss ministers and to decide cases of discipline and order with the backing of the civil authority. Not 3

Ibid., II, 562.

12

INTRODUCTION

until 1770 was Backus persuaded that the Warren Association meant what it said when it denied jurisdiction over the member churches except for counsel and advice. Probably the deciding factor in Backus' decision to join and support the association was the opportunity it offered for united action against the "persecution" of the Baptists by the tax collectors. The first step in this direction was taken in 1769 when the association formed its Grievance Committee "to prepare petitions to the General Courts of Massachusetts and Connecticut for redress" of grievance and, if necessary, to petition the King in Council. ( The model for this was probably the old Quaker committees for sufferings.) Backus was appointed a member of this committee in 1769 even though his church was not yet officially a member of the association. Throughout the rest of his life Backus played an important role in this committee's efforts to alter the ecclesiastical system of Massachusetts. He helped it to draft many petitions, remonstrances, and memorials to the General Assembly. He took affidavits from persecuted Baptists and testified on their behalf in the courts. On one occasion he took part in an appeal to King George III over the heads of the legislature and succeeded in having one of its laws disallowed. So active were he and other members of the committee that when the Revolution approached many Congregationalists doubted their loyalty to the patriot cause. Backus himself had to admit that the King and his royal governors had been more friendly and helpful to the Baptists than the Sons of Liberty had been. However, in 1774, rather than appeal to the King, Backus and the Warren Association decided to appeal to the First Continental Congress. Backus and James Manning went to Philadelphia in September where they sought the aid of the Philadelphia Baptists, and accepted also the support offered by the Quakers. Together they drew up a memorial which they presented to the delegates from Massachusetts — John Adams, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine, and Caleb Cushing. The meeting in Carpenters Hall on October 1 2 was stormy; neither side succeeded in convincing the other. John Adams told Backus and Manning that "We might as soon expect a change in the solar system as to expect that they would give up their establishment." Robert Treat Paine returned to Massachusetts to spread the rumor that Backus and the Quakers had deliberately tried to sabotage the Continental Congress by causing a division among them on the trumped up issue of religious liberty.

INTRODUCTION

I3

But the following spring, when the Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought, Backus was as ready to break with England as were his Congregational neighbors. In a sermon he delivered to his congregation on the Sunday after the battle he attacked the doctrines of "passive obedience" and "non-resistance to kings" and pointed out that it was not necessary to obey bad rulers. He went on to say that "it was a foundation point in the constitution of the English government that the people's property shall not be taken from them without their consent. . . . Upon the whole I declared I fully believed our cause was just." Backus was fifty-one when the colonists declared their Independence, and he took no part in any of the fighting. One of his sons, however, saw action in Connecticut and Rhode Island. He himself preached to the Revolutionary troops. His brother Elijah produced a great deal of military and naval hardware for the patriots in the Backus Ironworks at Yantic, Connecticut. While the Baptists in the Philadelphia area were not as fervent for revolt as Backus was, most of those in New England had no difficulty in choosing sides. As Backus put it, the Congregational establishment, bad as it was, would never be so bad as an Anglican establishment. Backus was as convinced as any Congregationalist that fundamental matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were at stake. Americans were faced with abject slavery if they yielded to Parliament "in all cases whatsoever," as the Declaratory Act had proclaimed. His loyalty to the patriots in civic affairs, however, did not reduce his efforts in behalf of religious liberty in New England. As he later wrote, the war was fought on two fronts by him and his brethren — against the British troops for civil liberty and against the patriot legislators for religious liberty. Like the other colonies, Massachusetts was forced to create a constitution to replace its old colonial charter after 1776, and the Baptists saw this as their opportunity to produce a major break with the old ecclesiastical system. Most of those who claimed to be fighting for the inalienable rights of man admitted that religious liberty was as important as any other. When the Massachusetts legislature constituted itself a convention in 1778 to draft a new constitution, Backus and the Grievance Committee were on the alert for its attitude toward religious taxes. And when it produced a constitution which made no effort to alter the ecclesiastical tax system, Backus led a loud protest against it. The towns voted down this constitution and a new constitutional convention was called in 1779.

14

INTRODUCTION

Backus again became the watchdog for the Baptists. Because several Baptists had been elected as delegates to this convention, he was kept closely informed of its actions, and no sooner had Article Three, dealing with religious taxes, been passed by the convention than Backus published it in the newspapers with a blistering attack upon its inequities. This led to a prolonged newspaper controversy over the issue which lasted over a year, but in the end Article Three was ratified by the towns. Backus and the Baptists again faced "persecutions," and their fight continued until after Backus' death. Not until 1833 was Article Three amended and compulsory religious taxation ended. After 1780 Backus continued to devote himself to building up his denomination. With the rapid emigration of the Baptists to the frontiers of northern and western New England, Backus frequently visited Vermont, New Hampshire, western Massachusetts, and the District of Maine to settle disputes or participate in ordinations or the formation of new associations. By 1796 Backus could report that the denomination had grown in New England from 36 churches in 1756 to 325 churches, and from one association in 1767 to twelve. The exact statistics of church membership were never tabulated but at least twelve thousand members were reported in 1795 and probably three times that many regularly attended Baptist churches. Backus claimed in 1784 that forty thousand persons had left the established churches in the forty-four years since the Great Awakening and "most of them have joined the Baptist churches." But not all those who joined the Baptists stayed with them. Backus spent an increasing amount of time after 1780 combatting the various heresies which attracted those "with itching ears." Among these errors were Sandemanianism, Shakerism, Methodism, Universalism, and the anti-Calvinist doctrines of a new Baptist sect called the Freewill Baptists. Backus always remained a Calvinist in his theology and a great admirer of Jonathan Edwards, but at the time of his death, in 1806, Calvinism was on the wane in America. Unitarianism had invaded the established churches and taken control of Harvard College. The Baptists remained nominally Calvinists in New England until the 1830's. But the defections to other denominations with Arminian views increased. Yet Backus remained convinced that the Baptists were destined by God to prevail throughout the United States and the world. He became a member of the Massachusetts Baptist Foreign

INTRODUCTION

I5

Mission Society founded in 1803 and noted with delight the outbreak of the Second Great Awakening on the frontiers of Tennessee and Kentucky. He himself participated in several camp meetings during an extensive tour of North Carolina and Virginia in 1789. There he met many of the Baptists who became prominent in the great revival in the West, and in his diaries and travel journals documented the claim that the pietistic spirit of the First Great Awakening was spread to the South and Southwest by the Separate-Baptists of New England who established continuity between the two Great Awakenings. Backus was elected to only one political office during his life. In 1788 the town of Middleboro chose him as a delegate to the convention which met in Boston to consider ratifying the new federal constitution. Backus was an antifederalist at the time of his election fearing, like most of the Baptists in New England, that the constitution would centralize authority and might lead to tyranny. But the flattering attention paid to him during the convention by Governor James Bowdoin and other well-to-do federalists in Boston, and the free and open discussion of every article in the constitution at the convention, did much to quiet his fears of federal power. He particularly liked the articles prohibiting any religious test for federal officeholders and prohibiting the creation of a hereditary nobility. He was also pleased at the prospect of abolishing the slave trade which the constitution held forth. On February 7, 1789, he delivered a speech to the convention on these points hoping to persuade the other Baptists. Samuel Stillman too spoke for ratification. But when the vote was taken, only six or seven of the twenty Baptist delegates voted for it. Backus later had some difficulty explaining to his constituents, and particularly to the Baptists, why he had changed his position. The constitution, he explained, guaranteed freedom and stability while it prohibited any religious establishment: "no such way of worship can be established without any religious test." 4 Hence he saw no need for an amendment prohibiting Congress from establishing any religion. Backus spent the last years of his life trying to inspire a revival in New England; he was happy in 1803 to find some "stirring" among the dry bones in his own church. But it distressed him that his assistant pastor achieved conversions by preaching an Arminianized 4 This speech is printed in Jonathan Eliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia, 1876), II, 148-154.

l6

INTRODUCTION

form of Calvinism. Backus died in 1806, honored and respected by his denomination and the community in which he lived. An obituary notice summarized his career in these terms: Mr. Backus has been the uniform friend and advocate of civil and religious liberty. His writings, which are considerably voluminous, contain much ecclesiastical and historical information. F e w men have exemplified the excellency of the gospel by a holy, humble, blameless life, more than Mr. Backus. 6

Like Jonathan Edwards, whom he called "our excellent Edwards," Backus devoted a large part of his life to a futile attempt to defend the dying doctrines of Calvinism. Unlike Edwards, he nevertheless spoke with the accents of the new America that was being born in the latter half of the eighteenth century. In a sense Backus' thought lies somewhere between that of Edwards and Benjamin Franklin, and more than either of these, certainly more than Thomas Jefferson, he foreshadowed the outlook of the nineteenth-century American mind. For the nineteenth century was preeminently the century of evangelical Protestantism, based firmly upon the twin beliefs in the divine inspiration of the Bible and the divine law of separation of church and state. Edwards could never accept the second principle while both Franklin and Jefferson doubted the first. Backus firmly believed in both. Backus admired Thomas Jefferson both as a political leader and as an opponent of religious establishment, and he admired Jonathan Edwards both as a theologian and a defender of the great New Light revival. Like both men, he shared the Enlightenment's interest in natural law and natural rights; he was never an anti-intellectual opponent of the Enlightenment. But like Edwards and the New Lights generally, he took from John Locke primarily those epistemological arguments which gave scientific validity to the experimental impact of evangelical religion. It is interesting that Backus cites Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding more often than he cites his Second Treatise on Government, though it is not surprising that he cites his Letters Concerning Toleration more often than either. Jefferson found in Locke a substitute for revelation; Backus and Edwards (like the Scottish Realists whose works were the foundation of American education, religion, political economy, and philosophy in 6 Undated and unidentified clipping pasted inside the cover of the first volume of Backus' History of New England in the Brown University Library.

INTRODUCTION

1J

the nineteenth century) found in Locke a buttress for revelation. To understand Backus is to understand the American evangelical mentality which went through the Age of Reason, deism, and rationalism almost unscathed, to emerge with greater devotion than ever to revivalistic religion. Backus' career, bridging the gap between the First and Second Great Awakenings, between Edwards and Charles Grandison Finney, epitomizes the emergence of pietistic America. The attitude toward separation of church and state held by Backus and the Separate-Baptists for whom he spoke evolved gradually from self-interest and experience. It had at first little relation either to the contemporary struggles and principles of English Baptists and other dissenters in Britain or to the struggles of Roger Williams, the Quakers, and the early Baptists in seventeenth-century New England. The Separate-Baptists were a product of the Great Awakening, and as new schismatics from the Standing Order they did not at first recognize any continuity between themselves and previous dissenters. Beginning with Biblical exegesis to suit their needs, they gradually adopted additional arguments based upon "charter privilege," the Toleration Act, the English constitution, and inalienable natural rights. It was only in seeking authorities to buttress their arguments against "oppression" that the Separates and Separate-Baptists rediscovered the relevance of the writings of earlier dissenters, the political theory of John Locke, the practices of the other colonies, and eventually even the works of Roger Williams, which Backus himself unearthed in the early 1770's. The final important source for Backus' disestablishmentarianism was the Revolutionary rhetoric and logic of the patriots (though the Baptists were too lowly to be leaders in this effort). By 1773 Backus was quoting the ministers of the Standing Order and the Sons of Liberty against the idea of an establishment, for the Congregationalists in protesting against the dangers of an Anglican episcopate and the Sons of Liberty in protesting against the Quebec Act and other oppressions of King and Parliament, inevitably spoke of the inalienable rights of "liberty of conscience," "freedom of religion," and "no taxation without representation" in terms which the SeparateBaptists readily found applicable to their own oppressed condition. But the Separate-Baptists were not educated men; they were not well-read either in history, political theory, or theology. Their religious experience taught them to rely upon divine inspiration for political arguments and for new light upon the revealed will of God. Through-

l8

INTRODUCTION

out his career Backus preferred the authority of Scripture to that of history, constitutionalism, or human learning. Too often man-made institutions, laws, and theological systems had employed reason to support errors. The essence of the pietistic position has always been that God, through his Spirit, utilizes the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the powerful and learned, that He has always shed new light upon Scripture to provide his followers with the Truth that shall make them free. Hence the self-reliant anti-institutionalism of the Separate-Baptists had a spiritual or emotional impetus that human learning could not rebut. As Backus wrote in his first published tract in 1754, "How common is it for Men to say that this or that is contrary to what our fathers held, and so reject it? As if they were our rule. . . . the example of the best of men is no just objection at all against our receiving Truth that they did not see." What Backus did not see was that the beacon of religious liberty had shone with equal brilliance for many dissenters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and that it was his good fortune to live in an era and in a country where many others, even among the learned and powerful, also saw a similar, if cooler, light and welcomed it. Taken in the broad view, Backus and the Separate-Baptists are part of that Protestant radical tradition that stems from the Anabaptists and Mennonites of sixteenth-century central Europe. Certainly too they are part of the English Calvinist spirit which engendered Puritanism and the seventeenth-century Separatists from Anglicanism. Backus himself, when he turned to writing his history of the Baptists in New England in the 1770's, found his roots in the writings of John Robinson and the practices of the Scrooby Pilgrims. He felt too, eventually, a definite relationship to Thomas Goold and the First Baptist Church of Boston and to John Clarke and the First Baptist Church of Newport. He was somewhat more cautious in his references to Roger Williams whom he knew was a Baptist for only a few months and whose anti-ecclesiasticism was unacceptable to him. But by the time Backus came to a self-conscious search for historical antecedents he had already reached his own conclusions. He did not start his career with clearly fixed beliefs on separation of church and state. But given the pietistic assumptions of the radical New Lights in the 1740's and the political exigencies of their position within the established system, his conclusions were bound to follow. In their early formulations they owed nothing to the Baptists.

INTRODUCTION

ig

In the writings of the Separates and Separate-Baptists, and particularly in the tracts of Isaac Backus, we may see clearly delineated the most far-reaching and prophetic expositions of the ideas and the spirit animating "the new reformation" which grew out of the Great Awakening in New England. In them lies the key to that pietistic temper which has done so much to shape the course of the American experiment in religious freedom ever since. There were two basic problems to which Backus addressed his writings and his activities during the greater part of his life. The first was the reformation of the New England covenant theology and the ecclesiastical errors which in his opinion derived from it. The second was the achievement of religious liberty, or religious equality, for all sects, which could only be obtained by the disestablishment of the Congregational churches and the separation of church and state. When Backus first became a Separate he was not aware of the complexities of these issues. In order to understand how he gradually became aware of them and worked his way through them, it is necessary to begin with the situation faced by the Separates in the middle of the eighteenth century and then trace the evolution of the Separate-Baptist position on church and state through a chronological examination of Backus' principal works. There is no better illustration of the difficulties facing the Separates throughout New England than the problem Backus himself faced in Titicut, Massachusetts, in 1748. When Backus and the other Separates came out from the corruptions of the Standing Order of New England in the 1740's their primary complaints were ecclesiastical not political: they wished to have pure churches made up solely of converted believers; they wished to have lively preaching of the Word by converted ministers; they objected to the halfway covenant, Stoddardeanism, and the lax exercise of discipline; they felt that the ministers were "lording it over" the brethren and denying them the right to exercise their "gifts." At first they hoped to reform these abuses from within, and only after the Standing churches refused did they separate. Then, having left the Standing churches and accepted excommunication as a badge of honor, they were forced to consider their position vis-à-vis the state. For Massachusetts and Connecticut were corporate Christian commonwealths; they had ecclesiastical laws which limited toleration within narrow bounds. When the Separates said that they objected to the ecclesiastical

20

INTRODUCTION

laws they did not at first mean objection to the system of compulsory religious taxes. What they objected to initially were the laws which required that all ministers have a classical education, that they be licensed by other standing ministers, that the parish have a concurrent voice and veto in the election of a minister, that ministers could only be ordained by a council of Standing ministers and only be dismissed by a similar council, that itinerant lay preachers were subject to arrest, fines, and imprisonment for disturbing the peace, and that only Anglicans, Baptists, and Quakers were exempt from paying taxes to support the established minister in each parish. Some of the Separates at first hoped to be given the same tax exemption privileges as these three denominations while others would willingly have laid taxes upon their own members if the state had permitted it. It was only when they discovered that the state would not recognize them as a distinct denomination and would not therefore grant them, as schismatics, the same toleration and tax exemption privileges enjoyed by Anglicans, Baptists, and Quakers, that they began to question the whole principle of compulsory religious taxes laid by majority vote of the parish upon all inhabitants. Forced to practice voluntarism to maintain themselves, they soon made a virtue of necessity. The first tract by a Separate attempting to define a theory of voluntarism did not appear until 1750. Their initial arguments were drafted in petitions to their neighbors in town or parish meetings and then to legislatures. These early petitions complaining of oppression were based upon ad hoc and often ad, hominem arguments; they seldom quoted any historical sources or learned authorities (not one of the Separate ministers was a college graduate). None, of course, mentioned Roger Williams or any other early Baptist. Instead they quoted the golden rule; they said they could find no command for religious taxes laid down in Scripture; they complained of their neighbors' intolerance in taxing them to support ministers they could not in conscience come to hear and to build meetinghouses in which they would never worship; they occasionally referred to the Toleration Act of 1689 or, in Massachusetts, to the guarantee of "liberty of conscience" in the charter of 1692. Typical of the Separates' amorphous theory of separation of church and state in this early stage was the letter which Backus' Separate Church wrote to the parish committee in Titicut on November 21, 1748, to protest against the taxes levied upon them by the majority

INTRODUCTION

21

of the parish.6 They began by saying that while they recognized that a difference of opinion existed over Backus' qualifications as a parish minister, they were nevertheless ready to propose "conditions of peace and reconciliation" which might prevent hard feelings. First, "We would propose that if you will again return and join with us in meeting, etc., you are heartily welcome, shall be freely excluded from all charges heretofore created in the settling our minister, and we are ready freely to join in completing the meetinghouse to go on in love together even till death [us] shall part." That is, they proposed that Backus be allowed to preach in the parish meetinghouse and that both the Separates and the parish majority pay the tax to complete the meetinghouse, but that thereafter Backus should be supported wholly by voluntary contributions. Recognizing the unlikelihood that the parish would accept this offer, which would in effect have made Backus the parish minister on voluntaristic principles, they offered a second proposition. They were prepared "to quit" their claim to the meetinghouse, to let the parish choose its own ministers and support him by taxes if they chose, "Provided you will go on without oppressing us" —that is, without taxing them. Inasmuch as those now Separates had paid taxes toward building the meetinghouse (still unfinished) prior to the arrival of Backus in Titicut, they felt that in "quitting it" they were giving up their rightful legal equity in it. But the only arguments put forward in defense of their right to tax exemption were "the golden rule" and the fact that they could not find anywhere in the Bible that churches should be supported by compulsory taxes: "Consider would you like it, if we were a few more in number than you, to be forced to help us to build a meetinghouse and maintain our minister? We doubt it much, and yet we all talk of giving liberty of conscience freely, and if so, pray where's the Golden Rule? . . . We don't read that he [Christ] ever forced those that did draw back to maintain him . . . nay, we do really take it [to] be contrary to the Gospel . . ." The Separates implied that if they became a majority of the parish they might, or could legally, compel their opponents to support Backus — an unlikely argument in view of that fact that the courts would surely have declared him unqualified to be a parish minister. The let" This letter is among the Backus Papers. It is printed in full in Appendix One to this volume. Similar petitions by other Separate groups can be found in town meeting records, parish records, and the Ecclesiastical Archives of Massachusetts and Connecticut.

22

INTRODUCTION

ter concluded that to compel them to pay religious taxes to build a meetinghouse over which some other man would become minister whose preaching they could not approve of, would "really savor of that spirit of persecution so much condemned in the word of God." A year later Backus and his friends drew up the first Separate petition to the Massachusetts legislature. Here the arguments were more legalistic and expansive in tone, but they still lacked a coherent rationale. The purpose of the petition was simply to request the legislature to exempt Separates from religious taxes as it did Baptists or Anglicans. One of the claims made in the petition was that "God has given to every man an unalienable right in matters of his worship to act for himself as his conscience receives the rule from God." 7 But "freedom of worship" is not the same as "freedom of religion," and the legislators could quite rightly answer that their laws in no way infringed upon the right of the Separates to worship as they chose and where they chose; the laws of England were far more restrictive of the rights of dissenters than the laws of Massachusetts (in England Quakers and Baptists still paid tithes to the Church of England). Backus' petition asked the legislature to rescue the Separates from oppression "by enacting universal liberty or forbidding the execution of said ecclesiastical laws that are, or may be, to the debarring of any in this province of the liberties granted by God and tolerated by our King." The plea for "universal liberty" was little more than a hope and it is never defined — unless the alternative (forbidding execution of the tax laws) was the definition. "Forbidding the execution" of the laws requiring compulsory religious taxes for the support of the Standing church was simply a plea that the Separates be granted the same exemption as Baptists and Quakers. 8 And if "the liberties granted by God" were the same as those "tolerated by our King," then 7 A copy of this petition is among the Backus Papers and another is in the Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Archives. It is also printed in full as Appendix Two in this volume. Backus may have copied parts of it from a similar petition presented by the Separates of Canterbury, Connecticut, to their legislature in 1748; see Solomon Paine, A Short View of the Difference Between the Church of Christ and the Established Churches (Newport, 1752), pp. 8 - 1 1 . 8 It should be pointed out here that the system of exempting Baptists and Quakers differed from that of exempting Anglicans. The former simply were excluded from the parish tax list when they turned in certificates from their churches proving that they were bona fide dissenters. But Anglicans, who in principle had no objection to religious taxes, were required to pay the parish taxes assessed upon them with the understanding that upon receipt of a certificate from their church of their bona fide adherence, their tax money was to be handed over to their Anglican pastor.

INTRODUCTION

23

the Separates were asking very little indeed. The crux of the petition rested neither upon divine revelation nor upon inalienable natural rights but upon the much narrower ground of charter privilege. "Our forefathers" were given a charter by the King in which "liberty of conscience is granted to all Christians except Papists." Yet "if we pass not under the denomination of Churchmen [Anglicans] or of the Church of England or Anabaptists or Quakers or do not worship on the Sabbath with the major part of the town or precinct where we live, which we cannot in conscience do," then they "imprison some and put some in the stock[s] and also take away some of our goods and chatties to maintain their ministers which we should have to serve God and honor the King with." This petition left the clear impression that the Separates would have rested content in 1749 with limited toleration. This petition, and many like it from the Separates (and later from the Separate-Baptists) was extremely ambiguous. It acknowledged no "unalienable right" of worship for Catholics. It did not deny the right of the Anglican Church in England or other colonies to lay taxes upon dissenters. It did not even oifer the Bible, except negatively, as a sanction for voluntarism. It simply asked for a broader interpretation of the Toleration Act and of the charter guarantee of liberty of conscience by the legal recognition of the Separates as a distinct and bona fide Protestant denomination differing from the Standing Order. But this was precisely what the legislature was not prepared to concede. For in fact the Separates had no distinguishing marks in creed or worship which set them off from the Standing churches. They preached the same Calvinistic doctrines; they followed the same congregational polity; they accepted the same discipline as the Cambridge Platform. Their only distinction was their claim to be more pure and holy than their neighbors. But if the authorities were to grant exemption from religious taxes to every group of pietists who decided they did not want any longer to worship in the established churches or to support them, then the principle of territorial parishes, upon which the whole established system rested, would collapse. The letter which Titicut Parish wrote to Backus' church in answer to their letter of November 21, 1748, stated vividly, if colloquially, the prevailing attitude of the Standing Order toward the Separates. The parish first pointed out that the Separates had a legal obligation, a

24

INTRODUCTION

contract, to fulfil in this matter. They had joined with the rest of the inhabitants in the parish in 1743 in seeking incorporation from the legislature. The legislature had granted that request with the explicit understanding that all of those in the parish would agree to build a meetinghouse and settle "an able, learned, and orthodox minister" over it according to the laws of the province. The Separates were now breaking that contract and leaving the expense of completing it up to their neighbors. As for the Separates' claim that the Golden Rule should be applied in their favor, the parish answered, "Shall we let you alone in the neglect of your duty to the eminent hazard of your own spiritual interest and the interest of your children after you? And although we live in a Christian government, must we be silent and never make use of the power and authority of the Christian magistrates to reclaim and reform you? Is this oppression? Is this doing contrary to the Golden Rule? Does this infringe upon that liberty of conscience which God gives? Is this persecution?" Clearly, no. "What we demand of you is equal and right; what you demand of us is evil and sinful, and hence we have the Golden Rule upon our side. . . . Liberty of conscience according to the Word of God is not for men to live as they list or do as they please while they maintain errors in judgment, disown the truth of God, exclaim against a faithful ministry, make light of that good order and government which Jesus Christ has set up in his church; neither does God himself countenance or give liberty to any men to follow the dictates of a misguided erroneous conscience . . . there is a great difference between persecution and prosecution." Persecution meant to "suffer for righteousness' sake." Prosecution meant the obligation of "the Christian magistrates to oblige" men to execute "the good and wholesome laws of the land." What would the world come to if all men were "to act and conduct as they please under a vain notion and pretence that God gives them liberty of conscience?" 9 Until the Separates and Separate-Baptists worked out a more consistent and carefully documented answer to these arguments they stood no chance of altering the Standing Order of New England. On the other hand, once they did succeed in persuading their neighbors of their right "to act and conduct as they please" under their new definition of "liberty of conscience," the pietists of the Awakening would 9

For the text of this letter see Appendix One of this volume.

INTRODUCTION

25

have succeeded in destroying the whole basis of the Puritan Christian commonwealth. And that is in essence what Backus accomplished. Several of the Separate leaders took the first steps in this direction. Ebenezer Frothingham, Solomon Paine, Israel Holly, and Eliphalet Wright produced a notable group of tracts in the 1750's and 1760s, but they came too late to help the Separates. Their movement broke up in the 1750's, caught between the external pressure of the establishment and the internal quarrels over infant baptism and open communion. When Backus and the bulk of the more radical Separates became antipedobaptists after 1754, they found a solution to the problem of religious taxation which brought a temporary lag in the development of their fight for separation. As antipedobaptists they became a Protestant denomination distinct from the Standing Congregationalists and thereby obtained the privileges of the tax exemption law for Baptists. It took Backus twenty-two years after he was immersed to conclude that his Baptist principles precluded acquiescence in the limited toleration offered by this law. And while he often protested the unjust administration of "the certificate system," he acted as though its proper administration would constitute a satisfactory solution of church-state separation for himself and the SeparateBaptists. Not until 1768 did Backus publish a tract that dealt with the specific problem of separation of church and state in regard to religious taxes. And even in this tract he devoted more space to justifying the Separates' separation and the antipedobaptist principle than to voluntarism. The full evolution of Backus' theory of church and state must be seen in the light of his general theological position. Backus worked out the basic, theoretical stage of his theological and ecclesiastical position during the years 1754 and 1768 in a series of apologetica! tracts, the most important of which were The Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel (1754), A Short Description of the Difference Between the Bond-Woman and the Free (1756), and A Fish Caught in His Own Net (1768). To understand these works and the evolution of the Separate-Baptist attitude toward church and state, it is necessary to understand the general nature of the New England ecclesiastical system. Only after we have seen how Backus evolved a new definition of theological and ecclesiastical principles to challenge what he considered the unscriptural principles of the prevailing system will it be possible to

26

INTRODUCTION

comprehend the second stage of his career, after 1768, in which he and the Separate-Baptists undertook concerted political efforts to overthrow that system. Backus' collected works total forty-two books and tracts of which only seven are devoted wholly to separation of church and state. The remaining works deal primarily with polemical defenses of Separatism, Calvinism, pietism, and antipedobaptism. He never wrote a systematic theology or a treatise on applied Christianity. Yet step by step he worked out a set of answers to all of the charges leveled against the Separates and Separate-Baptists. And in so doing, he realized that a far more complete break with the prevailing ecclesiastical system was necessary than he had at first imagined. At the outset he thought of "the new reformation" desired by the Separates and Separate-Baptists primarily as a reformation of certain specific corruptions in order and discipline. Later he saw that it was the whole framework of the corporate church-state system of Massachusetts and the other Puritan colonies which must be changed. It was impossible, he came to believe, to change these Christian commonwealths at one point without altering the whole structure. Even in his first tract, written to justify his spiritual call to the ministry, he was obliged to deal with the intricate ecclesiastical laws by which Massachusetts and Connecticut sought to insure that every inhabitant belonged to a parish over which an able, learned, and orthodox minister presided. Massachusetts and Connecticut had evolved a parish system as they had all of their institutions, by adapting English precedents to Puritan theory and the frontier environment. 10 Puritan theory required all persons to be members of a congregation where they could worship regularly and hear the doctrines of revelation expounded properly. It also required a learned clergy, since God's Word and Calvin's doctrines were not simple to understand. The exigencies of the frontier also seemed to demand that new settlements should be undertaken by groups rather than by individuals and hence the township, parish, and congregation were almost synonymous in practice and theory during the seventeenth century. When large townships developed outlying hamlets at considerable distances from the original town lots and 10 While church and evolution of is in Susan

1914)·

there are several works which deal with the disestablishment of state in New England, there is as yet no adequate treatment of the the Puritan ecclesiastical laws and parish system. The best discussion M. Reed, Church and State in Massachusetts: 1691-1740 (Urbana,

INTRODUCTION

27

meetinghouse, the practice naturally arose of dividing the township into districts called parishes, societies, or precincts, with each hamlet as the center for a meetinghouse and all those within the parish borders (designated by the legislature) as the congregation. After some hesitancy in the early years, the founding fathers decided that the best and fairest means of insuring the regular support of the ministry and the regular maintenance of the meetinghouses was to require each parish to levy taxes proportionately on all property owners annually for this purpose. Each parish or congregation governed its own ecclesiastical affairs once incorporated by the legislature. The qualifications for voting in parish meetings were the same as those for voting in town meetings (town meetings being devoted to the secular business of the community). In 1727-1729 the legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut granted exemption from parish taxes to Baptists, Quakers, and Anglicans who presented certificates from their churches attesting that they were bona fide adherents of these denominations. By 1740 the settled areas of New England were divided into several hundred parishes, each governed by a very carefully codified set of regulations and procedures, particularly in regard to the choice, licensing, ordination, support and dismissal of parish ministers and the building and maintenance of parish meetinghouses and parsonages. While ecclesiastical problems, such as meetinghouse sites and ministerial salaries, were perennial sources of local bickering prior to 1740, these quarrels were worked out within the system and not against it. However, the fights between the New Lights and the Old Lights over ecclesiastical issues after 1740 developed into a war against the system which greatly weakened its operation, its rationale, and its prestige. In the struggles for legal control of the parishes the Old Lights and the more moderate New Lights generally managed to maintain the majority prior to 1770; the more radical pietists, being forced to choose between accepting majority rule or adhering to their religious principles, had little choice but to secede from the system. Ministerial councils, the courts, and the legislatures consistently upheld the conservative position even in those cases where radicals managed to obtain majority control in a parish; in such cases ways were found to favor the "law-abiding" minority. Legally the effort of the Separates and Baptists was hopeless. Only by changing the outlook of the majority of the people could they change the system. Even the King could not destroy it. But the effort required to main-

28

INTRODUCTION

tain the system in the case of such widespread dissatisfaction permanently damaged its influence. New England's coordinate system of church and state was never the same after this internal ecclesiastical struggle. While Backus had come out from the corruptions of the Saybrook Platform in Connecticut in 1745, he was tempted for a time to conform to the looser ecclesiastical system of Massachusetts in order to become the official minister of Titicut Parish. But being denied this, partly by the parish's refusal to grant certain of his demands and partly by his own conscience, he chose to preach outside the system and to war against it. His first tract, written in 1754, was designed to explain why he found the legal system of choosing parish ministers unscriptural and why the procedure followed in his own ordination was scriptural, though illegal. He came to write The Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel, as he said in the Preface, because the standing or official ministers of New England questioned his right to be a Christian minister while he, in turn, questioned theirs. Backus set forth in this tract two vital issues: his belief that conversion, followed by "an extraordinary call" from the Holy Spirit, was essential to the ministry, and his belief that the power of ordination lay in the church members and not in other ministers. Both of these tenets were denied by the Standing clergy (even by New Lights like Jonathan Edwards) and considered insufficient in law. Backus' claim that "They make void God's law to keep their own traditions" foreshadowed his theocentric opposition to the established system. This tract may be placed beside Gilbert Tennent's more famous Danger of An Unconverted Ministry (1741) as a basic contribution to the development of evangelicalism in America. It is of the utmost significance in understanding the whole temper of the Awakening, especially among the more radical New Lights, to note that Backus stated explicitly in this first book "much of what I have here written, I knew experimentally before I did doctrinally." For the experimental or experiential quality of the Awakening was what gave it its pietistic dynamic and at the same time put it in harmony with Locke's sensational theory of epistemology. "Only later," wrote Backus, "did I examine Scripture [there] to discover the proof of what I knew." His reliance on revelation was secondary to his direct personal perception of divine truth.

INTRODUCTION

2.Q

Anyone seeking the relationship between science and religion in the eighteenth century will find it squarely in the New Light definition of conversion. Not only does Backus ( like Edwards ) refer to regeneration in Lockean terms of experience — a "feeling experience" or a "sensible experience" — but also in Newtonian terms of "force" or "power." As he put it, conversion is "being by God's power brought to knowledge of Him." The Holy Spirit is the agency or means by which this power is transmitted from God to man. It is He who brings the Word "with Power upon our minds," or, more often, "upon their hearts." The heart, to the pietist, is the seat of the soul, and it is the heart which is transformed by this powerful impact of supernatural force. The weakness of the ministers of the Standing Order was that they have "the form but deny the power of godliness." And a church without power cannot move men. The natural laws of force and motion thus have their direct counterpart and model in the supernatural realm of God's action upon the hearts of men and the movement of his Word and his Church. For the American pietist true religion is always a moving not a static force. What Backus discovered through his conversion was what Christian pietists have always claimed to discover: that God reveals himself or his Truth directly to individual believers through the agency of the Holy Spirit, that He saves whom He will regardless of birth, wealth, or education, and that He calls whom He will to serve Him in preaching and teaching his Word. It is this "internal call" of the Holy Spirit which is essential to a valid ministry; all external qualifications are irrelevant or nonessential. In fact, such man-made externals as those explicitly required by law and tradition in New England were positively harmful, since they ignored the need for an internal call and set up as essentials certain educational qualifications and unscriptural ordination procedures which hindered God's work. Just as Adam Smith was to argue in 1776 that mercantilism frustrated the natural working of the divine laws of political economy, so Backus and the pietists of the Awakening argued that the Puritan ecclesiastical system frustrated the divine laws for effectually spreading the gospel. Laissez-faire in both cases was God's plan to save and surfeit the world with spiritual and material blessings according to his laws and guided by his invisible hand. Some extremists or Antinomians among the Separates carried the doctrine of the internal call to the point of insisting that education

30

INTRODUCTION

(knowledge of Greek and Latin, a college degree) was a palpable hindrance to an effective ministry of the Word since it encouraged pride in the exhibition of an elegant style, it exalted human wisdom over divine inspiration, and it put a premium upon written sermons and prayer thereby blocking direct "divine enlightening" by the Spirit. Learning, in short, placed words before "the Word," the letter before the Spirit, tradition before divine power. Backus, being always somewhat conservative among the pietists, disowned the extreme antiintellectualism of the Antinomians: "Let none think me to be an enemy to learning . . . for true learning is what I highly prize; a clear understanding of the proper use of language and the meaning of words . . . and a clear knowledge of the things of nature and of the affairs of mankind, etc. is good in its place, and I wish there was much more of it. But "it is evident that in our colleges [Harvard and Yale] many learn corrupt principles" for "it is too notorious to be denied that many scholars that have come out of college of late are rank Arminians." The individualistic and democratic implications of the Awakening which keep cropping out in Backus' works and which the Revolution brought to fruition are evident in this first tract: experience as the primary source of knowledge rather than social rank or education; a direct experiential relationship between God and the individual superceding all institutional means; individual accountability to God alone, and, above all, equality among the brethren and between the brethren and their pastor. Backus saw himself and the Awakening as rescuing "Gospel-Truth" from the hands of the educated, the rich, and the powerful and returning it to the common people: "If we cannot know certainly that the Bible is true without understanding of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin . . . then, alas, we are in a woeful case indeed." Then would men be subject to the cunning of learned priests and infidels or Arminian heretics. But "it is the privilege of God's people . . . to have the divine Spirit given to them [directly or experientially] to seal his truth in their hearts" without learning. Backus and the radical New Light pietists thus reasserted the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers which makes every man a king in the Kingdom of God. Backus' spirit-filled, self-reliant pietism inevitably worked against the static class system which the Puritans had brought with them from England and imbedded in their institutions. In the mid-eighteenth

INTRODUCTION

31

century the common folk all tipped their hats to "the upper orders," a gentleman was distinguishable by his dress as well as by his manner of speech, and the established clergy, dressed always in black, were automatically ranked with the better people. But Backus preached against the view "that every man must abide in the same calling wherein he was called" by birth and deplored the fact that the necessity for a minister to have a college education meant that only the sons of the rich could attain clerical status. When uneducated men like Backus claimed to have received a special call to preach, the clergy "read thundering lectures" to them denouncing their presumption and temerity in rising above their station and pretending to enter a vocation for which they were unfit. Much of the revolutionary quality of the radical pietism of the Awakening lay in the refusal of the common man to stay in his place, in his loss of respect for the clergy and magistrates when the "upper orders" sought to maintain the old regime by imprisoning those who heeded an internal call to preach without a license from the Church and the State. 11 One of the strongest appeals of the New Light preaching to the average man, and one closely related to this rebellion of the lower orders against their "betters" in church and state, was the New Lights' emphasis upon preaching a gospel of love rather than of fear. Because Backus was a strict Calvinist and an admirer of Jonathan Edwards, it is easy to mistake him for the stereotyped hellfire and damnation preacher which textbooks always associate with "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." But this stereotype is as mistaken in the case of Backus as in that of Edwards. 12 It was the Old Lights, those usually considered religious liberals because they opposed the "enthusiasm" of pietistic "fanaticism" of the revivals, whom Backus accused of preaching terror. He described the Old Lights as "legal teachers," ministers who warn sinners that the way to salvation is through strict obedience to the moral laws of Scripture — one deviation from these laws and the sinner may slip into hell. This is the heresy, said Backus, of salvation "by doing" or by works, which he and Edwards called Arminianism: "their common way of pressing home duty upon God's people is by representing the danger of perishing if they do 11 Backus knew personally half a dozen New Light Separate preachers who were imprisoned, and he mentions in his diary visiting one of them in jail. Though never imprisoned himself, he was several times in imminent danger of it. 12 For a more ample discussion of this see Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind, pp. 39-40, 90.

32

INTRODUCTION

not persevere in a way of obedience." But the New Light preachers preached a forgiving God who could miraculously save even the worst of sinners; their preaching was a call to liberty in the service of a benevolent deity, not a warning of the terrors of an angry God. Indeed, there is two sorts of fear, the one right, the other wrong. One flows

from a knowledge of God's goodness (There is forgiveness with thee, that thou may est be feared,

Fsal. cxxx, 4 ) .

The other from guilt and an appre-

hension of God's anger (I heard thy voice, and I was afraid, Gen. iii, 10). One of these is a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death . . . the other keeps the soul always in slavery.

Backus and the New Lights therefore preached a God of love, a kindly and merciful father who offered hope to wicked men. It was the Old Lights who portrayed God as a stern father demanding daily obedience. But since men were too weak to overcome their selfishness, the obedience of the pious churchgoer, the outwardly respectable man, was often mere hypocrisy: "The hypocrite sometimes does things to be seen of men, though what most commonly moves him is fear of hell if he neglects his duty." But this is not God's method; "does He set the terrors of hell" before his children in the Gospel? "No, he presents the grace and blessing of heaven: If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. . . . O, my readers, I entreat and charge you before God, who shall judge us all, to search critically your own hearts and see whether you are governed by a spirit of bondage and slavish fear or by the spirit of adoption whereby you cry, Abba Father." And finally, The Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call stressed the important pietistic belief in the doctrines of "further light" and the rapidly approaching millennium. "Scriptures plainly represent," Backus wrote, "that the Church of God in these latter days, will get victory over the corruptions of Antichrist gradually and by degrees." Hence the true believer is not wedded to any fixed creed or practice but is always open to new insights, new enlightenment from God. Backus quoted with hearty approval the view of John Robinson of Scrooby that Christians must always "be ready to embrace further light" upon Gospel-Truth as they receive it. True pietism in America (unlike twentieth-century Fundamentalism) has not been backwardlooking, anti-intellectual, or closeminded. While Backus wanted a Christian nation, he had no precise blueprint for it, and God had not yet revealed one. Luther was a shining light in his day, said Backus,

INTRODUCTION

33

but he failed to see the new light which had been revealed to Calvin. Later the non-separating Calvinists of Robinson's day (Puritans and Presbyterians) had failed to see the new light of Separatist Congregationalism. So too in 1740 the Standing Order failed to see the new light given to the Separate pietists. And two years after writing this tract, Backus himself received new light which compelled him to abandon open communion with infant baptizers and to form a closedcommunion Baptist church. In the Second Great Awakening, after 1800, American pietists moved beyond Backus' Edwardsean Calvinism into Arminian Calvinism or Evangelicalism on the same "New Light" grounds. The Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call was therefore much more than a justification for his own right to preach the Gospel. In attacking the system of ordination imbedded in New England ecclesiastical law, Backus was attacking a fundamental link in the chain of Puritan ecclesiastical and social theory. If this first tract was an attempt to reform the prevailing concept of the ministry in New England, his second was an attempt to reform the prevailing theology. A Short Description of the Differences Between the Bond-Woman and the Free, published two years later, was Backus' apology for abandoning infant baptism, and much of his argument stems from the eminent and learned English Baptist, John Gill, whom he quoted at length. But the tract is less significant for its defense of antipedobaptism than for its attack upon the covenant theology of New England Puritanism. Gill had attacked pedobaptism as an integral part of the inception of national churches. Backus believed that the Puritan covenant theology brought this Old World error to the New. By stressing the continuity of the Abrahamic and Christian covenant, the Puritans had justified their erroneous construction of an Old Testament theocracy. From their belief in a national covenant derived their persecution of dissent from Roger Williams to the Separate-Baptists. The main thrust of the tract therefore is to destroy the Puritans' argument for the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant and thereby to destroy the justification for an established church based upon infant baptism. Backus, following Gill, maintained that the Bible was based upon two distinctly diiferent covenants and not upon one continuous covenant with diiferent aspects. He insisted that the second covenant, the New Testament or gospel covenant (symbolized by the free-woman, the type of the Christian believer) entirely repudiated or superseded

34

INTRODUCTION

the Old Testament or Abrahamic covenant. In proving this point, Backus used the system of typology which Roger Williams found so effective against John Cotton.13 Typology has always been particularly useful to radical Christian pietists. By emphasizing the complete difference between the Old and the New Testaments, it enables the radical to justify rebellion against an old order in the name of Christ's superior new light. The structure of Old Testament social and ecclesiastical thought is obviously conservative compared to that of the New; Christ and his disciples are come outers, radical reformers, relying for their authority primarily upon their own direct experience with a new spiritual truth vouchsafed directly (in this case messianically) to them, as individuals, outside the structure of the established institutions of church and state. Hence, if the Old Testament is the type or foreshadowing of the New or the anti-type, the old must always yield to the new. From this, Christian pietism derives its inherent anti-institutionalism and individualism, for which Locke provided contemporaneous scientific or philosophical confirmation in the eighteenth century. The gist of Backus' argument is simple. God's covenant with Abraham was a national covenant with Israel in which God agreed to save Abraham and his descendants, the children of Israel, if they would obey his law. The outward symbol or seal of this covenant was the circumcision of Abraham and his seed. The Jews, however, failed to live up to the covenant and recognize the Messiah whom God sent. Hence with the coming of Christ a new covenant was established between God and those who accepted Jesus as their savior. Jesus was the anti-type of Abraham just as the Christian was the anti-type of the Jew and the free woman of the bond servant. Jesus' coming put an end to the old covenant; the outward symbol or seal of the new covenant was baptism by immersion. The Puritans had erred in describing baptism as "the gospel form of circumcision." They had misread the metaphor in Romans xi, 16-18 to claim that the new covenant was grafted upon the old stock of the Abrahamic covenant like a new branch upon an olive tree. The result was the erroneous practice of baptizing the infants of the children of true believers. God made his covenant with Abraham "and his 13 For Williams' use of typology see Edmund S. Morgan, Roger Williams: The Church and, the State ( N e w York, 1 9 6 7 ) , pp. 90-93. Backus had not yet read Williams, however. His use of typology derived from reading John Gill and other English Baptists.

INTRODUCTION

35

seed," said the Puritans, so baptism was for the regenerate and their seed. The significance of Backus' argument for the Puritan theory of church and state was obvious. If the Abrahamic Covenant was null and void then so were all of the regulations for a national church and the theocratic state which went with it. Instead of a corporate Christian commonwealth in which the church was responsible for educating the young in the covenant and the magistrates were required to maintain the purity, safety, and support of the churches, New England would now have to adopt an individualistic, voluntaristic commonwealth in which God alone produced conversions and sustained the churches. A system based upon traditions and institutions, upon slow organic growth, was to be replaced by a system of direct, miraculous interventions and pious hope in an atomistic society. Unpredictable revivalistic showers of blessings must wholly replace a carefully contrived system of dams, wells, and irrigation to produce spiritual harvests. Each man must make his own peace with God (without benefit of a contract binding upon God) and in this action society had no part to play — even the church was reduced to a temporary way station for saved souls, for God's direct, personal call to individual men preceded all ecclesiastical and social institutions. It was a presumptuous faith which only a virgin land, an affluent society, a belief in enlightened perfectibility and an imminent millennium could sustain. The complexity of the issues at stake in the Awakening stemmed from this inherent revolution in social theory which even the most radical Separates only dimly understood. Backus did not understand all of its implications. He and the Separate-Baptists were indignant at being called "revolutionaries" and "Münsterites" when all they wanted was "liberty of conscience." Thus when the Rev. Benjamin Lord and the Rev. Joseph Fish accused Backus and his brethren of fomenting "a rebellion against the S T A T E , " Backus was compelled at last to expound more fully upon his own theory of church and state. In two short sections of the 123-page treatise entitled A Fish Caught in His Own Net (1768), he worked out for the first time the basic premises of the position for which he and the Separate-Baptists were fighting. Again it is significant that there are no references here to Roger Williams or John Locke. But there are historical references to the Cambridge Platform, the founding fathers, and the history of Massachusetts recently published by

36

INTRODUCTION

Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Hutchinson. For theological authorities Backus cited Gill and Edwards, and where useful, the works of John Owen, Jonathan Mitchell, and Increase Mather. At one point he buttressed his argument with a contemporary allusion to the Stamp Act crisis, for the rebellious stands of the Sons of Liberty against Britain were to prove increasingly fruitful sources to defend the Baptists' social and ecclesiastical revolution against the Standing Order of New England. The basic premises for Backus' views on church and state came from the works of three Separate ministers, Solomon Paine, Ebenezer Frothingham, and Israel Holly. Backus had probably read the works of all three, but he quoted against Fish only Paine's A Short View of the Difference Between the Church of Christ and the Established Churches in the Colony of Connecticut (1752). Backus found particularly useful Paine's arguments that God chose Christ "to be the Head over all Things to the Church," that the ecclesiastical laws of New England had "usurped power" over Christ's Kingdom, that human government was ordained by God to protect men's person and property, that "Christ's Kingdom is not of this world," and hence that all spiritual affairs and all aspects of church government and order are subject only to Christ's laws and God's punishments. However, Backus stated these theocentric arguments against Fish in his own terms. "The Holy Ghost calls the orders and laws of civil states ordinances of man, 1 Pet. ii, 13. But all the rules and order of divine worship are ordinances of God; and it defiles the earth under its inhabitants when these laws are transgressed and ordinances changed, Isai. xiv, 5." Or, as he put it elsewhere, "The civil magistrate's work is to promote order and peace among men in their moral behavior towards each other" and immoral "behavior may be restrained or forcibly punished." "But the work of Gospel-Ministers is to labor to open men's eyes, and to turn them from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And as any kind of force tends to shut the eyes rather than open them, therefore Christ's special orders to his first ministers were, Freely ye have received, freely give, Matt, χ, 8, 14." In appealing to a higher authority against the Standing Order, Backus sometimes accused it of usurping the power of the King and his charter or the Toleration Act, but far more important was his claim that it had usurped the power of God, broken the laws of Christ, and hindered the work of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that

INTRODUCTION

37

the Separate-Baptists were slow in asserting anthropocentric claims for religious liberty in terms of the rights of man. Backus preferred to argue, as Roger Williams had done, for the divine rights of God rather than for the natural rights of man. In fact, it may be said that the Baptists never came wholly to accept the Lockean theory of religious liberty in Jeffersonian rationalist terms — a fact which explains why it was so easy in the nineteenth century for the Evangelical inheritors of the Separate-Baptist viewpoint to ignore the rights of non-evangelicals (Catholics, Mormons, the Indians, Atheists, Freemasons ) in order to protect the moral order of a Protestant nation. Next to the monarchical authority of God, Backus was most interested in preserving the congregational autonomy of the church. From the radical New Light rebellion against the assumed power of the clergy and magistrates to "lord it over" the laity stemmed the rising demands of the common man for participatory democracy in church and state. Backus was particularly concerned in answering Fish that in church affairs the church members and not the ministers should make the decisions as to who were truly worthy of admission to the church and who were specially qualified to lead in prayer and exhortation: "the common people have the best advantages to know how men behave in their daily walk and have as good right as any to judge what gifts are edifying and what experiences are clear." The Standing clergy argued that "this allowing every one a right to receive or reject ministers as they judge best will bring ministers' authority to nothing," said Backus, but he quoted Scripture to prove "that this is the only way to establish the Gospel-Ministry upon its right foundation." The "core" of the Awakening, wrote Backus, lay in this, "that the common people claim as good right to judge and act for themselves in matters of religion as civil rulers or the learned clergy." And this right of the common people to judge derived from the direct personal experience of having known, felt, and shared as individuals the Truth of God: "And all saints know that when they received Christ, they had no creature to see for them, but each soul acted as singly toward God as if there had not been another person in the world. . . . Now if each saint is complete in Him which is the Head of all wisdom and power, then they have no need of philosophers to see for them nor of princes to give them power to act for God." In all important affairs Christians are "not to act as unconcerned spectators but as persons really engaged to practice what they know." Backus scored some of his most effective blows against Fish and

38

INTRODUCTION

the Standing Order by pointing out that the Cambridge Platform of the founding fathers, written in 1648, maintained that "the church since the coming of Christ is 'only congregational, therefore neither national, provincial, nor classical.' " Yet both the Saybrook Platform in Connecticut and the parish system imbedded in the ecclesiastical laws of Massachusetts constituted a "consociated," "classical," and in effect a "national or provincial" system of church government. The dangers of such a system were all too obvious, said Backus, as the persecution of the Separates, Baptists, and other dissenters demonstrated. Classical authority, through councils, consociations, or presbyteries, usurped the right of the Holy Spirit to decide who could and could not preach the Gospel; usurped the power of the congregation of visible saints to choose and dismiss whom they were "best edified" under; and usurped the power of God to support his ministry by voluntary gifts and to punish the covetousness of those who failed to give freely to ministerial support — all of which was contrary to the beliefs and practices of "the fathers of this country." And this, said Backus, "leads us down to . . . the root of all, namely the matter of a Gospel-Church. We have already seen that Mr. F. supposeth that the 'Christian church is made up of the same materials that the Jewish church was.' But the Cambridge Platform expressly says, 'The matter of a visible church are saints by calling, 1 Cor. i, 2; Eph. i, 1.' And that the church 'under the law was national which since the coming of Christ is only congregational' " But if the fathers of the country were correct in upholding Congregationalism, they were mistaken in writing into the Cambridge Platform the claim that the civil magistrates were to be "nursing fathers to the churches" and therefore had the right and duty to enforce compulsory tax support for them. "The confounding of civil and ecclesiastical affairs together has done amazing mischief in the world. . . . This was the worst mistake that our fathers brought with them to this land." But "Jesus said, 'If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.' John xviii, 36. Therefore the dignity of his government is maintained not by carnal but by spiritual weapons." The bulk of A Fish Caught in His Own Net is an attempt to rebut eight errors which Fish accused the Separates of supporting. The seventh of these was their opposition to compulsory tax support for the

INTRODUCTION

39

ministry. It was here that Backus finally came to grips with the issue which was to concern him most vitally during the next fifteen years. While he refers to no authorities but the Bible in this section, his arguments are essentially those which Paine, Frothingham, Holly, and the various Separate and Baptist petitions had evolved over the preceding twenty years. 1 Cor. ix, 14, was quoted to prove that "they which preach the gospel shall live of the gospel" and not "of the law." 1 S am. ii, 16, was quoted to prove that God abhorred priests who take their maintenance "by force" (that is, by law). Isai. lxi, 1-8, was quoted to prove that "The priests were supported of old out of the [freewill] offerings of the people." Backus concluded, "I never could see any proof from the Bible of any allowance of the use of coercive power to compel any to bring their offering even under the law [the Old Testament] where Church and State were one. How much less then can it be warrantable under the Gospel, where Christ's kingdom is not of this world?"14 As for the "darling point with many" of the Standing Order, including Fish, that "If it was not for this support of religion by law a great part of the people would be mere heathens," Backus found it easy to turn this against his opponents. For New England boasted of its religiosity and its superior position as a Christian province; yet apparently after 150 years of Puritanism, "we have a generation of Christians now who pay so little regard to God's authority that few of them would do anything to support their teachers if man s authority was not exerted in the affair." If this were so, then Massachusetts and Connecticut were no more truly religious than the colony of Rhodë Island which they loved to abuse for its irreligion. Backus did not here or elsewhere accept the Enlightenment view that men were inherently good or rational. He always remained a Calvinist, and his own experience as a dissenter from majority rule confirmed Calvin's teachings about the innate depravity of man. But he did believe that God was able to preserve and support his church even against the gates of Hell. Backus was confident that regenerate Christians could be relied upon to perform their duty to support the ministry of the Word. Therefore the best government was one in which the magistrates were God-fearing Christians who performed 14

For the very similar views of Ebenezer Frothingham and Israel Holly see Frothingham's The Articles of Faith and Practice . . . Confessed by the Separate Churches (Newport, 1 7 5 0 ) , A Key to Unlock the Door (n.p., 1 7 6 7 ) , and Holly's A Word in Zion's Behalf (Hartford [ 1 7 6 3 ? ] ) .

40

INTRODUCTION

their civil obligations to uphold the ordinances of God in harmony with ministers who upheld God's spiritual ordinances. "As civil rulers ought to be men fearing God, and hating covetousness, and to be terrors to evil doers, and a praise to them who do well, and as ministers ought to pray for rulers and to teach the people to be subject to them, so there may and ought to be a sweet harmony between them." Thus by 1768 Backus had found the scriptural basis for his new reformation in church and state. Having formulated a defense of their theological and ecclesiastical position and having increased and consolidated their ranks, Backus and the Separate-Baptists were ready by 1773 to take radical political action on behalf of their separationist principles. In his answer to Fish, Backus had repudiated the notion that he was engaged in "a rebellion against the S T A T E " ; in his Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty five years later, Backus justified civil disobedience. The impetus for such a decision came from external events, but its logic was implicit in the fundamental theory of separation which Backus had evolved, namely, that no man can serve two masters. Where the laws of the civil state were in conflict with the laws of God, it was necessary to refuse obedience to the laws of the State. The Baptist rebellion was, however, mild and passive compared to that of the Sons of Liberty. Backus deplored violence. Even the Stamp Act riots and the Boston Tea Party seemed improper to him: "wild conduct" he called it. However, in exasperation over the continued refusal of the magistrates of New England to execute the certificate laws equitably and the constant harassment of his brethren, he decided in 1773 that a long train of abuses against the Separate-Baptists and usurpations against God evinced a design to subject the saints to despotism. Three specific events occurred between 1768 and 1773 which convinced Backus of the need for rebellion. First, his appointment to the Grievance Committee of the Warren Association in 1769 brought him face to face with the frequent violations of the rights of the Baptists. Second, the famous Ashfield Law was passed which flouted all of the previous tax laws and seemed deliberately designed to drive the Baptists out of Ashfield. 15 And third, he at last read John Locke's 15 Backus devoted a chapter to the Ashfield Case in his History of New England, II, 1 4 9 - 1 6 4 ; see also the account in Frederick G. Howes, History erf the Town of Ashfield (Ashfield, n.d.).

INTRODUCTION

4I

Letter Concerning Toleration ( 1689 ). In addition, the example of the Sons of Liberty played its part. This last he acknowledged in the preface to the first tract which he devoted primarily to the question of church and state, A Seasonable Plea for Liberty of Conscience which appeared in 1770: in publishing this tract "what had great weight in my mind was the consideration that many who are filling the nation with the cry of LIBERTY and against oppressors are at the same time themselves violating that dearest of all rights, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE."

16

In the years 1769 to 1773 so many cases of "oppression" of the Baptists occurred that the Grievance Committee became convinced that further acquiescence in the certificate system was futile. The laws governing who was and was not entitled to a certificate (required of all dissenters seeking exemptions from religious taxes) and how the certificate was to be obtained, written, and registered, were too often perverted both in their administration and their adjudication. The Baptists also lost faith in the willingness of the legislature to modify these laws despite repeated petitions and memorials pointing out their ambiguous and oppressive character. Finally, in May 1773, the Grievance Committee issued a letter (signed by Backus as "Agent for the Baptists in New England") urging their brethren to adopt a plan of massive civil disobedience. 17 At the Warren Association meeting in Medfield four months later, the delegates for the Baptist churches of Massachusetts voted on this proposal. "Thirty-four elders and brethren [voted] against giving any more certificates, six for it, and three at a loss how to act. Then it was voted," said Backus, "that an appeal to the public which I had read in part to them, should be examined by our committee and then published." An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty Against the Oppressions of the Present Day was the most complete and well-rounded exposition of the Baptist principles of church and state in the eighteenth 16 This tract is not a theoretical study of separation but a protest against the persecution of some Baptists in Berwick, Maine, and in Montague and Ashfield, Massachusetts. In 1 7 7 1 Backus published another tract on religious liberty, A Letter to a Gentleman in the Massachusetts General Assembly Concerning Taxes to Support Religious Worship, which reiterated much of the same argument in answer to some newspaper letters which had attacked his presentation of the facts in these cases. 17 For the text of this letter see Hovey, Isaac Backus, pp. 188-190. The only known copy of the original broadside is among the Florence Backus Papers at Brown University.

42

INTRODUCTION

century. It owes something to Locke, a little to Roger Williams, a great deal to the Bible, and much to the historical experience of the Separate-Baptists since 1750. It begins with an introduction "concerning the general nature of liberty and government" which is surprising for its failure to cite John Locke's treatises on government. Equally interesting is Backus' refutation of Locke's theory of a social contract based upon inherent natural rights: It is supposed by multitudes that in submitting to government we give up some part of our liberty because they imagine that there is something in their nature incompatible with each other. But the word of truth plainly shows that man first lost his freedom by breaking over the rules of government. He seemed rather to agree with Thomas Paine's dictum that "government is the badge of lost innocence." Man's depravity and bondage to Satan, not his rationality or inalienable rights, were the basis for government by compact. Men did not give up liberty to gain government but vice versa. "What a dangerous error, yea, what a root of all evil then must it be, for men to imagine that there is anything in the nature of true government that interferes with true and full liberty!" Adam in Eden lived freely under the "true government" of God's laws until Satan tricked him into believing that freedom lay in disobedience — after which he and all his descendants were enslaved to sin and selfishness. In words which reflect the Westminster Catechism, John Winthrop's sermon on Christian liberty, and Jonathan Edwards' definition of true virtue, Backus defined the Baptist view of true liberty: The true liberty of man is to know, obey, and enjoy his Creator and to do all the good unto and enjoy all the happiness with and in his fellow creatures that he is capable of; in order to which the law of love was written in his heart which carries in its nature union and benevolence to Being in general, and to each being in particular. . . . Hence it is so far from being necessary for any man to give up any part of his real liberty in order to submit to government, that all nations have found it necessary to submit to some government in order to enjoy any liberty and security at all. Backus, like the framers of the Constitution, conceived of government as a means of checks and balances against the depravity of man. He did not accept what he calls "the general notion of liberty" — that it allows "each one to act or conduct as he pleases" — but rather "that government obliges us to act toward others by law and rule." Thus

INTRODUCTION

43

government is ordained of God for the liberty of godly men and a punishment for the wicked. 1 8 However, while Backus thus disagreed with the rationalists' view of the Lockeans regarding the nature of the social contract, he believed Locke was absolutely right in pointing out in his Letter cerning

Toleration

Con-

that civil government was entirely distinct and

different from spiritual government. In the Appeal

to the

Public

Backus stressed heavily the pietistic claim that " G o d has appointed two kinds of government in the world which are distinct in their nature and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical, government." The form and laws of civil government are "left to human discretion and our submission thereto is required under the name of their being the ordinances of man for the Lord's sake, 1 Pet. ii, 1 3 , 14. Whereas in ecclesiastical affairs w e are most solemnly warned not to be 'subject to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men,' Col. ii, 20, 22." God alone sets the laws of ecclesiastical government and from them no man is at liberty to depart, but the laws of civil government can be altered by men to serve the exigencies of particular circumstances. 19 "All acts of executive power in the civil state are to be performed in the name of the king or state they belong to; while all our religious acts are to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus.' " And "where is 18 Backus did not deny entirely the concept of inalienable rights, even though he gave it secondary importance. In 1779 he proposed a bill of rights for the Massachusetts constitution which specifically asserted a belief in natural rights ( see Appendix Three ). Nor did he completely deny the compact theory of government, though he sustained it by revelation: "The word of God," he wrote in 1777, "plainly shows that . . . mutual compact or covenant is the only righteous formation for civil government." History of New England, I, 530. While he cites, in this same place, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as an example of mutual compact, his principal authority was 1 Sam. xi, 15. 19 Backus' theocentric or pietistic view of separation went much farther than Locke's. Locke wrote in favor of "toleration" and did not, except by inference, advocate the disestablishment of the Church of England. Nor did he oppose the payment of tithes by dissenters in England to support the established church. Locke was concerned primarily to protect men from civil punishments for heresy and from civil disabilities for nonconformity to a national church. He would have favored a truly comprehensive national church and have had no objection to supporting it by taxes; teaching morality and the fear of God would promote the peace and safety of the state. Locke affirmed "that the magistrate's power extends not to the establishing of any articles of faith or forms of worship by the force of his law." By this definition neither Massachusetts nor Connecticut had an establishment. Backus, by redefining and expanding Locke's principles to include New England's more amorphous ecclesiastical constitution within Locke's prohibitions about invasion of conscience, stretched the seventeenth-century concept of religious toleration to fit the eighteenth-century American urge for religious liberty.

44

INTRODUCTION

the officer that will dare to come in the name of the Lord and to demand and forcibly to take a tax which was imposed by the civil state." And how can pastors claim to be ministers of Christ if they "will have recourse to the kings of the earth to force money from the people to support them." While the individual must submit to his representatives in civil matters, he could submit to none but God in spiritual matters. "In all civil governments some are appointed to judge for others, and have power to compel others to submit to their judgment. But our Lord has most plainly forbidden us either to assume or submit to any such thing in religion." The church is "armed with light and truth . . . to gain souls to Christ . . . while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace and the civil rights" of men. And in a true government "they do not at all interfere with each other." Thus did Backus apply the rationalistic arguments of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration to suit his own pietistic purposes. Backus then traced historically the way in which civil and ecclesiastical government became "confounded together" since the days of Constantine and how even the English reformation did not end spiritual tyranny which "drove our fathers from thence into America." Here he distinguished between the godly Pilgrims of Plymouth Bay who "carried the reformation so far as not to make use of the civil power to force the people to support religious ministers" and the non-separating Puritans of Massachusetts Bay "who had not taken up the cross so as to separate from the national church before they came away." And here he brought back to public attention the long-forgotten dispute between John Cotton and Roger Williams over the right of the magistrate to enforce the First Table of the Ten Commandments.20 But Backus did not quote and did not agree with Williams' radical claim that churches, like any other "corporations," could "wholly break up and dissolve into pieces and nothing and yet the peace of the city not be in the least measure impaired or disturbed." Backus believed that the existence of Gospel-Churches was essential to the well-being and safety of the civil state. Since John Cotton's day the Standing Order had given up its attempt to enforce complete uniformity and conformity in religion, but 20 Backus first mentions reading the works of Roger Williams in his diary entry for February 2, 1773, just before he wrote this tract.

INTRODUCTION

45

Backus claimed that for that very reason its current defense of religious taxation was more hypocritical. On the one hand the Standing Order argued that taxation to support religion was essential so "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," which seemed to say that "godliness" and a Christian society was its purpose; but on the other hand many argued that religious taxation was purely a civil matter and the ecclesiastical laws had no relation to religion — they merely strengthened civic morality. "Many have declared," Backus wrote, "that without it [religious taxation] w e should soon have no religion left among us, but now 'tis to maintain civility." And the claim that the tax exemption laws were equivalent to religious liberty was even more hypocritical since these "temporary acts . . . have been so often changed that many times their own officers have hardly known what the law was that was in force, and as an exact conformity to the letter of their laws is much insisted upon in their executive courts, while those acts have never been enforced with penalties upon their own people, they have often broken them." In his conclusion Backus summarized the five reasons for the Baptists' decision to oppose the certificate laws: 1.

Because the very nature of such a practice [giving in certificates] implies an acknowledgment that the civil power has a right to set up one religious sect above another. 2. Our legislature . . . claim [s] a right to tax us from civil obligation as being the representative of the people. But how came a civil community by any ecclesiastical power? 3. Their laws require us annually to certify to them what our belief is concerning the conscience of every person that assembles with us, as the condition of their being exempted from taxes to other's worship.21 4. The scheme we oppose evidently tends to destroy the purity and life 21 The Baptists objected particularly to the fact that the certificate prescribed by law for tax exemption stated that a dissenting church must certify that those who sought exemption were "conscientiously of their persuasion." The certificate law of 1771 under which the Baptists were required to obtain certificates at the time Backus wrote this tract, stated that those persons would be exempt whose "names shall be contained in a list or lists which shall be exhibited to the assessors . . . on or before the first day of September in that year and signed by three principal members of the antipedobaptist congregation to which he or she belongs and the minister thereof (if any there be), who shall therein certify that the persons whose names are contained in the said list or lists are really belonging thereto, that they verily believe them to be conscientiously of their persuasion, and that they do frequently and usually, when able, attend the public worship of God in such congregation on the Lord's Day." The Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay (1692-1786) (Boston, 1869-1922), V, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 .

46

INTRODUCTION

of religion . . . bringing in an earthly power between Christ and his people . . . 5. The custom which they want us to countenance is very hurtful to civil society . . . when temporal advantages are annexed to one persuasion and disadvantages laid upon another . . . Not only so but coercive measures about religion tend to provoke emulation, wrath, and contention. Backus ended by stressing "the great importance of a general union through this country in order to the preservation of our liberties, but how can such a union be expected so long as that dearest of all rights, equal liberty of conscience, is not allowed?" In short, liberty or disunion! The Baptists, like the colonists, had moved from remonstrance to civil disobedience. Backus' theory of separation of church and state altered little after 1773. He issued five other tracts devoted to the topic in the next decade, but these were short polemics devoted to specific issues. In 1778, for example, he attacked the abortive constitution drawn up for the state because "the majority of the convention last winter voted to incorporate those ecclesiastical laws with others into the new constitution of government which they were framing for us," and "those laws are contrary to Christian liberty, exclude Christ from being the only lawgiver and head of his church, are a breach of public faith, as they tax people where they are not represented, and impower the majority to judge for the rest about spiritual guides which naturally causes envying and strife." The Grievance Committee prepared a petition asking the convention "to fix it as a fundamental principle of our constitution that religious ministers shall be supported only by Christ's authority and not at all by assessment and secular force." 2 2 When a constitutional convention was called in 1779 to formulate another constitution, Backus issued a tract asking it to abolish compulsory religious taxes. He quoted Locke that "A church is a free and voluntary society" and insisted that most New Englanders deplored the policy of distraint and arrest for refusing to pay religious taxes. "If it is continued among us, it must be by naked violence." As always he stressed the danger that the state, by its well-meaning effort to encourage religion, would infringe upon the purity and freedom of the churches: "Rulers, ministers, and people have now a fair opportunity to turn from and quit themselves of those evils. . . . And if that evil 22 Isaac Backus, Government and Liberty Described and Ecclesiastical Tyranny Exposed (Boston, 1778).

INTRODUCTION

47

should be engrafted into our new plan of government, we should have no constitutional remedy, for the Congress refuse to be judges of such matters." 23 It was at this time that he formulated the Bill of Rights which he hoped would serve as a model for the convention. The first of these is so similar to the first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights that it is clear he used it as his model. The second article, however, contrasts so sharply with the article in the Virginia Declaration on freedom of conscience as well as with Jefferson's famous preamble to the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia that it deserves quotation: As God is the only worthy object of all religious worship, and nothing can be true religion but a voluntary obedience unto his revealed will, of which each rational soul has an equal right to judge for itself, eveiy person has an inalienable right to act in all religious affairs according to the full persuasion of his own mind, where others are not injured thereby. And civil rulers are so far from having any right to empower any person or persons to judge for others in such affairs, and to enforce their judgments with the sword, that their power ought to be exerted to protect all persons and societies within their jurisdiction from being injured or interrupted in the free enjoyment of this right under any pretense whatsoever. 21

Backus' theocentric and pietistic assumptions are in stark contrast to the anthropocentric and rationalistic assumptions of George Mason, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Mason's article in the Virginia Declaration of Rights reads: That religion, or the duty which w e owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

While both viewpoints are individualistic, the pietist was concerned with the spiritual welfare of the individual soul in relation to God and eternity while the deist (or latitudinarian) was concerned with the 23 Isaac Backus, Policy As Well As Honesty Forbids the Use of Secular Force in Religious Affairs (Boston, 1779). 24 Backus' copy of this bill of rights in his own hand is among the Backus Papers at Andover Newton Theological School. The text is printed as Appendix Three of this volume. It was written at the request of Backus friend, Elder Noah Alden of Bellingham, who had been elected a delegate to the constitutional convention and wished Backus' advice on what goals to strive for. See George F. Partridge, History of the Town of Bellingham (Bellingham, 1919), p. 132.

48

INTRODUCTION

social and political welfare of the individual personality (defined in terms of "reason and conviction") in relation to his fellow men on earth. The pietist wanted religious freedom so that men may follow the Truth of Revelation; the deist wanted it so men might seek the Truth wherever reason may lead; the pietist was concerned with God, the object of worship; the deist with God the Creator of the universe. When Article Three of the Massachusetts Constitution was first discussed in the convention in October 1779, Backus at once printed an attack upon it in the newspapers and on April 6, 1780, published a tract urging the people to refuse to ratify it. An Appeal to the of the Massachusetts

People

State Against Arbitrary Power contains what is

probably the most succinct summary of the pietistic defense of separation Backus ever wrote: A first and capital article in his [Christ's] doctrine is that HE IS HEAD OVER ALL THINGS το THE CHURCH, and that she is complete in him, Eph. i, 21, 22; Col. ii, 10. And those are to be marked as deceivers who do not thus hold THE HEAD, Col. ii, 19-23. Another article in his doctrine is that no man can see his kingdom nor have right to power therein without regeneration, John i, 12, 13 and iii, 3. And the first man that offered money as a means of obtaining power therein is marked with an internal brand of infamy, Acts viii, 19, 23. A third article is that the whole of our duty is included in love to GOD, and love to our neighbor, Matt, vii, 12 and 22; 37-40. A fourth is that the civil magistrate's power is limited to the last of these, and that his sword is to punish none but such as work ill to their neighbors, Rom. xiii, 1-10; 1 Pet. ii, 13-14. A fifth is that those who receive instruction and benefit from Christ's ministers, are required freely to communicate according to their ability, to their temporal support, as they will answer it to him in the great day, Luke x, 7-12; 1 Cor. ix, 4-14; Gal. vi, 6, 7. A sixth is that none should hear nor give countenance to any teachers who bring not Christ's doctrine but pervert his gospel, as they would avoid partaking in their guilt, Prov. xix, 27; Mark iv, 24; 2 John, 10, 11. Not only did Article Three grant no exemptions to religious taxes but it made what was formerly statute law into constitutional law: "If this article should be established," Backus asserted, "our case would be comparably worse than it has ever yet been." Though it failed to obtain the two-thirds majority required for ratification, the convention nevertheless declared Article Three part of the new constitution. 25 Backus thereupon wrote another tract on 25 For a careful statistical analysis of the w a y in which the votes for Article Three were juggled see S. E . Morison, " T h e Struggle O v e r the Adoption of the

INTRODUCTION

4g

the subject, Truth Is Great and Will Prevail ( 1 7 8 1 ) . The convention, he said, in its address to the people, stated "your delegates did not conceive themselves to be vested with power to set up one denomination of Christians above another, for RELIGION must at all times be a matter between God and individuals." For that reason "they refused to exclude out of our future legislature such Roman Catholics as shall 'disclaim the principles which are subversive of a free government.'" Backus did not comment upon this discrimination against Catholics, but he went on to remind the public that Article Three still left the religion of each parish up to the majority of the voters rather than to each individual.26 Backus' last tract on the subject of church and state was published in 1783, A Door Opened for Equal Christian Liberty. It described a decision of the Bristol County Court in May 1782 which seemed to invalidate that section of Article Three which required dissenters from Congregationalism to pay religious taxes or provide certificates. Backus and the Warren Association hailed this decision in the Balkcom Case as the final victory of the principle of separation of church and state, for it declared the central feature of Article Three unconstitutional and in effect disestablished the Congregational churches. One of the chief pleas offered by Elijah Balkcom, a Baptist arrested in North Attleboro for refusing to pay his religious taxes, was "that RELIGION was prior to all states and kingdoms in the world and therefore could not in its nature be subject to human laws." Whether this means that Balkcom's lawyer, James Mitchell Varnum, was arguing on the basis of Lockean natural law and inalienable rights or upon the basis of divine revelation is not clear from the evidence. But the court decided simply on the contradictory nature of Article Three itself. These tracts reveal more clearly than ever Backus' prime concern with compulsory religious taxes and his comparative lack of concern with other problems of Church and State such as compulsory SabConstitution of Massachusetts, 1 7 8 0 , " Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, L ( 1 9 1 6 - 1 9 1 7 ) , 3 5 3 - 4 1 1 . That Backus was aware of this juggling is apparent from a letter he wrote to the Rev. Samuel Jones of Philadelphia on May 23, 1 7 8 2 , saying that "by unfair means said article with the Constitution was established." This letter is among the Samuel Jones Papers at the Brown University Library. 28 Backus' stand on freedom of religion for Roman Catholics was never very explicit though in principle he believed that Catholics had the same rights in this regard as all other sects. But he had not yet outlived the fear of most Englishmen that the Pope might still try to use his spiritual power to subvert the civil authorities in non-Catholic nations.

50

INTRODUCTION

bath attendance — "we have had no controversy with our rulers about this matter," he said. It is impossible to find in Backus' writings any complaint about the Sabbatarian "blue laws" just as there is no attack by him upon the inculcation of the Calvinist doctrines of the Westminster Catechism in the public schools of New England. 27 Backus affirmed his belief that Massachusetts should be a Christian state in A Door Opened for Christian Liberty when he praised the provision in the new constitution that "No man can take a seat in our legislature till he solemnly declares, 1 believe the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth.' " The net conclusion regarding Backus' position on church and state after a careful reading of his tracts on the subject must be that while his pietistic arguments provided a powerful cutting edge against New England's ecclesiastical system and particularly against the practice of compulsory religious taxes, his subordination of the doctrines of natural rights, his advocacy of a Christian state, and his essentially theocentric concern for revealed truth produced a far less logical and consistent exposition of separation than that of Madison, Mason, Jefferson, or even John Leland. In fact, in certain respects Backus had more in common with the transformationists or theocrats than the separationists.28 Backus and the New England Baptists were Jeffersonians in politics primarily in reaction to the Standing Order's Federalism, but basically they shared the socially conservative heritage of their region, or at least their eastern spokesmen did. Where Jefferson welcomed Shays's Rebellion and encouraged a little revolution now and then, Backus wrote a tract instructing the people that it was their divine obligation to obey the powers that be in such affairs.29 Where Jefferson demanded an amendment to the federal constitution securing religious freedom, Backus was content that the constitution allowed no test for federal officeholding. Where Jefferson 27 Late in his career Backus did mention briefly in one tract that he opposed the payment of salaries by the state to legislative chaplains, just as he once or twice briefly mentioned his opposition to laws compelling attendance at public worship on Sundays. But he nowhere opposed laws prohibiting travel, sports, or other recreation on the Sabbath. For his remark on legislative chaplains see The Testimony of the Two Witnesses, 2nd ed. (Boston, 1793), p. 46. 2 8 1 have borrowed some of my terms and concepts of separationism in this Introduction from Thomas G. Sanders' stimulating book, Protestant Concepts of Church and State (New York, 1964). However, I have not always applied them precisely as he does. For his interpretations of Backus, Leland, Jefferson, and of the "transformationists" or theocrats, see his fourth and fifth chapters. 2B Isaac Backus, An Address to the Inhabitants of New England ( Boston, 1787 ).

INTRODUCTION

51

opposed the official proclamation of fast days, thanksgiving days, and days of prayer by governors or presidents, Backus never had qualms about observing them.30 The Baptists of New England even voted, Backus among them, to endorse a petition initiated by the Standing clergy in 1790, requesting Congress to establish a bureau to license the publication of all Bibles in the United States lest any erroneous or heretical translations should be printed.31 And, of course, in the nineteenth century the Baptists, like the Congregationalists, favored grants of federal money to aid missionary work and supported all of the moralistic laws concerning blasphemy, profanity, gambling, card playing, dancing, and theater going.32 Backus did not live to take a stand on all of these matters, and like most colonial ministers he was no teetotaler, but he would certainly have criticized John Leland for opposing the petition to end delivery of the mail on the Sabbath and for praising Col. Richard M. Johnson's defense of this position.33 When Backus said "The Truth is great and will prevail," he meant the gospel truth of evangelical antipedobaptist religion. He was convinced that the Baptists were predestined to convert the world to their persuasion because their interpretation of the gospel was the Truth. The state not only must not interfere with the spread of this Truth, but it was required by God to produce a climate in which it might prevail. While Backus was suspicious of majority rule when the majority was so steeped in error as to persecute the Baptists, it is doubtful whether he would have recognized so readily the impinge30

See note 27 for aspects of separation on which Backus did agree with Jefferson. See Minutes of the Warren Baptist Association for 1790, printed in John Rippon, The Baptist Annual Register for 1790, 1791, 1792 and Part of 1793 (London, n.d. ), pp. 81-82. 82 Backus' puritanical attitude toward theatrical plays is well illustrated in an entry in his diary for February 1 1 , 1798: "The grand theater in Boston was burnt the second instant as they were preparing to mimic the burning of Sodom in a play. The fire caught in the house near night and consumed it, and they could not quench it. A plain testimony against mocking God." The diary is among the Backus Papers at Andover Newton Theological School. 33 The Writings of Elder John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene (New York, 1845), pp. 561-570. Though Backus' views on church and state are often equated with those of Leland, it is clear that the two had distinctly different positions on many aspects of this question. Leland, perhaps by virtue of his long residence in Virginia, held views much closer to those of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison than to the pietists of New England. While he lived in Massachusetts during the latter part of his life and continued the fight for disestablishment after Backus' death, he was always viewed as extremely eccentric by the Baptist leaders both in his theological and social attitudes. The key to their difference can be seen in the fact that while most of Backus' friends who lived into the age of Jackson became theocratic Whigs, Leland was an ardent anticlerical Jacksonian democrat. 31

52

INTRODUCTION

ments upon dissent which an evangelical majority later practised upon Mormons and Roman Catholics. He did not, for example, find any complaint against his grandfather, Judge Joseph Backus, who as justice of the peace in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1725 sentenced two Rogerenes, a seventh day sect, for traveling through his jurisdiction on Sunday: "Both were whipped," wrote Backus, "for breach of the Sabbath, which they called persecution." 34 While the twentieth century admires Backus chiefly for his defense of religious liberty, Backus himself would rather have been remembered for his defense of Calvinism — to his mind the only true interpretation of Scripture. While the present collection of his writings emphasizes his contribution to the movement for separation of church and state, the great bulk of his work was devoted to advancing the doctrines and evangelistic endeavors of the Separate-Baptist movement. Backus was convinced that he and his brethren were the heralds of a new reformation in ecclesiasticism and he never doubted that God and history were on his side. Thomas Jefferson was convinced that by 1830 most Americans would be Unitarians; Ezra Stiles predicted in 1783 that most Americans would be Congregationalists and Presbyterians; but Backus was certain that most would be Baptists, and he was more nearly right. Yet he would have been horrified to discover that the Baptists and other evangelicals who came to dominate religion after 1830 had abandoned the doctrines of Calvin for those of Arminius. The Great Awakening released a major spiritual quest in England and America for new modes of spiritual expression. New Light fell not only upon the church members of New England but upon the common man everywhere. And most of this new light cast heavy shadows upon the doctrines of Calvinism. Calvinism proved unable to maintain its hold over an America growing rich, strong, free, egalitarian, and self-confident. Calvinism required a submissiveness to Providence, authority, tradition, and mystery which the rationalism and "common sense" of the "enlightened" Americans found unnatural and even unChristian. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Elihu Palmer found it all too easy to prove that Calvin's God was cruel, tyrannical 34 The comment is in Backus' diary, August 6, 1754, where Backus refers to the two as "Quakers." For the Rogerenes' side of this incident see John R. Bolles and Anna B. Williams, The Rogerenes (Boston, 1904), pp. 34-36.

INTRODUCTION

53

and inconsistent — characteristics which seemed unworthy of the God who had blessed America with such good fortune. But few Americans were willing to replace Christianity with the abstract laws of nature and the religion of reason. Instead they found new light in the Bible which did away with Calvin's arbitrary God of wrath. During the Second Great Awakening they concluded that God was really a God of love, benevolence, and free grace who was as eager to produce revivals and to distribute salvation as men were to receive and rejoice in them. God, the arbitrary tyrant, was succeeded on the throne by Jesus, the loving friend. After 1830 man and God worked together as partners to save the world from sin. Backus could see incipient signs of this rebellion against the Old Testament God, but he failed to equate it with his own rebellion against an Old Testament Church. The great irony of Backus' career was that the more successful he was in overthrowing the Puritan establishment, the more unsuccessful he was bound to be in defending the Calvinistic doctrines on which it was based. His emphasis upon individualistic, experimental religion and his war against the erroneous "traditions" of the founding fathers did as much to create as to reflect the decline of Calvinism. Backus did not find it necessary to devote any tracts specifically to the infidelity of the deists. Despite Ethan Allen this school of thought had little impact in New England except as a bogeyman. Such deism as there was was more prevalent among the graduates of Harvard than among the common men to whom the Separate-Baptists addressed themselves. But there were many other forms of infidelity or heresies which Backus felt obliged to attack. The most important of these were the doctrines of general redemption, freedom of the will, universal salvation, and falling from grace which were espoused by the growing number of rivals to the Separate-Baptists, namely the General or Six Principle Baptists, the Freewill Baptists, the Universaliste, the Shakers, and the Methodists. At the opposite end of the spectrum from these Arminian enemies of the faith were those who carried Calvinism to an even more rigid interpretation than that of the Separate-Baptists: the Sandemanians, the neo-Edwardsians or Hopkinsiens, and the supralapsarian Baptist followers of John Gill. These hyper-Calvinists were guilty, said Backus, of promoting the doctrines of fatalism, of making God the author of sin, and of preaching the damnation of infants; he agreed with the

54

INTRODUCTION

deists at least in this, that Calvinism carried to such extremes terrified people into religious apathy or atheism. He devoted considerable effort therefore to attacking these developments in eighteenth-century theology. Most historians of the Great Awakening have argued that it produced very little alteration in the theological outlook of New England. Edwards, Whitefield, Tennent, the New Lights, and even the Separates and Separate-Baptists all professed to be Calvinists and claimed that the Westminster Confession of Faith accurately expressed their doctrines. The New Lights complained of certain errors in the tone or emphasis with which Calvinism was preached by Old Lights; they said that the learned graduates of Harvard and Yale were cold, dull, dead or formal; and above all they insisted that an unconverted ministry, a ministry which did not "experimentally know" Christ and "sensibly feel" transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit in their souls, could never hold forth the true doctrines of Calvinism, of Gospel-Truth, with the conviction and fervor essential to "effectual preaching" of the Word. But none of them attacked Calvinism as gospel truth; and the opponents of the Awakening insisted that they were also good Calvinists. Not until the rise of new sects and the emergence of Unitarianism after 1750 were there obvious and admitted departures from the doctrines of the founding fathers. The Awakening, and particularly its formulation in the theological works of Edwards, appeared if anything to have saved New England from a decline into Arminianism similar to that which engulfed the Independents and Presbyterians in England in these years. Nevertheless, since the whole course of New England theology after Edwards reflects an emphasis upon conversion, revivalism, direct individual experience which ran directly counter to the trend and tenor of earlier Puritanism, it seems unrealistic to argue that nothing happened to Calvinism in the Awakening. Surely there was something more to the fierce theological infighting among the New Lights, Old Lights, and Moderate Calvinists than mere logic chopping and hair splitting. And what accounts for the rapid rise of new denominations and sects after the Awakening, all of which challenged one or more of the basic assumptions of Calvinism, if the old consensus had not somehow been perverted or undermined? Can Calvinism, as a theology, be separated from the social concepts and institutions which the Puritans saw as essential to it? The breakdown of the corporate ideal

INTRODUCTION

55

of a Christian state after 1750 certainly indicates that the state no longer could or really wished to assert itself on behalf of a Calvinist way of life. And this was merely a reflection of the average man s conviction after the Awakening that religion was no longer a part of a complex system involving God, the church, and the state. Instead it was a wholly individual experience, a direct personal encounter between God and man beside which all other social, political, and institutional relationships were inconsequential. It is significant that few, if any, conversions during the Great Awakening took place in the church or at a worship service or even during the preaching of a revivalist. Most of them, like Backus', took place when the individual was alone. It was some time before the impact of this new conversion morphology produced a change in the theological framework through which men perceived their places in the universe. But the experience carried with it the seeds of a new outlook which was almost the reverse of early New England Calvinism — an outlook which denied that men were like spiders in the hands of an angry God and declared them to be rational, participatory agents in the divine processes of nature and of history. Isaac Backus had not yet read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding when he published his first book in 1754, yet he found in Biblical language the words and metaphors to emphasize dramatically the direct sense experience of his conversion: "this similitude, if rightly considered, may help much to clear this matter: namely, Christ's being compared to the Sun. The Lord God is a Sun — And unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise — Ρsal. lxxxiv, 1 1 and Mai. iv, 2. Now the Sun in his being, lustre and glory is the object for us to view, but then it is impossible for us to behold it, but its rays appear to point as directly to us as if there was not another person in the world for it to shine upon. And we partake (as it were) of the whole benefit of its influence; and yet 'tis as free for thousands of others as for us. So Jesus Christ in his personal glories and mediatorial fullness, as revealed in the Gospel, is the object of faith. But when any soul is brought to behold his glories, them [sic] eternal rays of light and love shine down particularly upon him to remove his darkness, heal his wounds, and shed immortal blessings on his soul." This emphasis upon direct partaking by the individual of divinity and upon his personal, immediate experience of the benefits of salva-

56

INTRODUCTION

tion is totally different from the abstract, almost impersonal and always insignificant role which Calvin's metaphysical system, even in the covenant theology, offered to the individual. It is wholly different from the formal, institutionalized system of parochial education, covenant owning, and ecclesiastical routine which constituted Puritan religion before 1740. It clearly portrays a benevolent God of love who wishes to share his goodness with his creatures, who sees them as significant individuals, who wants them to be happy. New England ministers had traditionally preached Calvinism as a complicated problem in divine government and spiritual economy in which the individual was lost in the totality of the cosmic system. The Awakening, as a reaction against an irrelevant or "dead" tradition, could not help but reshape the doctrines as well as the system, for the New Light claim of "returning to the Gospel-Truths of our forefathers" was impossible. Backus' doctrinal tracts reflected this confusion. Even in his defense of the old doctrines of predestination, innate depravity, unlimited reprobation, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, he was forced to make significant concessions. Or, more likely, being a child of his times, he was led to make concessions without realizing that he was doing so. For example, he denied "the horrid doctrine" that God will send all unconverted infants who die to hell, and he argued that God had left this matter a mystery. He repudiated indignantly the Hopkinsean notion that God was the author of sin, but he could only answer with Edwards that the ultimate motivation of the human will was also a mystery. He considered it a fatal error to interpret predestination or divine foreknowledge as "fatalism," "inevitability," or determinism, but he could not deny that God did know who the elect were and had the right "to do what he wills with his own property." He excoriated John Wesley for maintaining that men had free will, that grace was resistible, that men could fall from grace, that Christ died for the redemption of all men. But Backus preached always as though those who heard his sermons had a duty to turn from sin, repent, and accept Christ on faith. Eventually the Arminian or Evangelical Calvinism of the nineteenth century superseded most of the doctrines that Backus defended while retaining the essence of his experimental pietism. Some of his own Baptist colleagues, like Elder Thomas Baldwin of Boston, adopted general atonement in the 1790's. And the man chosen to assist Backus

INTRODUCTION

57

in his old age in the Middleboro First Baptist Church obtained a revival in Middleboro by Arminian doctrines which Backus' Calvinistic ones had failed to accomplish. Throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century dozens of the ablest preachers and thousands of the most devout Baptists in N e w England left the denomination to follow the Shakerism of Ann Lee, the Universalism of Elhanan Winchester, the Freewill doctrines of Benjamin Randall, or the Arminianism of John Wesley. In 1771 Backus published a tract entitled The Doctrine of Sovereign Grace Opened and Vindicated,

in which his defense of predestination

was tempered b y an optimistic faith in God's benevolence which struck the dominant new note in American Calvinism and which he had found in the writings of Edwards: I know that my opponent calls it a dark and discouraging scheme to hold that God hath chosen only a particular number to salvation and that without any regard to their faith and obedience. But let the matter be well examined. We both profess that full provision is made in the gospel for the salvation of sinners, and I believe that God will make his people willing in the day of his power. Backus thought he was emphasizing that it was God's power not man's, but the paragraph implies more than that. It implies that God will probably choose to save most of the sinners in this country. Backus, and most of the New Light Calvinists, argued that people should not be so concerned with the details of Calvinistic dogma but attend more to the saving of souls: leave doctrine to theologians, God will take care of saving those who deserve it. The myriads saved in the Great Awakening, the rapid spread of N e w Light doctrines, the conversion of thousands to Separate-Baptist views, all combined to take the sting out of Calvinism for Backus. He seemed to say that it was proper for the average man to be more interested in attending revival meetings and seeking his own personal encounter with the Holy Spirit than in worrying over the mysteries of God's will. For God is inherently just and benevolent. In contrast to those w h o felt discouraged because Calvinism denied that all would be saved or could save themselves if they chose, Backus said that "to hold forth the free proclamation of the gospel to the chief of sinners, and that Christ died for the ungodly, and has given the Spirit to convince and change their souls, working in them all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power . . . This opens a glorious door

58

INTRODUCTION

of hope to guilty sinners and gives courage to the believer to strive according to his working who worketh in him mightily." In short, said Backus, the Arminians, deists, and hyper-Calvinists who complained that the cup of grace was half-empty (and feared that they might not get to drink of it) should instead praise God because the cup was half-full and because hope was held out that all might drink of it (at least in God's chosen country). The quarrel between the Calviniste and the anti-Calvinists in the latter part of the eighteenth century was not one of pessimism and despair versus a false optimism and hope, but between two different ways of defining the optimistic hope which pervaded the era and which all America shared. It was this optimism which constituted the fundamental alteration in American religious thought after 1740 and which we call "the decline of Calvinism." In his tract, The Sovereign Decrees of God Set in a Scriptural Light (1773), Backus accused those who portrayed Calvinism in terrorem of being blasphemous false accusers, and rephrased his more hopeful and optimistic interpretation of it: "Neither the devil nor any of his children will ever be able to make a rejoicing in God's everlasting love to a chosen number, to be the same thing as it would be to rejoice in the destruction of the rest." The knack of the new Evangelical Calvinist was to convince people to look on the bright side of Calvinism, to see that they were of the chosen number. In an era of optimistic revivalism it was easy to cast upon the pessimists the odium of trying to paint God black simply because they were too depraved to see his goodness: "Our Lord says, Every one that doth evil, hateth light; but he that doth truth, cometh to the light"; and Backus asked the reader to judge "which of these characters suit the conduct" of the antiCalvinist. The deists, in short, were the men of little faith, the timid doubters of America's divine destiny. Backus was by no means opposed to the scientific advances of the Age of Reason. He welcomed Locke's newly discovered laws of philosophical psychology and refused to believe that because the universe operated by Newton's physical laws men must be fatalists and must make God responsible for all the sins of society or of individuals: "An illegitimate child is the creature of God, but its illegitimacy is wholly from its parents. . . . The heat of the sun that attracts the secret virtues of the earth is not the cause of the stink of the dunghill. And though carnal reasoners try to persuade people that to hold every

INTRODUCTION

59

event to be certain in the divine councils takes away the guilt of evil actions and the virtue of good ones, yet the word of truth abundantly shows the contrary." It was, in other words, those who claimed to be so enlightened that they could dispense with revelation and rely upon science who were the real enemies of freedom of the will. The Bible, harsh as it might seem in its Calvinistic exposition, was not so harsh as naturalistic environmentalism. In asserting the Biblical message of the moral freedom and responsibility of the individual against the deists, Backus was facing the same issue that the Evangelicals faced a century later against the social Darwinists. The deists asserted the freedom of the will by making God the subject of his own natural laws. To Backus this seemed not only more inconsistent than the mysteries of Calvinism but blasphemous as well: "To appear nakedly irreligious," Backus rightly saw, "is too shocking to multitudes who at the same time are very far from desiring to set the Lord always before them." It was the inability of the advocates of science to sustain convincingly their belief in God and their belief in a universe of natural law which enabled Evangelicalism to triumph over deism. On the other hand, Backus' Edwardsean or New Light form of Calvinism also proved incapable of providing a meaningful rationale for the rising self-reliant temper of Americans. The Arminianized Calvinism of nineteenth-century Evangelicalism ultimately evolved a theology which did sustain the common man's belief both in a benevolent God and in free will without either the inconsistencies of Calvinism or the irreligion of deism. Backus' New Light theology was a bridge between Edwards and Finney. Hence it seems appropriate to conclude this anthology with Backus' tract against Wesleyanism. Written in 1789, this was not a response to the problems of the Separate-Baptists in New England, for the Methodist circuit riders had not yet entered New England. It grew out of Backus' six-month trip through North Carolina and Virginia in the spring of 1789. Here the Methodists were very active and popular. Backus wrote of their progress in Virginia, "The Methodists have followed the Baptists through the country [since 1768] with much zeal, but they earnestly strike against the most essential doctrines of the gospel. . . . To hold up light against their errors and others, is of great importance in this time when many have an ear to hear." 3 5 30 Backus in a letter to his wife, May 9, 1789, in the Backus Papers at Andover Newton Theological School.

6o

INTRODUCTION

Backus and the Baptists of the South ridiculed the Methodist camp meetings for their orgiastic emotionalism and their ignorance of sound doctrine, but they recognized in this new denomination a major threat to the spread of their own denomination, or, as they would have it, to the spread of Gospel-Truth. Hence shortly after his return to Massachusetts, Backus produced The Doctrine of Particular Election and Final Perseverance Explained and Vindicated, and promptly sent several dozen copies to his friends in the South. The two doctrines of Wesleyanism which Backus opposed most vehemently were that Christ's atonement made it possible for all mankind, not just the elect, to be saved, and that men once saved, could by their sinful actions, fall from grace back into a state of reprobation. In addition, he directed some sharp words against the Wesleyan doctrine of "the perfecting of the saints" or growing in grace until "sin vanished." And of course the arguments against infant baptism also entered in. The tract is significant not only for the energy with which Backus fought against these new popular views but also for his petulant ad hominem, attack upon Wesley's honesty and his Loyalist views during the Revolution. Possibly Backus was still smarting from innuendoes against the Baptists' patriotism and felt compelled to play the super-patriot. The whole tone of this pamphlet indicates a sense of frustration, as if he found it impossible in 1789 to account for the persistent refusal of men to believe what was so obvious to him. As a Calvinist he acknowledged that men were too depraved to accept God's Word as written, but as an American who believed that the millennium was fast approaching, he was angered by those who stubbornly refused to listen: "These filthy dreamers have now filled the world with Babylonian confusion." Men like Wesley and women like Ann Lee were doing the devil's work by pandering to men's self-esteem. "Those who turn the Gospel" against Calvinism and Congregationalism and adult baptism "are bewitched." But Backus' very anger demonstrates also his optimism. A true Calvinist would have exhibited no surprise at this conduct in men. But an Evangelical Calvinist, a man who insisted that God was working benevolently to save the world, might well gnash his teeth at the ingratitude of people who persistently denied God's truth. Frustrated optimism in a pietist often produces a growing conservatism, a lack of trust in the common man, and sometimes even a longing for a

INTRODUCTION

6l

godly dictator. Backus demonstrated his own conservatism in 1787 by his tract against Shays's Rebellion, again in 1789 by voting to ratify the federal constitution, and again in 1792 by deploring the Whiskey Rebellion. But so long as Massachusetts was in the hands of a Standing Order which supported compulsory religious taxation, he was a Jeffersonian in politics. Backus' career demonstrates that fundamental polarity in American pietism between the Antinomian or anarchistic pietist who seeks complete moral and spiritual freedom for the individual and the theocratic or authoritarian pietist who seeks a perfect moral order for the state. Fighting against an establishment which impinged upon the freedom of the true believer, he favored ecclesiastical revolution and civil disobedience. But once that fight was won, he demanded submission to the powers that be — to a sovereign God and a sovereign Congress. He wrote and worked to exalt the religious liberty of the individual above the church and the state, yet he always asserted the necessity for a Christian state subservient to the ultimate moral authority of God's law. He sought a "sweet harmony" for the new American republic he saw arising, but he helped to produce the cacophony of sectarianism and pluralism. The instability of this polarity between the desire for a corporate Christian state and the insistence upon an individualistic, voluntaristic polity in church and state remains the basic problem of the American pietistic experiment in freedom. Yet it is in the openness of the American system ( operating within the tensions of these poles) to new light shining through the free individual conscience that the genius of the system lies. Backus played an important part in a formative period in the evocation of that genius. Through him we can better comprehend its meaning.

A NOTE ON T H E TEXTS

In selecting twelve of the forty-two works published by Backus between 1754 and 1805, it seemed only logical to choose as the core those dealing with separation of church and state. It was in this area that Backus made his most profound contribution, and it was for this that he was best known in his day. Seven of the twelve tracts here reprinted for the first time since their original publication deal specifically with this subject. However, the great bulk of Backus' work dealt with ecclesiastical and theological problems. And since it is impossible to comprehend Backus' importance or his contribution to American religious history without understanding his relationship to the Great Awakening, the Separate movement, the Separate-Baptist movement, and the development of New Light or Evangelical Calvinist thought, five of his works dealing with these particular subjects are included. Oddly enough, these five works constitute in size three-fifths of the volume. For Backus, like all eighteenth-century polemicists, felt called upon to answer point-by-point every argument levelled by his opponents whenever he set pen to paper. Thus while the tracts on church and state are short and relate specifically to a particular contemporary situation (no one arose to debate him on this issue), the tracts on theology and ecclesiastical reform are much longer and far-ranging. At first it seemed possible to group these twelve tracts by topic: church and state, Separatism, antipedobaptism, and Calvinism. But upon closer analysis, it was clear that this was not only arbitrary but misleading. Backus' views on all of these questions evolved through the years. And each related so closely to the other that there was considerable overlapping. To Backus the truth of the Gospel was a seamless garment, and he sought to integrate his thinking on all aspects of this life and the next in terms of the single Word of God. Consequently the most logical and satisfactory arrangement turned out to be a chronological one. This not only has the merit, for those who read the volume through, of tracing Backus' own intellectual and spiritual evolution from young manhood to old age (he was thirty when he published the first tract in this anthology and sixtythree when he published the last), but it also provides a dynamic

A N O T E ON THE T E X T S

63

portrait of the changing social, religious, and intellectual movements of his time — beginning with his defense of the Separate movement, moving next to his justification of antipedobaptism, then to his attacks upon the Massachusetts establishment, and finally depicting his defense of Calvinism against the rising Arminianism epitomized in the Methodist movement. This arrangement not only places his disestablishmentarianism in its proper perspective, but also indicates that it was focused primarily upon the decade from 1773 to 1783. For him, disestablishment was merely one step in the gradual development of "the new reformation" which would end with the achievement of an ever imminent Baptist millennium. Any anthology must reflect the predilections of the editor and of his times. Separation of church and state being an issue in the midtwentieth century, as well as the current revival of neo-orthodoxy, these undoubtedly helped to dictate the selections. An effort was made, however, to present a fair intellectual portrait of this many-sided man not only for the intrinsic importance of his ideas but also because he was unquestionably the most important American Baptist of his century. In every case the texts reprinted here were taken from the first editions and are printed complete. In every case the language of the original has been scrupulously respected. The editing consisted primarily of modernizing the spelling to conform to current American usage and modernizing the punctuation to avoid confusion. Spelling changes consisted principally of dropping the "u" in such words as "favour" and "neighbour," and making such alterations as "fetcht" to "fetched" or "exprest" to "expressed." Contractions like "tho'" and "thro"' have been expanded but words like "don't" and "didn't" remain as written. In his early years Backus was prolific in his capitalization of words and there seemed no need to retain these idiosyncrasies. Throughout his career he followed the custom of his times in using excessive commas and semicolons which hindered rather than improved clarity; some of these have been omitted. However, all words written in capitals and all italicized words have been kept as they were. And where Backus followed the custom of italicizing quotations from the Bible, this too has been retained. Editorial comments, which have been inserted only where absolutely necessary, appear in square brackets; editorial notes have been

64

A N O T E ON THE T E X T S

placed at the end of the book to avoid confusion with Backus' own copious annotation. Where Backus' citation is ambiguous, the reader may turn to the Bibliographical Glossary at the end of the book for the full modern citation. Biblical citations have been standardized in form. Backus frequently quoted the Bible inaccurately or in paraphrase, but his errors have not been corrected. Corrections supplied as errata by Backus, however, have been inserted silently into the texts. It has not been thought necessary to retain the original pagination. The purpose throughout has been to provide a complete, accurate, readable, and selectively annotated text. A list of all Backus' works has been included in order to indicate the range of his work. Someday, perhaps, someone will have the hardihood to edit and republish the magnificent four volumes of Backus' History of New England, a work too long for inclusion here but which is an invaluable source for understanding the man and his times: the one side of Backus' talent which this anthology perforce could not present is his admirable ability as a historian.

PAMPHLET 1

A DISCOURSE SHOWING THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF AN INTERNAL CALL TO PREACH THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL BOSTON, 1 7 5 4

IN D E C E M B E R 1753, this was Backus' first published work. Its purpose was to justify his serving as pastor of the open-communion Separate church in Titicut, Massachusetts, which he had formed in 1748. The Separates were not recognized as a legally definable denomination. They were considered misguided fanatics, schismatics from the Standing or Congregational churches. And, in fact, they did not on the surface differ significantly in doctrine or practice from the Standing churches. They did, however, differ in temper and they did oppose the ecclesiastical laws by which the Congregational churches were regulated and were given tax support. Under the terms of the ecclesiastical laws Backus was not properly considered a qualified or "settled" minister of the gospel. Both he and his church members were legally considered Congregationalists and bound by the law to attend and support the established Congregational church.

WRITTEN

Backus therefore argued here that the authority for his call to the ministry and his method of ordination was in accordance with the perfect rule of Scripture, "the eternal standard of truth," while the Standing ministry were established simply by authority of the ephemeral and imperfect traditions and laws of men. The two crucial issues at stake were the "internal call" by "the special influences" of the Holy Spirit to the vocation of the ministry and the propriety of lay versus clerical ordination. By an internal call Backus meant that all ministers, in addition to being converted, must also receive a special gift or calling from God, must know it in their hearts, and must establish it before their brethren that God wishes them to preach and teach His Word. Backus claimed that the Standing ministers of New England were content merely with an external call. Though they admitted that the ministry was "of divine appointment," they treated it as a secular vocation, like carpentry or the law, for which a man received "an ordinary call" and responded by his own inclination or out of a desire to follow in his father's footsteps or to improve his social position; at most they might claim "a hearty disposition to serve God." It was against such an outlook that Backus rebelled. That the Separate and later the Separate-Baptist movement involved aspects of social revolution as well as an ecclesiastical one is evident in several parts of this tract. For example, it can be seen in his quotations from August Herman Francke, the late seventeenth-century leader of German pietism who reasserted the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and gave a new importance to the role of the laity in the Church. It can be seen in his assertions that a poor, unlettered, but con-

E D I T O R ' S INTRODUCTION

67

verted man is more important than a rich, respectable, but unconverted man. It can be seen in his frequent assertions that the wisdom of the heart is superior to that of the head: Proverbs xvi, 23, "The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth and addeth learning to his lips." And it can be seen most specifically in his assertion that the learned clergy "settle where you can get the most money." Other Separates who wrote at this time were far more vitriolic than Backus in denouncing the Standing clergy as social climbers and avaricious money-seekers, sycophantic tools of the state and the power elite who utterly lacked spiritual qualifications to preach. In one sense Backus was simply repeating here the complaints of George Whitefield, that the great majority of the clergy of New England "did not know Christ," and of Gilbert Tennent's famous sermon on The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry. In another sense he was emphasizing the traditional pietistic approach to the ministry as "an extraordinary call" of God to his chosen "ambassadors." While the formalities and corruptions of the Standing Order in his opinion endeavored to put a wall between God and man, the pietists believed that "God is as near to his Church now as formerly and therefore needs none to be substituted in his room to choose out and send forth his ministers. . . . putting God afar off is the root of all evil." The practice of clerical ordination substituted a human calling for a divine call because it established man-made criteria for the ministerial office. Under the law any minister of a Standing or parish church was required to be "able, learned, and orthodox." The courts had determined that "learned" meant a college education or the equivalent knowledge of "original tongues" — Latin, Greek, Hebrew — and theology. Hence "multitudes [of ministers] place their qualifications more in human learning than in divine enlightenings." In order to test these formal qualifications the law required all candidates for the ministry to be examined by a council or committee of Standing ministers in the county in which the church which wanted him was located. And if he passed their test, he was then required to be ordained by a council of these same ministers. Nor could any minister be dismissed without the approbation of a similar council of these same ministers. Backus considered this a serious departure from the original congregational polity of the founding fathers into a form of presbyterian or "classical" church government. By using this system of clerical ordination, New England had managed to maintain the Congregational graduates of Harvard and Yale as their established ministers without ever stating explicitly in their laws that Congregationalism was the favored denomination. Backus, like other dissenters from New England Congregationalism, complained that there was no justification for Congregationalists, who were themselves dissenters from the Church of England, to set themselves up

68

Isaac Backus

over other dissenters, especially when the Massachusetts Charter specifically required that "full liberty of conscience" should be granted to all except Roman Catholics in the province. Basic to Backus' arguments in this tract was his pietistic conviction that Christ alone was ruler of his Church, and every Christian, being individually responsible to Him for his actions, must therefore follow his conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit, in establishing churches under the terms of faith and practice set forth in the Gospel: "The very body of Antichrist consists in setting up man in Christ's place." To the established ministers, Backus' individualistic, voluntaristic, and pietistic practices could only produce error and disorder in the churches of Christ. Illiterate, "deluded" laymen were incompetent to manage church affairs in terms of what they might consider "the special influences of the Holy Spirit." The issue then was who rules the churches and by what authority. On this point Backus was a democrat while the established clergy were aristocrats: "God sometimes speaks by his Spirit in and through his people," said Backus, "and what is thus spoken is his voice."

All trae Ministers of the Gospel, are/called into that Work by the spe/cial Influences of the Holy Spirit./A/DISCOURSE/Shewing the/Nature and Necessity/OF AN/Internal CALL/To Preach the/Everlasting Gospel./Also Marks by which Christ's Ministers may/be known from others, and Answers to sun/dry Objections: Together with some Ob/servations on the Principles and Practices of/many in the present Day concerning these/Things./To which is added,/Some Short Account of the Experiences and/dying Testimony of Mr. Nathanael Shepherd./By I S A A C BACKUS,/Preacher of the Gospel./ BOSTON:

Printed by

FOWLE

in/Ann-Street, near the Town-Dock, 1754.

THE PREFACE As it is the unhappiness of mankind in their benighted circumstances, to be divided in sentiments about many things in the method of our recovery and salvation: so when they come to speak or write upon points that are much controverted, it is often done in such a manner as to increase their contentions and divisions, rather than to remove them. One great cause whereof I conceive to be this, namely, a judging of principles by the lives of those that hold them, rather than by the eternal standard of truth: so that if they can see many evils in persons that are of contrary sentiments from themselves, they are ready to conclude that they have good grounds to condemn what they hold as false. Indeed if we are called to judge whether a persons profession is true or false, that might be done by his life or fruits, Matt. vii. 16. But whether their principles that they profess, be true or false, cannot certainly be known by that. I believe that CHRIST designed to caution his disciples against this snare in that place, Matt. xxiii. 2, 3. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. Some I know frame an argument from hence to support unconverted Ministers, as if CHRIST set them up for teachers: but I conceive that his true design was to caution his followers against casting away truth, because such corrupt men as He was going to show them to be, held it: but whatever they taught agreeable to Moses' law, He bid them observe, yet not to do after their works, for they said and did not. And He goes on to show that they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men, and neither went in themselves, nor suffered them that were entering to go in. He calls them blind guides, and serpents, that were not like to escape the damnation of Hell, ver. 13, 16, 33. And what man of sense can think that our Savior owned such as his messengers? By the false rule mentioned above, some have condemned even the greatest points in religion: as I think I once see an observation of Dr. [Cotton] Mathers concerning a foreign number of heathens who had some dealings with the Spaniards; and they ( holding that heathen notion of there being many gods) judged that CHRIST was the worst

AN INTERNAL C A L L

7I

of all gods, because the Spaniards professed themselves to be Christians, and they were the worst of all men. Another error near akin to this is a not distinguishing carefully between what is good and what is bad in a person, or body of people, but to condemn or justify all together. To which may be added the way of trying to represent others' sentiments or practice in the worst color they can. By reason of which some have become guilty of railery, if not the breach of the ninth commandment, while they have been essaying to cut down error. Having some sight of these things has made me endeavor to watch against them in writing this discourse; and to be tender of men's persons while I am speaking against their mistakes. And I have endeavored as much as might be to keep from condemning any number of people at a lump, but I have expressed plainly what I think to be right, and what not among them. Yet still if the careful reader discovers any thing of these or other evils in this treatise, impute that to my infirmity, but let not that hinder your soul from embracing what is truth. One thing more I will mention that is often a great hindrance to men's receiving truth, and that is, a making a torong use of the practice of the godly in past ages. How common is it for men to say that this or that is contrary to what our fathers held, and so reject it, as if they were our rule. And many seem to think that to vary from them reflects upon their characters as if they were corrupt men. And I expect the most batteries from this quarter of any against the truth that I am mainly pleading for in this book. Therefore, though I have said something to this in answer to an objection, yet will I add a word here. Solomon was a great and good man, but yet he set up the high places which were most provoking in GOD, 1 Kings xi, 7, 8. And both Asa and Jehoshaphat after him were godly men, and great reformers, and yet them high places were not taken away, 1 Kings xv, 14 and xxii, 43, which afterwards Hezekiah abolished, and also took away the brazen serpent, which from Moses' time to that day the children of Israel had idolized, 2 Kings xviii, 4. Now according to this language that many use, they might have said, "What! does this Hezekiah pretend to know more than Solomon? and will he condemn all his godly fathers as corrupt men, who held and practiced these things?" And yet after all his reformation, and the farther steps thereof that his grandson Josiah proceeded in 2 Kings xxiii, the poor captives that returned

72

Isaac Backus

out of Babylon, found that none of them all, nor David neither, though a man after GOD'S own heart, had kept the Feast of Tabernacles in the form that GOD'S law described: therefore they reformed that, and kept such a feast, as had not been kept before since the days of Joshua the Son of Nun, Neh. viii, 13-17. From all which, and much more of the like nature that might be observed, we may see plainly that the example of the best of men is no just objection at all against our receiving truth that they did not see. Neither is it to be looked upon any reflection upon their character, thus to vary from them. If we do not vary from the Scriptures we are safe and happy. Now 'tis likely that many when they see this discourse, will be ready to deem it to be pride and arrogancy for such a youth to come out in this form against so many great, learned, yea and good men. But I can freely leave that to my divine Master, to plead my cause, knowing that a good conscience is better than all the applause of mortal men. Some of the reasons of my coming forth in this manner are as follow. Since the LORD was pleased to call me forth into this great work of preaching the Gospel, as I have had opportunity to improve in that work in various places, the question has often been asked me, especially by the common ministers of the land, What call I held to, whether ordinary or extraordinary, mediate or immediate? And when we have come to discourse upon it, it has appeared plain to me that what they hold to be an ordinary call is to be called only by men, and an extraordinary one is to be called of GOD, by the special influences of his spiBiT. For I have heard them go through with a description of their call, and never mention GOD'S SPIRIT in the case; but only that they were educated for that purpose, and then were introduced and ordained in an orderly way. Indeed some of them will say that they have an internal call; but when they come to describe it, they say, " 'Tis a hearty disposition to serve GOD in that work" But is it not strange, that reasonable men should reckon this to be a call from GOD? Do they think there ever was a corrupt man in the world that went into that work without some disposition to it, which doubtless they called a disposition to serve GOD? Or should we allow it to be a sincere disposition, yet still that is not a call? The most that can be made of it is a willingness to be called. Every saint, when standing as they ought, are willing to do anything that GOD would have them: but something much further

AN INTERNAL C A L L

73

than that is needful in order to make them know that he would have them preach the Gospel publicly. I would not be understood to hold forth that there is none which hold fellowship with the scheme that 1 condemn that have truly experienced a call from the SPIRIT of GOD into the work of preaching the Gospel, for I believe there are some, though they may not be convinced of the evil of that method of going on. But a great part of the ministers in the land evidently run in the channel that 1 have described above. Therefore to return, when I have heard them talk in such a form, it has put me upon a more close examination of the Scriptures, and to look more critically into the nature of these things (for much of what I have here written I knew experimentally before I did doctrinally, Prov. xvi, 23). And after much search and crying to the Lord for direction, though it never was my disposition from a child to appear singular from others, yet I have been constrained to appear against many in this point. I waited long and attended diligently to what others could say: I said, days should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But great men are not always wise: therefore I said, I will answer my part, I also will show my opinion, Job xxxii, 7, 9, 17. For I am persuaded that many guilty people, being traditionally trained up in that way, think it is a Gospel-Way; but being so clearly convinced that it is not, it has appeared clear duty to me not to hide my candle under a bushel, but to hold up the light which GOD hath given me, for the good of others. Another motive to my publishing this treatise is this, that when the LORD is carrying on a glorious work for the good of souls at any time, those who stand against it will first try as much as possible to pick some flaw in the preaching or the conduct of his ministers, that he improves to carry it on; but if they cannot get any advantage that way, but are forced to own that some notable things are said or done, then the last shift they have to make is, By what authority dost thou these things? And who gave thee this authority? Matt, xxi, 23; Acts iv, 7. Therefore it has appeared duty to me to show what the authority of CHRIST'S ministers is, and how they come by it; and also by this, to clear my own soul from partaking of the sin of this generation in these things. And while I have been writing upon these points, the work of a Gospel-Minister has opened with fresh clearness and weight to my soul; and has made me cry, Oh! that while I am writing to others, I may never be negligent, but may be made faithful in this

74

Isaac Backus

great work myself! What was mainly upon my mind was to describe the call and the characters of CHRISTS messengers, and how they differ from others; but in prosecuting this theme, I have set down many things that are of common concernment, and if rightly received may be beneficial to all. Let none think me to be an enemy to learning because of what I have said in this book, for true learning is what I highly prize: a clear understanding of the proper use of language, and the meaning of words, whereby men have such a privilege of conveying their ideas to each other, is very beneficial for all; and a clear knowledge of the things of nature, and of the affairs of mankind, etc. is good in its place, and I wish there was much more of it in the world than there is. But then there are a great many notions that some take much time to learn that do no good: and what is worse, it is evident that in our colleges many learn corrupt principles, not only about what makes a minister, but also about what makes a Christian; for it is too notorious to be denied that many scholars that have come out of college of late are rank Arminians. Yet were it not so, it is horrid presumption to pretend to limit the Most High to any schools or bodies of people whatsoever, and to say that he shall have none for his ambassadors but such as men have trained for that purpose in their way. How terrible are those interrogations? Who hath directed the SPIRIT of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? Isai. xl, 13. And again, Who is like me, and who will appoint me the Time? And who is that Shepherd that will stand before me? Surely the least of the Flock shall draw them out, Jer. 1, 44, 45. When I have been writing on these things, sometimes my belly hath been as wine which hath no vent: and to express what was in my heart has been very refreshing, by reason of which this discourse is drawn out to a much greater length than was first designed. And now so many things crowd in upon my mind that I scarce know where to end: but I must break off. Now, kind reader, if thou findest any benefit to thy soul by this treatise, give all the glory unto GOD, and pray for your soul's friend to serve you as GOD shall give opportunity. ISAAC BACKUS.

Middleboro, December 18, 1753.

AN INTERNAL CALL

75

CHAPTER I The Introduction, Showing the Right Use of the Scriptures, and How God's People Are Guided by Them in These Days. And the Main Question Stated and Explained. One very great means that God has been pleased to make use of from the beginning for the recovery and salvation of lost men, has been the preaching of his Word. And therefore in every age he has called and set apart particular men for that purpose. Jude speaks of Enoch's prophesying, Jude xiv. And Noah is called a preacher of righteousness, 2 Pet. ii, 5. And w e are told that God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, Heb. i, 1. And in latter times, though the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness: yet unto them that are saved, it is the Power of God, 1 Cor. i, 18. Hence it is a truth allowed in general b y all persuasions, that the public preaching of the Word is an ordinance of divine appointment. But then there is a great diversity of sentiments about how men are to be qualified and introduced into this great work. Multitudes place their qualifications more in human learning than in divine enlightenings, and place their authority more in being externally called and set apart by men, than in being internally called b y the Spirit of God. Yea, many seem to make no account of the latter, but set it aside as an extraordinary thing, not to be expected in these days. And the main argument that is commonly brought to prove this is, that the Bible is completed, and the days of inspiration are ceased; therefore to hold that any are by the Spirit and power of God in these days, called and sent forth into this work, this they say is giving heed to new revelations: for it is nowhere expressed in Scripture that this or that man is, or ever will be, called to preach the Gospel. But though I believe with all my heart that the canon of the Scripture is full, and that there is a curse denounced against any that shall add to or diminish from it, Rev. xxii, 18, 19: yet I am far from thinking that it is just to conclude from hence that the Lord does not in these days as really call and direct his servants by his Spirit as he did in old time: yea, to deny this is to contradict a great part of the Scriptures, as I trust will hereafter be made to appear. This argument the Papists and many others make use of against assurance, and it is as good there as here; for it

76

Isaac Backus

is no more recorded in Scripture that this or that person in our day is or ever shall be converted than it is that any person is, or shall be called to preach the Gospel. But the truth is, the Scriptures are given as our only perfect rule, which is able to build us up, and to give us an inheritance among all them which are sanctified, through faith which is in Christ Jesus, Acts XX, 32; 2 Tim. iii, 15. And it is the Spirit of God, and that alone that enlightens our minds to understand his word aright, and that shows men their condition and their duty, and guides his people into all truth, John xvi. When He sets home the law upon a sinner's conscience, he is made to know that he is a guilty soul before God, as certainly as if his name was expressed in God's sacred book: for it lays open his particular sins, and charges them home upon his conscience with power; and thus the Word of God becomes a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, Heb. iv, 12. So when a soul has a discovery of Christ he sees Him not only to be a Savior in general, but also that He is just such a Savior as he needs, and God's language to such as find grace in the wilderness is, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee, Jer. xxxi, 2, 3. I know there has been much dispute in our day on this point, i. e. "Whether the first act of saving faith be a believing that Christ is mine, or no." But I apprehend that this similitude, if rightly considered, may help much to clear this matter; namely, Christ's being compared to the sun: The Lord God is a sun —And unto you that fear my Name, shall the Sun of righteousness arise. Psal. Ixxxiv, 1 1 ; Mai. iv, 2. Now the sun in his being, lustre and glory is the object for us to view, but then it is impossible for us to behold it, but its rays appear to point as directly to us as if there was not another person in the world for it to shine upon; and we partake (as it were) of the whole benefit of its influences, and yet 'tis as free for thousands of others as for us. So Jesus Christ in his personal glories and mediatorial fulness, as revealed in the Gospel, is the object of faith; but when any soul is brought to behold his glories, them eternal rays of light and love shine down particularly upon him, to remove his darkness, heal his wounds, and shed immortal blessings on his soul; so that he has a whole savior, and yet still he is free for whosoever will. And thus God also leads his people in duty by applying home his truth, not barely by suggesting particular words into our minds, but

AN I N T E R N A L C A L L

77

by causing divine light to shine into our understandings, and giving us to view his Word as it is, and so applying the truths therein recorded to our particular cases and circumstances. And though many abuse the Scriptures greatly, and words may many times come into their minds without their understandings being enlightened, which they may improve very foreign from, yea contrary to, what was originally designed therein, yet that is no just argument at all against the people of God's having true teaching in this matter; though it shows the importance of taking good heed in the case, and carefully to compare spiritual things with spiritual, and to view the analogy of the Scripture, ι Cor. ii, 13. Some say, that for any of the words of Scripture to be brought in with power upon our minds, and we take them to be the voice of God to us, this is giving heed to new revelations, because them words were spoken to others long ago. But the apostle tells us, Rom. XV, 4, that WHATSOEVER things were written afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. What was spoken to any of God's people of old as directions or commands to duty, is of constant use now to guide his people in like cases; as saith the apostle, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto A L L goods works, 2 Tim. iii, 15-17. The same also may be said of the promises. Here observe how the author to the Hebrews teaches us to improve the Scriptures in this respect. When he was exhorting them saints to persevere in a course of practical religion and to be content with all the allotments of divine Providence, he gives them this ground of support for them to rest upon, viz. "For He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee," Heb. xiii, 5. Now this was a particular promise that was made to Joshua to encourage him to go on boldly in that great work of leading Israel into Canaan, Josh, i, 5. And many of our late teachers would be ready to say that if any should receive comfort from them words coming with power upon their hearts, that they were giving heed to new revelations therein; but the apostle applies it as belonging to all souls in every age that are engaged in the work of God, and in going on in his ways, that they may rest upon it, and may boldly say, The Lord is my Helper, I will not fear what Man can do unto

γ8

Isaac Backus

me: in w h i c h h e brings in also the triumphant l a n g u a g e of holy

David,

as w h a t m a y b e rightly used b y God's p e o p l e in general that cleave near unto Him, Psal, i, 18, 6. I k n o w Scripture l a n g u a g e is a w f u l l y used, and d r e a d f u l l y abused b y m a n y souls; yet that is no argument against using of it in a right manner. B u t I shall not enlarge further here, t h o u g h something of this seemed n e e d f u l to lay the foundation, and to prepare the w a y for the f o l l o w i n g discourse. A n d n o w to come to w h a t is mainly designed in this treatise; I shall lay d o w n this plain assertion, namely, That in order for any man in these days to be truly an ambassador of the he must experience essentially the same internal call that all his messengers did of old, both in the Old Testament and the New.

LORD OF HOSTS,

This I shall first explain a little, and then g o on to prove it! N o w no d o u b t b u t persons in general that are m u c h acquainted w i t h lang u a g e can easily distinguish b e t w e e n the essence of a thing

and

some circumstances and appendages that attend it. A n d in this case, I think, there is a plain distinction to b e m a d e b e t w e e n the essence of the call of the prophets and apostles and some things that attended their call and work. As, 1. Some of them w h e n they w e r e called, h a d a strange visionary discovery of things. Ezekiel

h a d such v i e w of the glory of G o d and

the retinue of his attendants, as w a s v e r y shocking, and m a d e him fall on his f a c e , etc., chap. i. A n d m a n y things of the like nature w e h a v e recorded in Scripture concerning others, w h i c h are not commonly experienced n o w . A n d as to their work, a part of it w a s to write the Scriptures, w h i c h I h a v e no thought that any w i l l b e called to in our days. 2. T h e r e w e r e m a n y miracles and extraordinary things that w e r e w r o u g h t b y them to confirm the truth of the messages they b r o u g h t to those w h o h a d not r e c e i v e d God's revealed mind and w i l l before; at least those parts of it that they then brought. Mark xvi, 20. confirming the Word with signs following.

N o w as to this, and also the extraor-

dinary g i f t of tongues; w h e t h e r they w i l l b e g i v e n or no to God's servants w h e n those nations shall b e b r o u g h t in w h i c h hitherto h a v e not k n o w n the W o r d of the Lord, I leave w i t h H i m that orders all things to determine, and to the consideration of those that are wise of heart.* β I think I once happened to see a printed letter of DR. [ISAAC] WATTS' in which he mentioned Mr. [JONATHAN] EDWARDS' sermon on the Trial of the Spirit,

AN

INTERNAL

CALL

79

Again, there is this to be observed, that in different periods of the Church, the Lord's servants have different works to do in many particulars, according to the different circumstances that the Church is in. Moses had many particular works to do in bringing Israel out of Egypt, and Joshua in leading them into Carman, that none of God's servants had in after ages. The same also might be said concerning their returning from Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple; and again of the abolishing of the Jewish ceremonies, and of building the Gospel Church, etc. Every period may have some things peculiar to that time. But then I fully agree with the excellent Dr. [ A U G U S T H . ] F R A N C K E that "though it cannot be said that every believing Christian must do the very same works which were done by Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others; yet ought everyone to follow the faith of those godly men and to show and exert the same with full power and energy in that state and condition wherein God has placed him, and in those circumstances which are daily offered; and in so doing, he may be fully assured that he also shall see the glory of God as well as they of old did experience the same." f 1 I will illustrate this matter a little farther here by a familiar instance. The apostle Paul's conversion, in the manner and circumstances of it, was uncommon and very extraordinary, Acts ix, 3, etc. A light at noonday shined round him above the brightness of the sun; the Lord spake to him with an audible voice; he was struck to the ground; was struck blind, and eat nothing for three days, etc. Now these are things which persons do not commonly experience when they are converted in our days. And yet the essence and nature of his conversion, as he describes it himself, in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans and the third to the Philippians, is the same that all souls in every age must experience, or they can never enter into the Kingdom of God. So I look upon it in this case: though some things were uncommon in the call and work of the prophets and apostles, yet essentially theirs was the same with all true ministers of Christ in our days, as I shall proceed to prove. preached at New Haven, 1 7 4 1 ; and he approved of the main of the sermon, but withal said, he was not of Mr. EDWARDS' mind about the gift of tongues being ceased, for he believed it would be restored again when the heathen nations should come in. t See his Treatise of the Fear of Man, p. 169.

8o

Isaac Backus CHAPTER II The Proof of the Point, that God's Messengers Now, Have Essentially the Same Internal Call, As They Had of Old; by Four Arguments

The essence of the call of all God's messengers of old, as I take it, was their being, by the work of his Spirit on their hearts, commissioned and sent forth in his name to labor for the recovery and salvation of perishing men. And that men must experience the same before they can truly be ambassadors of Christ now, I think will appear evident from these following considerations: χ. They personate the same eternal God that all His messengers did of old. Moses was bid to tell the people, I AM hath sent me unto you, Exod. iii, 14. And Ezekiel was to say, Thus saith the Lord God, whether they would hear, or whether they would forbear, etc., Ezek. ii, 4, 5. So now in these times, them that have the Word of reconciliation committed to them are ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in CHRIST's stead, be ye reconciled to God, 2 Cor. ν, 20. And surely it is as great a thing to go in the name of the great JEHOVAH, to treat with the children of men now as ever it was. Therefore they have as much need of being particularly and powerfully called and sent by Him now, as heretofore: How shall they preach except they be sent, Rom. x, 15. π. God is as near to his Church now as formerly; and therefore there needs none to be substituted in his room, to choose out, and send forth his ministers. This notion that the ambassadors of the Lord of Hosts now have not their call and commission sealed to them by the divine Spirit as clearly and powerfully as they had of old seems to be founded upon an apprehension that God is gone farther off from his Church in these days than He was then, like a king that visits his subjects in various parts of his dominion and gives them rules and directions concerning their behavior and appoints officers over them, and then returns to his palace and leaves them to choose others afterwards, and so to transact affairs in his absence. But though it is very natural for fallen men to conceive thus of the divine being, yet such things are highly provoking to his sacred majesty. This seems to be the sin that Israel was guilty of in asking them a king. Before that the Lord was near to them whenever they

AN INTERNAL C A L L

8l

sought Him in truth, and did from time to time raise up and send judges and leaders to them, just as He pleased, but they could not bear to have their leaders thus from God, and to be obliged always to go to Him for them. Nay (said they) but let us have a King like the rest of the nations, ι Sam. viii, 5, 7, 19. So that the Lord tells Samuel that in this they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. A putting God afar off is the root of all evil; therefore He sums up the cause of his destroying the Jews by the Babylonian captivity in these words, They say the Lord hath forsaken the earth and the Lord seeth not, Ëzek. ix, 9. And as they put Him far away in other things, so they did particularly in this, of sending forth his messengers, and they held that men were put in to do it in his room. Which appears evident by the letter that Shemaiah the Nebelamite (or Dreamer) sent from Babylon about the same time to Zephaniah and the rest of the priests at Jerusalem saying, The Lord hath made thee priest instead of Jehoiada the priest that ye should be officers in the house of the Lord, for every man that is mad and maketh himself a prophet, that thou shouldest put him in prison and in the stocks. Now therefore, why hast thou not reproved Jeremiah of Anathoth which MAKETH HIMSELF a prophet to you, Jer. xxix, 25, 26, 27. Note also the method that he prescribes for to stop deceivers: it is not by sound doctrine to convince the gainsayers, Tit. i, 9, but with force and cruelty to put them in prison and in the stocks. And such is the method that many have taken in our days. The very body of Antichrist consists in setting man up in Christ's place, as saith the apostle, Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, 2 Thess. ii, 4. Agreeable to which is what Luther says to the Pope (who pleads as much for a succession down from Christ and his apostles, as any do in our land) says he, "How unlike is Christ to his successors? who yet would be his vicars; and I fear many are so too properly. A vicar is of one absent. If the Pope be president, Christ being absent, what is he other than Christ's vicar? But what then is that Church, but a multitude without Christ? And what is such a vicar but Antichrist and an idol?" * And surely there is something of Antichrist in this scheme of holding that what was peculiar to Christ formerly (namely the commisI Sufferers Mirrour, vol. II, p. 7.

82

Isaac Backus

sionating and sending forth his ministers) is now left with men to do. At least here is the Number of his Name, which is the Number of a MAN, Rev. xiii, 13, 18. But though man be set up thus in God's place by many, yet we are told that the Lord hath chosen Ζion: He hath desired it for his habitation (and says) this is my rest FOREVER: here will I dwell, for I have desired it, Psal. cxxxii, 13-16. And here He will call forth, direct and bless his ministers and will yet clothe them with salvation, that the saints may shout aloud for joy. m. The children of men, yea the children of God, are no more capable of choosing out and sending forth meet persons for this great work now than they were in old time. If Samuel, that faithful servant of the Lord, when he was sent by his immediate command to anoint a person for another work was not capable of choosing out the right man himself, yea, though he was told what family he should come out of, then surely God's servants now are not equal to this great work of choosing out and sending forth his messengers from among the vast crowds of the children of men. The reason that the Lord gave to Samuel why he was not fit of himself to choose out a meet person to set over his people, Israel, was because Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, 1 Sam. xvi, 7, and that reason stands as good now as then. Man looks on the outward appearance, and therefore he is always prone to choose the wise, the noble, and learned of this world. But we are told that God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty, and base things of the world and things that are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence, 1 Cor. i, 27, 28, 29. Again, man is not fit for this great work, for he is prone to get proud and selfish, and then he will encourage none but what will suit some selfish interest. See how early this appeared, even in the apostles themselves. And it was soon checked by our Savior. In their journey to Capernaum, the disciples got to disputing who should be greatest. Pride and a notion of greatness was got up, and see how it discovers itself: When Christ asked, what was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? After some pause John answered Him saying, Master we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not US; and we forbid him

AN INTERNAL CALL

83

because he followeth not US. But Jesus said, Forbid him not, for he that is not against us, is on our part, Mark, ix, 33-40. Observe, Christ's disciples were inclined to assume that to themselves then, even when He was personally with them, that multitudes have done in latter days, but you see how sharply He reproves them for it; and can we think that He will allow it in any now? Once more, IV. Another argument that I shall mention to prove that ministers now should have (as to the nature of it) the same call that all God's messengers had of old, is that their work is essentially as great. The work of God's servants heretofore was to go in his name to labor for the recovery and salvation of lost men, and it is the same now. Indeed in that part of their work of writing the Holy Scriptures they laid the foundation, and we are to build thereon. As the Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, Eph. ii, 20. But then as to their work of warning sinners to awake and turn to God, as they would escape eternal wrath. This is as great now as ever it was; and being unfaithful in it is as dreadful as ever. The Lord told Ezekiel that if he did not faithfully warn the wicked, they would die in their iniquity, but their blood should be required at his hand. Nevertheless, if he did faithfully warn them, and they would not turn, then they should die in their iniquity, but he had delivered his soul, Ezek. xxxiii, 8, 9. So ministers in these days are set to watch for souls as those that must give an account, Heb. xiii, 17. And immortal souls are as precious now, and their blood is as dreadful to answer for, as ever it was. O! therefore how can any one dare to enter into this great work at any time without knowing that they are called and commissionated by Him that is able, and faithful to carry them safely through it? Yea, though they were invited into this work by never so many of the children of men. Again, the work of feeding God's flock (that is dear to Him as the apple of his eye) is as great now as ever it was. And as his flock is so peculiarly dear to him, so he has always reserved this prerogative to himself alone, to choose out and appoint meet persons over them to feed them. When our Savior had been speaking of the importance and blessedness of saints standing always on their watch, Peter asked whether He spake that unto them, or even to all. In answer to which

84

Isaac Backus

He spake something to them concerning their particular work, Luke xii, 35-43. And the Lord said, who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom HIS LORD SHALL M A K E RULER OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when He cometh shall find so doing. Here you see that it is the Lord that sets persons over his household, to be stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. iv, 1, and to feed his sheep and lambs, John xxi, 15, 16. Also the apostle plainly holds forth to the elders of the Church of Ephesus that they were set over that flock by the special call and influences of the divine Spirit. Says he, Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the HOLY GHOST hath MADE YOU OVERSEERS, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood, Acts xx, 28. How can it be truly said that a man is set over a flock by the Holy Ghost if they are not called into this work by his special influences? Without this, if all the men in this world should approbate them, yet in God's sight they run before they are sent. I have not sent these prophets (says God), yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied, Jer. xxiii, 21. O ! how many woes does the Lord denounce against false pastors in this chapter? He says they speak peace to his enemies, ver. 17, and prophesy lies in his name; yet, says He, I sent them not, nor commanded them. Therefore they shall not profit this people at all, ver. 32. But He says, He will pour his vengeance on them, and will deliver, and gather his people; and I will set up shepherds over them, which shall feed them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord, ver. 4. Now if we consider what is said in ver. 7, 8, it will appear that what is here said has a peculiar reference to these last times. So again, ver. 20, in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly. And I believe that the time is drawing on more and more when the Lord will deliver his flock from those that devour them instead of feeding of them, Ezek. xxxiv. And He will give them pastors after his own heart, Jer. iii, 15. Now then to sum up these things in few words: Since GospelMinisters now personate the same eternal God that his servants did of old, and since He is present with his Church to send them forth as really now as formerly; since also man is no more fit for it than heretofore, and the work of watching for souls as those that must give account and of feeding God's flock is as great now as ever it

AN INTERNAL CALL

85

was: Therefore I conclude that in order for persons rightly to go into that work in these days they must experience essentially the same call from the Lord of Hosts, that all his messengers did in old time. C H A P T E R III The Nature of This Call Explained In the next place I shall come on to speak something of the nature of this call, and show what it is. But here I would first observe that as in conversation, the Lord deals variously with different persons as to the means he uses and as to the length of time that they are under conviction before the work is accomplished, and also as to many circumstances that attend it, so that no man can lay out an exact method and determine that every soul which is savingly changed must be led exactly in that particular path. Yet, as to the essence of the change, all experience alike that they are truly converted. So it is in a call to preach the Gospel; the means that are used and many circumstances of it, may be very various, but the substance of the call is always the same. One thing more I would also premise before I go on, and that is that it will be necessarily implied in the following discourse, That a man must be a real saint in order to his being truly called of God into this work. I know not how I can express my thoughts better in f e w words on this point than by using the word of another

§2

as followeth,

God has not, indeed, limited the efficacy of ordinances by the character of the dispenser. But yet the Scriptures warrant us to say that wicked ministers run unsent, and that God generally frowns upon and blasts their labors Psal. 1, 16; Jer. xxiii, 21, 22, 23. When souls are entrusted to the slaves of Satan we cannot but dread a bad account of them, for what concern will these feel, or what care will they take, about the salvation of others, who feel no concern for their own salvation? Ministers are men of God, 1 Tim. vi, 11, which surely imports men devoted to his service, conformed to his blessed image, zealous for his honor, animated by his Spirit, and breathing after communion and fellowship with Him. But a man of God living without God in the world! A man of God, whose affections are earthly, sensual, and devilish! a master of Israel ignorant of the new birth! John iii, 10. A guide to Zion walking in the paths that lead to destruction! a soldier of Christ in league with Satan, is a shocking and monstrous absurdity. § See Mr. John Erskine's Sermon before the Synod at Glasgow, 1750, pp. 4, 5.

86

Isaac Backus

Having mentioned these things, I shall now come on to describe what it is to have an internal call to preach the Gospel. There is contained in it a discovery of the present state of God's people, the treasure of the Gospel's being opened and committed to the soul, and God's command therewith to go and feed his sheep and lambs, with such clearness as to answer all objections and sweetly and powerfully to constrain the person to go into that great work. ι. There is a discovery of the present state of God's people. This is absolutely necessary in order for a man's being able rightly to perform his work. The work of God's messengers is compared to that of a watchman both in the Old Testament and New, Ezek. xxxiii, and Heb. xiii, etc. Now it is essentially necessary, in order for a watchman rightly to perform his work, that he be first set where he can clearly view the state and circumstances of the army, that he may see where they are exposed, and when the enemy is coming in. How absurd a thing it would be for to set a man for a watchman that was blind, or to set one in a place where he could see little or nothing of the case of the people? Every whit as absurd is it to set a man to watch for souls who never was spiritually enlightened from above and brought to see the present case of the Church, and of the world of mankind as it is. Christ says of the Pharisees, They be blind leaders of the blind; and therefore they were all like to fall into the ditch, Matt, xv, 14. And they showed their blindness greatly in this, that they did not discern that time, chap, xvi, 3; and therefore they cried out against the great friend of God's people, even the Son of God Himself, instead of warning them against their enemies. Now this blindness was not the want of human wisdom and learning, for they had much of that. But it was the want of spiritual and divine illuminations, as appears evident from Luke x, 21. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes, etc. Indeed every saint has some views of these things, but to those which the Lord calls to be his watchmen, He gives more special and clear discoveries of them. And we may see something of this in the various calls that we have a particular account of in Scripture. When the Lord called Moses to go and lead Israel out of Egypt, he showed him clearly the condition that they lay in and what he now designed concerning them. Says He, I have heard the cry of thy brethren under their bondage and am come down to deliver them,

AN INTERNAL CALL

87

Exod. iii, 7, etc. So when the Lord came to call Jeremiah he sets before him the awful case and condition that the Jews were then in and the dreadful desolations that were coming upon them, Jer. i, 14, etc. The same He also showed to Ezekiel, Ezek. ii. This w e may also observe in the N e w Testament: in Matt, ix, latter end, our Savior shows his disciples how that the fields were white to the harvest, but the laborers were jew: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers. That is, He gave them a view of the condition that immortal souls lay in then to stir up their souls to thirst for their deliverance and to cry for their help: and the next thing is He sends them forth to labor in this field as you may see in the beginning of the next chapter. The like you may see in Luke x, where it appears that not only the twelve, but the seventy were thus sent. II. In this call there is contained a having the treasure of the Gospel opened and committed to the soul. How can they preach except they be sent? as it is written, how beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things, Rom. χ, 15. Here the apostle shows, not only the necessity of their being sent in order for them to preach aright, but also that those which are sent, have the treasure of the Gospel and glad tidings committed to them to bring to immortal souls. W h e n the Lord sends any He gives them their errand: Go (says He to Moses) and gather the elders of Israel together and say unto them the Lord God of your fathers . . . appeared unto me saying, I have surely visited you and seen that which is done to you in Egypt. And I have said I will bring you out of the affliction of Egypt unto the Land of the Canaanites, etc., Exod. iii, 16. This having the GospelTreasure committed to us is compared to receiving and eating food. Thy words were found (says Jeremiah) and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart, Jer. xv, 16. And the Lord says to Ezekiel, Son of man eat that thou findest; eat this roll and go speak unto the house of Israel, Ezek. iii, 1. And I apprehend that John's eating the little book and then being told that he must prophesy before many people and nations and tongues and kings, Rev. x, 10, 11, implies in it something more than just his personal ministry and that it reaches to all those that shall be called forth as God's messengers afterwards, even until time shall be no longer, ver. 6, and till the Mystery of God shall be finished, ver. 7. I know it is said of saints in general that they shall not live by bread

88

Isaac Backus

alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matt, iv, 4. But his ministers not only eat it for their own souls nourishment, but they receive, as it were, the whole treasure of the Word, to feed others with also. Hence the Lord says to Ezekiel, Fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee, Ezek. iii, 3. And the apostle compares it to a vessel's being filled with food or treasure to feed others with: We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us, 2 Cor. iv, 7. By the treasure of the Gospel's being committed to men I would not be understood to hold forth that they have an inherent stock given them so that they can do without constant supplies from above. No, by no means. For without constant supplies from Christ, as the branch has from the vine, we can do nothing, John xv. And to allude to the similitude just now mentioned, we can no more feed God's people aright without his constant help than an earthen vessel could convey food to a multitude and distribute to each one their portion, without a living hand to use it. But yet each one that God sends has his promise that He will be with them always, even unto the end of the world, Matt, xxviii, 20. And that his grace shall be sufficient for them, 2 Cor. xii, 9. Therefore I will mention one similitude more and that is they are called stewards: stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. iv, 1. And stewards over God's household, to give them their portion of meat in due season, Luke xii, 42. Now the provisions for the household are laid up in the covenant of grace in Christ Jesus, but every one of his ministers have the key of God's promise by which he may (so to speak) unlock this glorious storehouse and find grace to help in every time of need, Heb. iv, 16. So that being strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. ii, 1, he may show himself a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, ver. 15. III. When a person has thus a discovery of the present state of mankind and has the treasures of God's Word committed to him, God's command comes therewith in such clearness as to answer all objections, and sweetly and powerfully to constrain him to go into this great work. Now it is plain that wherever the Lord gives a talent or talents, to any souls He commands them to improve it faithfully, Matt. xxv, 14, etc.; Luke xix, 13. His command is, As every man received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God, 1 Pet. iv, 10.

AN I N T E R N A L C A L L

89

But now a soul that is brought to view the state of the children of men and to see the greatness of this work, though he longs for their salvation more than for any thing in this world, yet nature will struggle and many objections will be ready to arise in his mind against going. Moses, pleaded his meanness that he was not eloquent, and that the people would not believe that God had sent him, etc. But the Lord answers him by showing the fulness of help that is in himself, and promising to be with him to carry him through that weighty work. And by his divine authority He overpowered all his objections and constrained Moses to obey Him, see Exod. iv. So Jeremiah says, Ah, Lord God, behold I cannot speak, for I am a child. But the Lord removes all his objections with his command, and his promise (which are ever joined together in new-covenant language) say not I am a child, for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces, for I am with thee, to deliver thee, saith the Lord, Jer. i, 6, 7, 8. I observed above that the Lord deals variously with different persons as to the means and manner of their call; but something of the nature of these things is experienced by every one that He sends forth. They have such views of the condition that immortal souls are in and of the glories of divine truth that they are constrained by divine power and are animated by love to and zeal for, the good of the children of men to go and (like Apollos) to speak and teach diligently of the things of the Lord, and that not only in private but also boldly in the synagogue, Acts xviii, 24, 25, 26. Or in great assemblies when they can have opportunity. Which is one great means by which God's people obtain satisfaction of their being sent of Him and so bid them Godspeed, as Aquila, and Priscilla, and the brethren at Ephesus did to Apollos, ver. 27. C H A P T E R IV Marks by Which Christ's Ministers May Be Known from All Others It is likely that many when they read this discourse may be ready to say that to hold such a call as I plead for will open a door for intruders, for many deluded souls may fancy themselves called of God and how can we know who are called of God and who not?

go

Isaac Backus

Answer, Christ's ministers may be known from all deceivers under Heaven; First, by their declaring the whole counsel of God. Secondly, by their lives being agreeable thereto. Thirdly, by their Master's coming with them and assisting, and blessing of them in their labors. First. They may be known by their preaching the whole counsel of God. Paul says of himself and his companions, We are not as many that corrupt the Word of God, 2 Cor. ii, 17. And again, We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestations of the truth, commending our selves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, chap iv, 2. Without a man brings this, all the commendations that man can give will never satisfy a serious person's conscience that they are sent of God. 'Tis the voice of a stranger that Christ's sheep will not follow, John x. One great difference between true and false teachers lies in the manner of their attempting the change and reformation of men. All hold that men should be Holy, and therefore teachers in general, will in some sort labor to make them so. But then one begins at the outside and the other within. Ignorant blind guides will call sinners to break off from gross sins, to reform their lives, and make a profession of religion, and the like, and then tell them that they are safe enough, at least that they are in a fair way, and so they heal the Hurt of the Daughter of GocTs People slightly, saying Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace, Jer. viii, 1 1 . But God's faithful servants call men to make them a new heart and a new Spirit as they would escape eternal death, Ezek. xviii, 31. And also tell them that the Lord freely offers to do this great work for them, chap, xxxvi, 26. This difference is remarkable, clearly described by our Savior, in his discourse to the Jewish teachers. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse FDRST that which is within, that the outside may be clean also, Matt, xxiii, 26. Here observe both are for cleansing but one would begin ( and indeed always continue) upon the outside, but the other begins at the heart. Men must be created anew in Christ Jesus in order for to do good works, Eph. ii, 10. Hence faithful ministers earnestly persuade souls to fly immediately to Christ and make no delay. They tell them, Behold, now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation, 2 Cor. vi, 1. And today, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts lest the Lord swear in His wrath that you shall not enter into his rest, Heb. iii, 7, 8, 1 1 . But blind guides set persons a long task of

AN INTERNAL CALL

Q1

seeking and striving and give them encouragement that if they are found in the way of means, they shall obtain salvation by and by; and thus they (like the Pharisees of old) set them to follow after righteousness in a way that they are never like to attain unto the law of righteousness and for this reason, because they seek it not by faith but as it were by the deeds of the law, Rom. ix, 31, 32. They sew pillows to all armholes, Ezek. xiii, 18, for souls to ease themselves upon though they hang over Hell, and will apply the promises in a false manner; as for instance that promise in James i, 5. If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. This they will apply to sinners without telling them that they must ask in faith or not expect to receive any thing from the Lord as the next words show, ver. 6, 7. Objection. But what would you have us say to sinners that do not believe? Must we bid them go on in sin till God will convert them? Answer. No, by no means; but call them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that they may be saved, Acts xvi, 31. Objection. But they cannot believe. Answer. Neither can they do good works, for without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. xi, 6. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. xiv, 23. Objection. But, however, is it not better to tell sinners to do as well as they can? Answer. Wouldest thou settle them down on their own works and so to lie under the curse of God's law? Gal. iii, 10. In short, the case lies here: Sinners will not come to Christ that they might have life, John v, 40. But they are putting off till a more convenient season, Acts xxiv, 25. And they want to know which is best, either to go on in duties or in open rebellion till that season comes. But there is no place at all to rest in out of Christ; for he that believeth not is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him, John iii, 18, 36. Therefore sinners are to be warned to fly for their lives and not to tarry lest they be consumed, Gen. xix. I mean not to beat souls off from the use of means; but I would beat them off from resting in any thing short of a living union to Christ by which alone they can have any safety. If the manslayer should have fled never so far, yea, even to the gate of the city of refuge, and then had set down without the walls, he would have been as much exposed to be slain as if he had never gone a step, Num. xxxv, 11, 27.

92

Isaac Backus

And as there is a great difference between true and false teachers in the manner of their attempting to turn men to God, so there is as much difference between them in the way of their holding forth the terms of acceptance with Him. The one declares that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, Rom. iii, 28. And that we are accepted only in the Beloved, Eph. i, 6. The other sets souls to doing as well as they can and to prepare themselves for Christ, and wait in the way of duty, and they may humbly hope that God will accept them, and show them mercy by and by: it may be on a sick bed or just as they are going into eternity. Indeed, they do not tell souls right off in plain terms that they must be justified by their own works, but they go about to establish a righteousness of their own, Rom. x, 3. And seek justification as it were by the deeds of the law, chap, ix, 31. The false teachers among the Galatians would mention something about Christ, but then they insisted on their doing some works of the law in order for acceptance with Him, and so they preached another Gospel which is not another, but they would pervert the Gospel of Christ, Gal. i, 6, 7. The Gospel holds forth pardon, justification, and renewing grace entirely as a free gift from God, Eph. ii, 8, 9, 10. And the preparatory work before conversion is quite another thing than many conceive it to be. Many teachers represent this to be a fitness, and some good qualifications that a person must get in himself before he may think to come to Christ, and so they (as it were) set souls to buy Christ by their tears, repentings, etc. that Christ may buy salvation for them. The preparatory work that is wrought in the soul before conversion is no more of an excellency in the creature, or fitness for grace and mercy than a man's being brought to see and feel himself full of sores and dreadful diseases is any qualification in him to be healed, Luke xii, 32. Or than a man's seeing that he is so involved in debt that he can no ways deliver himself is any fitness in him to have his debts all forgiven, Luke vii, 42. Every sinner's case before he comes to Christ is much like that of the woman with a bloody issue: She had suffered many things of many physicians and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse; then when she heard of Jesus, she came and was healed, Mark v, 26, 27. So sinners that are polluted in their blood, Ezek. xvi, 6, must be made to feel that notwithstanding all that they can do for themselves, or that others can do for them, their case grows worse before they will accept of Christ as He is offered in the Gospel.

AN INTERNAL C A L L

93

Once more, as there is a great difference between true and false ministers in the manner of their essaying to turn men to God and in their teaching how they may be reconciled with Him, so there is a great difference in the method of their persuading saints to walk in his ways. Christ's ministers ever hold forth his example, his dying love, and the glorious victory that He has gained as the darling motives to persuade his disciples to walk in holiness. When Paul would give a full answer to that grand objection against the doctrines of grace, that they lead to licentiousness he shows that as Christ died unto sin once and rose again, so we should reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. vi. And he tells the Corinthians that the love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all, then were all dead, and that He died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto Him which died for them and rose again, 2 Cor. v, 14,15. But legal teachers, though they mention Christ sometimes, yet their common way of pressing home duty upon God's people is by representing the danger of perishing if they do not persevere in a way of obedience. Like the Judaizing teachers that told the saints that except they kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved, which the apostles call a subverting their souls, Acts xv, 24. And by the same means some teachers among the Galatians brought them Christians into bondage; for which reason Paul says he would they were even cut off which troubled them. For (says he) brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, Gal. v, 12, 13. Saints have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear but have received the spirit of adoption whereby they cry Abba Father, Rom. viii, 15. Indeed there is two sorts of fear, the one right, the other wrong; one flows from a knowledge of God's goodness (There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared, Ρsal. cxxx, 4.) The other from guilt and an apprehension of God's anger (I heard thy voice, and I was afraid, Gen. iii, 10.) One of these is a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death and it has strong confidence in it, Prov. xiv, 26, 27. The other keeps the soul always in slavery: Through fear of death, they are all their life time subject to bondage, Heb. ii, 15. On the other hand there are some teachers, as well as hearers, that will exclaim against legality, and pretend to cry up free grace greatly

94

Isaac Backus

while in reality they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, Jude iv. And though they make a great sound of liberty, yet they are in truth the servants of corruption, 2 Pet. ii, 19. But the liberty of God's people is to walk in his precepts, Psal. cxix, 45. And therefore Christ's messengers teach that not only the law from Mount Sinai but also the grace of God that brings salvation, teaches us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, and that they which have believed in the Lord should be careful to maintain good works, Tit. ii, n , 12 and iii, 8.

Farther, false preachers are like Pharaoh's taskmasters who required the full tale of bricks but gave them no straw, Exod. v, 10. They lay heavy burdens on mens shoulders but will not touch them with one of their fingers, Matt, xxiii, 4. But the messengers of Christ, not only lay open what our duty is, but also where our strength lies to perform it, even in Christ as the life of the branch is in the vine, and that through His strengthening of us we can do all things, Phil, iv, 13. That if any man abides in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son, and he that brings not this doctrine we must not receive into our houses, nor bid him Godspeed, 2 John ix, 10. Thus I have just hinted at some few of the most essential points of truth by which God's messengers may be known in their doctrine from all deceivers. I come Secondly. To show, that another mark by which Christ's true ambassadors may be known from all deceivers is by their practicing what they preach. Elders are to be ensamples to the flock, 1 Pet. v, 3. And Paul could appeal to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii, 5, 6, 8, 10, that they were witnesses and God also, how holily, justly, and unblamably he and his companions had behaved among them so that while others were after the fleece instead of the flock, he could appeal to God, that they had not used a cloak of covetousness nor sought glory of men but the motive they were influenced by was such a love to their souls and desire for their salvation that they were willing not to impart the Gospel only but their own souls also unto them. Corrupt ministers often are discovered by their sloth and fleshly indulgencies; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Come, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink, and tomorrow shall be as this day and much more abundant, Isai, Ivi, 10,

AN INTERNAL CALL

g5

12. They do not search after the flock; but they feed themselves instead of the flock, Ezek. xxxiv. But the Lord's servants approve themselves as His ministers in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings, etc., 2 Cor. vi, 4, 5, 6. Again, false messengers will frame their messages and their religion so as to please carnal men and to get the honors of this world. Woe unto you (says Christ) when all men shall speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets, Luke vi, 22, 26. But to his disciples He says, Blessed are ye when men shall hate you and reproach you, etc. Objection. But we are told that it is a necessary qualification for a Gospel-Minister that he have a good report of them that are without, 1 Tim. iii, 7. Answer. The apostle there is speaking of men's moral conduct, of being sober, not given to wine, not a brawler, nor covetous, etc. But our Savior is speaking of their religion and the manner of their preaching. Therefore these two may be clearly united in the same person as it was in Daniel. His enemies, though they hated him, yet were forced to confess that they should find nothing against him except it was concerning the law of his God, Dan. vi, 5. So that, in one word, he that has not his moral conduct in a good measure clear before the world, is not fit for an officer in the Church of God. And on the other hand, he that has his religion and his preaching framed in such a manner as to gain the applause of the world is in a woeful case. Thirdly. Christ's messengers may be known by their Master's coming with them to assist and bless them in their labors. This is promised in their commission: Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world, Matt, xxviii, 20. By Him they are assisted to preach not with inviting words of man's wisdom but in demonstrations of the Spirit, and of power, 1 Cor. ii, 4. And by this the Lord said his messengers should be known of old when many run before they were sent. Says He, The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word let him speak my word faithfully. Is not my word like fire? saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces, Jer. xxiii, 28, 29. And when the Lord appears with his servants, and blesseth their labors for the conviction and conversion of souls, it is a more sure proof that they are sent of Him than if they

g6

Isaac Backus

had all the letters of commendation that men could write. We need not (says Paul to the Corinthians) epistles of commendation to you or from you. Ye are our epistle, etc., 2 Cor. iii, 1, 2, 3. And again he says, If I be not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you, for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. ix, 2. But there are two objections that are often mentioned to disprove this mark. One is that it will condemn some of God's faithful servants in old time who were sent to make hard hearts harder and blind eyes blinder. Answer. How can you harden iron but only by first heating of it? And how are God's servants sent to harden sinners, but only by being faithful to them; and then they, by resisting conviction and warnings, harden their own hearts against God and his truth. Thus Pharaoh hardened his heart from time to time. He was struck under conviction by Moses' preaching and working miracles and then turned and resisted it and so hardened his heart more and more, see Exod. viii, 8, 15, etc. And thus all the Lord's servants, while they are a savor of life to some, they are a savor of death to others, 2 Cor. ii, 16. But then this makes nothing against the mark that we are pleading for, for those who harden their hearts against God and his truth, are not likely to receive his messengers. But those that embrace Christ, will know and receive them that He sends, Matt, x, 41. The other objection that many urge against this mark is that deceivers may do great things, prophesy, cast out devils, etc. and therefore we cannot know Christ's servants by their assistance and success. Answer. It is true, that Balaam had the Spirit of God upon him for a while and spake wonderfully; and Saul was among the prophets, etc. But then they were soon discovered by their fruits. Yea in the very time of their prophesying there appeared plain marks of a corrupt disposition of mind and that what they did was contrary to their soul's choice. Balaam loved the wages of unrighteousness, 2 Pet. ii, 15, which plainly appeared then by his going from place to place to try if God would not alter his mind so that He might curse Israel at last, and get Balack's reward, Num. xxiii. And it appeared plain that what Saul was after was to kill David, but the Spirit of God came upon him so that he could not do it, 1 Sam. xiv, 23, 24. The Spirit of God may sometimes bless what is spoken by corrupt men for the good of others, but I believe not so commonly as many would

AN INTERNAL C A L L

97

represent; and this point of false-hearted men's doing great things on the bodies and souls of men, I think is strained vastly beyond what is true by many in this generation. Many say that deceivers may work miracles and convert many souls, etc. And they will quote such places to prove it as that in Matt. vii, 22. Many will say, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And that in 1 Cor. xiii, 2. Though I have the gift of prophecy, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. But after a great deal of searching the Scriptures and seeking divine instructions in these things, it appears to me that in that place of our Savior He is showing persons deceptions and false confidence rather than that it was indeed so. They say, Have we not cast out devils, etc. Christ does not say they had, but says, I know you not, depart from me. And in that passage of the apostle he is showing how far charity (or divine love) exceeds all gifts that men may have here, and that if persons could have all those gifts to the highest degree and yet had no charity it would profit them nothing. Yea, he also prefers charity above saving faith and a good hope, ver. 13. But then if we consider what he says in the foregoing chapter concerning gifts, I think it will appear plain that the apostle is speaking of the gifts that belong to saints that are all of one body and have all been made to drink into one spirit, ver. 12, 13, and not of what deluded souls may have. But as to corrupt men's working miracles and doing much good to others, though their heart be not right with God, I believe that they and others are generally as much deceived about the good that they do as they are about their being true men. Christ says, Take heed that no man deceive you, for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders insomuch that ( if it were possible ) they shall DECEIVE the very elect, Matt, xxiv, 4, 24. The signs and wonders are false as well as the men that do them. Which appears more evident if we compare this with what Paul says to the Thessalonians concerning the same enemy: Says he, Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and LYING wonders and with all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness in them that perish, 2 Thess. ii, 9, xo. Thus I have in simplicity spoken my mind upon these things: and considering what is spoken concerning Sceva's sons attempting to

g8

Isaac Backus

cast out devils in Christ's name and the confusion that they met with therein, Acts xix, 13-16. And on the other hand, that those who did in reality cast them out in Christ's name, He tells them to rejoice that their names were written in Heaven, Luke x, 17, 20. I say, considering these and many other such like things in Scripture, I must freely own that it appears to me a very hard thing to prove that in reality there ever was such a thing as an unsanctified man's being properly the instrument of healing any person's body that was possessed with the Devil, in a miraculous way. But this is not so much to our present purpose, for the healing of men's bodies is but a small thing to the healing of the soul which is the main thing that I am after. Therefore to return: This point still stands good, that it is one very clear proof that a man is sent of God to preach the Gospel when his Master comes with him and assists and blesseth him in his labors for the conversion and edification of souls. And whatever may be said of unconverted men's having the Spirit of God upon them and of their speaking wonderfully, yet men must raise a pretty many texts out of the Bible before they can make that doctrine to stand good which many assert, That a man may be instrumental of turning many to God, and yet may afterwards perish forever. What will these men do with such texts as that in Prov. xi, 30: He that winneth souls is wise, and they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and everΡ Dan. xii, 3. Indeed this, as well as other truths, may, and undoubtedly is, abused by some, as when any hold that when the Lord is with and blesseth a person that then all which they hold and practice is right. This is a very gross mistake, for men are always (in a greater or less degree) imperfect, both in their principles and practice while in this imperfect state. But then it is the strongest proof that we can have that a man is sent of God into this work when the Lord himself comes with him and says to him ( as He does to all his messengers ) He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me, Matt, x, 40. This head includes both of the others, for a man cannot preach God's truth clearly and as he ought nor practice agreeable thereto, neither is he like to be successful in his labors, without having God present with him. The Lord says of Levi, He walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity, Mai. ii, 6.

AN INTERNAL CALL

99

CHAPTER V OBJECTIONS Answered When any point of truth is held up which has been generally shut out by mankind in time past, it is a common thing to have many objections raised against it. Therefore (though I know that a man may as easily stop the winds from blowing with his words as to still all the cavils of such as do not love to receive the truth, yet for the good of persons that have a more serious mind) I will here set down as short and clear an answer as I can to the most material objections that I have heard mentioned against the call which I have been pleading for in this discourse. Objection 1. In this discourse you seem to set them which you hold to be Christ's ministers up equal to the prophets and apostles who were called in an extraordinary way. Answer 1. All true ministers of Christ now are sent forth by the same eternal God that the prophets and apostles were, and therefore they have their call and commission made clear and sealed to them by the work of the same Spirit on their hearts, and those that have not this, let them not pretend to be messengers from the same divine King. But then I observed before that there were some things in the call and work of God's servants of old that we have not now, especially in their being called and inspired to write the Scriptures. Yet we may, and ought to, reach after as great and greater degrees of grace and strength to act for God and to labor for the advancement of his kingdom than they had in old time. David was an eminent servant of the Lord and did wonders among his people, but yet God says concerning his Church in latter times that the feeble among them at that day shall be as David, and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them, Zech. xii, 8. Answer 2. I will appeal to all men of reason and conscience to judge who sets themselves up equal to (nay above) the prophets and apostles, those who hold that they are not fit to be God's counsellors nor to appoint whom He shall have for his messengers, but that they are only to own and receive whomsoever He sends, or they which declare that the power is now left in their hands to authorize GospelMinisters, and that all who preach without their license run before they are sent, which power never was given to the servants of God

loo

Isaac Backus

heretofore, and when the disciples went to assume it Christ severely checked them therefor, Mark ix, 38, 39. Objection n. But the apostle seems to hold forth that since the days of inspiration are ceased, the work is put into the hands of ministers to ordain others and so the power is transmitted down in an ordinary way; hence he says to Timothy, the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, 2 Tim. ii, 2. Answer. This text proves clearly, that Gospel-Ministers should be ordained and publicly set apart in the Church, and I have no where denied it. Also it gives the character of the persons that are to be ordained. They must be faithful men full of faith and the Holy Ghost, Acts vi, 5. Which at once cuts off the notion of unconverted men's being ministers of Christ. They are called of God and made faithful in his work before they can be rightly received and ordained officers in his Church. Now as to where the right of ordination lies, whether in ministers by themselves or in them and the Church as a united body together, this is another question which I shall not enter upon here. 0 A man's being internally called of God is one thing, and his being openly received and set apart in the Church is quite another. And I defy all men under Heaven to prove from Scripture that God has any more left it in the hands of any mortal men whatsoever to say who shall be his ministers and who not than he has to say who shall be his children and who not. The argument that is raised from the Scriptures being complete is as good in one case as the other. For it is no more recorded in the Bible that this or that person is, or ever shall be, converted than it is that this or that man is, or shall be, called to preach the Gospel. W e have plain marks given us whereby we may know them that the Lord has called into the kingdom of his grace, and so we have also rules whereby we may know them that He has called to be his messengers. But if it be true that the Lord does not now, by his divine Spirit, as really show his children their standing or their duty and the work that He calls them to, as He did to his servants of old, then why do we talk of the Bible's being a privilege, for we are vastly worse of it than they were before it was written? Alas! the darkness that has overspread the world in these days! Darkness that may be felt. Yet * See this point clearly handled in Ebenezer Frothingham's Discourse on the Privileges of the Church of Christ, printed at Newport, 1750, pp. 163-204.

AN INTERNAL CALL

ΙΟΙ

blessed be the Lord, He will cause his light and glory to shine upon his people though darkness covers the earth, etc. Isai. lx. Objection ux. Some may yet say that to hold to such an internal call as this will destroy all order in the Church, for when men get a notion that they are called of God they will not only preach but also administer the ordinances and run into all manner of confusion and none can control them. Answer 1. This is no just consequence at all, for it is plain that the Holy Ghost commanded the Church at Antioch to separate two men for a work whereunto He had called them, which was to go and preach and baptize among the Gentiles. In obedience to which the Church publicly ordained them, Acts xiii, 2, 3. And yet one of them persons tells us that long before this he had such a call by God's Spirit, that he did not confer with flesh and blood, neither go to them that were apostles before him, but he went directly to preaching, Gal. i, 15, 16,17. Answer 2. The reason and nature of the thing shows plainly that holding to an internal call no ways invalidates external ordination in the least; for as when a soul is converted, though he had an internal right to all privileges of the Church of Christ yet he has not an external right thereto till he is openly received as a member. So a person that is called to preach, has not a right to act in those things which are peculiar to an officer in the Church till he is publicly set apart therein. Praying, exhorting, and preaching, though they are duties to be performed in the Church, yet they are not so confined thereto but that they may be rightly performed where there is no particular Church at all. Which might be easily shown, were it needful to stand upon it. But the administering of special ordinances and acting in church discipline are things peculiar to a visible church and therefore we cannot clearly act in them without we have a visible standing therein as an officer or a member. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 1 Cor. v, 12. Objection TV. But if you hold that you have the same call with the prophets and apostles, why don't you work miracles as they did to confirm your mission? Answer. I hinted before that many miracles and great things which were wrought by God's servants of old were chiefly done to confirm the truth of the tidings which they brought to such as had not received

102

Isaac Backus

those parts of God's Word before. Thus the apostle to the Hebrews, in mentioning the great salvation which began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, says, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, Heb. ii, 3, 4. So when the apostles first went forth the Lord confirmed the WORD with signs following, Mark xvi, 20. From which it plainly appears that those things were chiefly given to confirm the messages which they brought though undoubtedly there was a confirmation of the messengers' mission contained therein. But in our days, when men declare things concerning the great salvation, unbelievers have as good reason to demand a miracle to prove that what they say is true as cavilers have to say, "If you are thus sent forth by the Lord, confirm your mission by some extraordinary sign." And further, it is very evident that the apostles looked upon their success in converting souls to be a far greater and more certain proof of their being sent of God than all the miracles which they wrought on men's bodies. Thus when Paul would mention to the Corinthians an undeniable evidence of his being an apostle of Christ he says, The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord, 1 Cor. ix, 2 and 2 Cor. iii, 1-3. So that those who have the Scripture marks which are mentioned above bring the clearest evidences of their being sent of Christ that we can have. Objection v. You speak much concerning a minister's call but say little about his qualifications which is the main thing, for a man must have learning and the understanding of the original tongues or else he does not know whether he preaches right or wrong. Answer 1. If a man's having the treasure of God's Word opened and committed to his soul and having such a view of the worth of souls as to be constrained by divine power and love to go and spend his life and strength for God's glory and in laboring for their good, 2 Cor. v, 14; John xxi, 15, 16, 17; 2 Cor. xii, 15, I say, if these things are not Gospel qualifications, I know not what are; yea such necessary qualifications as that without them, if a man had all the learning that men can give, he would be no ways fit for this great work. Answer 2. As to the knowledge of the original tongues, though I do not despise it, for no doubt that may be improved to some benefit under the influence of the Spirit of God, yet I am far from thinking it to be so essentially necessary as many would represent. For though I have heard many (both ministers and others) assert that without the knowledge of the original tongues a man could not

AN INTERNAL CALL

I03

know whether he preached truth or falsehood, yet I shall not only assert, but prove, that every saint now has the same way to know the truth and certainty of God's Word that his people had of old, without which all the learning in this world will never bring any man to know certainly the truth of the Scriptures. Christ told his disciples that the Spirit of Truth would guide them into all truth, John xvi, 13. And when the Jews said of Him, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Christ ( after asserting that his doctrine was not his own but his that sent Him ) says, If any man will do his will, he shall KNOW of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself, John vii, 17. The way that the Thessalonians knew and received the Gospel not as the word of man but (as it is in truth) the Word of God was by its coming to them in power, and in the HOLY GHOST, and in much assurance, 1 Thess. ii, 13 and i, 5. Once more, Paul tells the Corinthians (who reckoned as much upon learning and wisdom as many do in this day) That he determined to know nothing among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and (says he) my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the spirit and of power. And again, What man knows the things of a man save the spirit of man that is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. ii, 2, 4, 11-14. This is the only way by which God's people in every age have known the truth and certainty of his Word which hath been given in to by Protestants in general both at home and abroad since the reformation. The Westminster Confession of Faith, after mentioning sundry arguments that may induce us to believe the Scriptures, say, "Yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts," chap. 1, sect. 5. If we cannot know certainly that the Bible is true without understanding of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (which Pilate set over Christ's head when he was crucified, Luke xxiii, 38; Matt, xxvii, 37), then alas!

104

Isaac Backus

we are in a woeful case indeed, for ( according to this ) if we hear a man preach that says he knows not only them tongues but twenty more beside, and he tells us that this or that is truth, we have only a man's testimony for it. And God says we worship Him in vain when our fear is taught by the precepts of men, Isai. xxix, 13 compared with Matt. XV, 9. But it is the common privilege of God's people ( and then much more of his messengers ) to have the divine Spirit given them, to seal his truth to their hearts without which, if a person has never so many of the learned tongues, how does he know that them books which we call the Word of God are not cunningly devised fables and nothing but a piece of priestcraft? as some men of great human learning really call them. Or, if he allows that they were first written by the direction of God's Spirit, yet how does he know that they have not been altered since, for he has not the first copies? If it should be said that great care has been taken to transmit them down to us without any alteration, I answer, so has there been great care and pains used in translating them into our language as exactly as possible. As for the argument that many bring from the apostles having the miraculous gift of tongues given them to prepare them to preach among the gentiles for to prove that men must learn the tongues now before they may preach among us, I can see no reason in it at all. To them was given the knowledge of the people's language that they were to preach to, and so undoubtedly persons now must have some clear understanding of the meaning and use of the tongue he speaks in or else he will be a barbarian to his hearers and they to him, 1 Cor. xiv, 11. This argument is much stronger to prove that men in our land ought to learn the Indian tongue, or other languages in these parts of the world, before they preach that they might be able to hold forth salvation to such poor souls than it is to prove that men must learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin before they may preach to English hearers. But some will say that though the Bible is very well translated into our language, yet a clear understanding of the original tongues may be of benefit as a person thereby may be able to view the different readings that there are in some places, and so may illustrate some things more clearly than others can. To which I reply that I allowed this before, that such knowledge may by the help of the divine Spirit, be improved for the good of others. But then it is no argument against every one's improving the gift which God has given him, for each soul will have a dreadful account to give up, if they do not faithfully improve every talent which their

AN INTERNAL CALL

IO5

Master hath given into their hands, Matt, xxv, 15; Luke xix, 13. Yet let no man pretend to what he has not nor put what he has in a wrong place, both of which are abomination to the Lord. Spare me a word to each of these, and I will have done with this head. First, Let no man pretend to that he has not, which certainly is the case of some, if not many, in this land with regard to this matter. They pretend that none may preach without they understand the original tongues, and yet many take their degrees at college and are ordained, who have no clear understanding of the Hebrew tongue at all (in which above half the Bible was written) so that, according to their own plea, they must never preach out of the Old Testament. If they do, they know not whether they preach right or wrong. And further, sundry persons that have gone through the college and are well acquainted with these things I have heard own that there is not one to ten among their scholars that are such masters of the original tongues as to be able to make any corrections if in any places the scriptures are not translated exactly right. But they possibly will read the remarks of some learned expositor (which common Englishmen can read) and then impose upon the common people, with a pretence of knowing much about the original of the Bible. Secondly, Again, what learning men have is often put in a wrong place, namely, to supply the want of the Spirit of God, w h o alone can teach us all things, as no man can teach us, 1 John, ii, 27. But the world by wisdom knew not God, 1 Cor. i, 21. Many seem to make more of human wisdom and learning than of the Spirit of God to lead them into an understanding of His Word, which naturally leads to that which Isaiah speaks of, that in a great measure is actually the case in our day, to wit, That the mysteries of the Scriptures become to all as a sealed book which the unlearned say they cannot read because it is sealed. Therefore (the Lord said) behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work amongst this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, who seeth us and who knoweth us. Surely your turning things upside down shall be esteemed as potters clay. In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the Book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the POOR among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel, Isai. xxix, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19. One objection more I will speak to and then draw to a close.

io6

Isaac Backus

Objection vi. Many enthusiasts and deluded people have held to such a call as you speak of, but none that have been accounted sound and orthodox divines in latter days have pretended to any such thing. Answer 1. That many people have held false notions about a call to preach the Gospel is an undoubted truth to me; and many have run into great delusions concerning such things, but then that is no more a good argument against this, than it is against all religion. There is no point in experimental religion, as I know of, but what has been abused. And how many awful delusions have some run into concerning conversion and the teachings of God's Spirit in every age? Yet that is no argument against the reality of religion at all. For if Hymenius and Philetus and a thousand more run into never so great errors and overthrow the faith of some, yet nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His, 2 Tim. ii, 19. Answer 2. If none that have been esteemed sound divines in latter ages have held to such a call by the Spirit of God, what warrant did the first reformers from Popery go upon in preaching before there were Protestant Churches gathered? If any say they were ordained by the Papists, I reply that if they had no better call than Antichrist could give them, they went upon a very poor authority. And farther, it is an undoubted truth that the same power that can give a commission can take it away. And it is certain that the Pope did his utmost not only to depose them but also to destroy their lives if possible; yet still they went on boldly in preaching in their Master's name notwithstanding all the rage of earth and Hell. And if the first Reformers in England did not hold to such an internal call, what did they mean by insisting upon it that every one which they ordained should profess, that he was inwardly moved by the HOLY GHOST to take that work upon him? I doubt not but many of them knew experimentally what it was to be called and inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to go into that great work of preaching the Gospel, though I fear that many who have used that form of words since have not known either what they said nor whereto they affirmed. One particular instance of an internal call I will here set down which was experienced about an hundred years ago by one who, though he be despised by some learned men yet is generally esteemed and looked upon among the Godly as a very excellent writer and

AN INTERNAL CALL

IO7

an eminent servant of Jesus Christ: John Bunyan in giving an account of God's dealings with him (in his book entitled Grace Abounding, etc.) after mentioning the earnest desires of many that he should preach, says that about that time he did evidently find in his mind a secret pricking forward thereto; though (says he) I bless God not from a desire of vain-glory, for at that time I was most sorely afflicted with the fiery darts of the Devil concerning my eternal state. But yet could not be content unless I was found in the exercise of my gift unto which I was greatly animated not only by the continual desires of the Godly but also by that saying of Paul to the Corinthians, I beseech you brethren (ye know the household of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achata and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth, 1 Cor. xvi, 15, 16. By this text I was made to see that the Holy Ghost never intended that men who have gifts and abilities should bury them in the earth but rather did command and stir up such to the exercise of their gift, and also did commend those that were apt so to do. They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. This Scripture in those days did continually run in my mind, to encourage me and strengthen me in this my work for God. I have also been encouraged from several other Scriptures and examples of the Godly, both specified in the Word, and other ancient histories, Acts viii, 4 and xviii, 24, 25; 1 Pet. i, 10; Rom. xii, 6; Fox's Acts and Monuments. And further on he says, "Though I will not now speak all that I know in this matter, yet my experience hath more interest in that text of Scripture, Gal. i, xi, 12, than many amongst men are aware." Much more might be said here, but I shall not stand upon it now because that though serious people do not slight and disregard the practice of the godly in past ages, yet when viewing things aright they will follow them as far, and no farther, than they followed Christ. The Scriptures plainly represent that the Church of God in these latter days will get victory over the corruptions of Antichrist gradually and by degrees. They get victory first over the beast; then over his image; thirdly, over his mark, and lastly over the Number of his name, Rev. xv, 2. Allowing the case that many of the fathers had not so clear views of the nature of these things, yet that is no just objection against what has been here said unless this can be made appear to be contrary to God's Word. To this purpose I shall here set down a passage from Mr. [John] Robinson, who was the first pastor of the Church that came first to New England, and settled in Plymouth. Part of the

io8

Isaac

Backus

Church came over from Holland before the other, and Mr. Robinson stayed behind with the rest. And at their parting, Governor [Edward] Window says, r He charged us before God and his blessed angels to follow him no further than he followed Christ. And if God should reveal any thing to us by any other instrument of his, to be as ready to receive it, as ever we were to receive any truth by his ministry. For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet, to break forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewail the state of the reformed churches who were come to a period in religion and would go no further than the instruments of their reformation. As for example, the Lutherans could not be drawn go to beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God's Word he had further revealed to Calvin they had rather die than embrace it. And so said he, you see the Calviniste, they stick where he left them, a misery much to be lamented, for though they were precious, shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole Will to them, and were they now alive, said he, they would be as ready to embrace further light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind of our church-covenant whereby we engaged with God and one another, to receive whatever light or truth should be made known to us from his written Word. But withal exhorted us to take heed what we received for truth, and well to examine, compare and weigh with it other Scriptures before we receive it. For, said he, it is not possible the Christian world should come so lately out of such antichristian darkness and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at once. These are the sentiments of my heart, and according to this let what I have here written be tried. If I have said any thing contrary to the Scriptures of Truth, let it be condemned; if not, what does a thousand traditions of men avail to overthrow it? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of our God shall stand forever, Isai. xl, 6, 8. CHAPTER V I Some Improvement of the Whole, with Observations on the Principles and Practices of Many in This Age, Concerning These Things I shall now close this discourse with some f e w reflections on what has been said. t See Mr. [Thomas] Prince's New-England Chronology, pp. 89, 90.

AN I N T E R N A L C A L L

log

USE ι. Is it so that Christ's messengers now have essentially the same call that all his servants had of old? W e may hence see the woeful and lamentable case of many in this generation who have (in a great measure, if not wholly) set aside the work of God's Spirit and the kingly authority of Jesus Christ in calling and sending forth his ministers, and have set up mortal man in his room, which appears evident in these following particulars: 1. In that they hold that Christ has now left it with his ministers to license and send forth others and that whoever goes to preach without that, run before they are sent. They do not only hold that preachers should be examined by the Church and ministers of Christ and so be received and publicly ordained, if they are found faithful or be rejected if otherwise (which I believe is agreeable to Gospel rule) but they also hold, that it is this alone that gives them their commission and authority. Hence I have often heard it, both from the pulpit and in conversation, asserted, that the call of man is the call of God. Which I take to be a most horrid way of setting man up in God's place. Indeed we all hold that God sometimes speaks by his Spirit in and through his people and what is thus spoken is his voice. He told Elijah that he should anoint (or call forth) Elisha to be prophet in his room, 1 Kings xix, 16. And I think it appears evident that Timothy was thus called forth if we compare Acts xvi, β —Him would Paul have to go forth with him — with 1 Tim. i, 18. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the PROPHECIES which went before on thee. And again, Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by PROPHECY with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, chap, iv, 14. And I suppose it is generally allowed that Mr. [John] Davidson was guided by the divine Spirit, when he charged Mr. John Ker (a young gentleman who had no thoughts of the ministry before) to put off his scarlet cloak, and lay aside his gilded wrapper and take him to his book, "For (said he) you are the man who is to succeed me in the ministry at this place." Which accordingly came to pass.3 God also often teaches and guides his people in a more ordinary way, but then to say that whatever is acted by his professing people is the voice of God is notoriously false. Many were called prophets among God's people of old, which they chose, and loved their preaching, that yet he says, They ran, but he sent them not nor commanded them. Compare Jer. v, 31, with chap, xxiii, 21, 32.

no

Isaac Backus

Yea, the greatest saints often are mistaken. Samuel's looking on the stately appearance of Jesses eldest son and saying, Surely the Lord's anointed is before him, ι Sam. xvi, 6, did not make Eliah to be the leader that God chose for His people.* But notwithstanding the best of men are such frail creatures, yet Mr. [Joseph] Fish of Stonington 4 is so bold as to assert (after commenting a while on that text, 2 Tim. ii, 1, 2 ) that "Christ Jesus does not commit the preaching of the Gospel to any man since the apostles, but by the instrumentality of others." § He holds that Christ Himself committed this work to the apostles and to His first ministers but not to any now, only through and by instruments. Which scheme, as I believe it to be, grounded upon tradition and not upon Scripture, so it evidently (like their traditions of old) crosses God's commandment. Or in other words, they make void God's law to keep their own traditions. This you may see something of in what Mr. [Jonathan]

Edwards

says of these things in his Thoughts on the Work of God in New England,

1 7 4 1 - 1 7 4 2 , p. 264, etc. He holds it to be an error for any

to think That the Gospel-Ministry need not to be limited as it used to be, to persons of a liberal education; (says he) some of late have been for having others, that they have supposed to be persons of eminent experience, publicly licensed to preach, yea and ordained to the work of the ministry; and some ministers have seemed to favor such a thing. But how little do they seem to look forward and consider the unavoidable consequences of opening such a door? It will be found of absolute necessity that there should be some certain visible limits fixed, to avoid bringing odium upon ourselves and breeding uneasiness and strife amongst others; and I know of none better, and indeed no other, that can well be fixed than those that the prophet Zechariah fixes, viz. that those only should be appointed to be pastors, or shepherds in God's Church that have been taught to keep cattle from their youth, or that have had education for that purpose. Not but that there may probably be some persons in the land that have had no education at college that are themselves B E T T E R QUALIFIED for the work of the ministry than some others that have taken their degrees and are now ordained. But yet I believe the breaking over those bounds that have hitherto been set, in ordaining such persons would in its consequences be a greater calamity than the missing such persons in the work of the ministry. t Vid. [Robert Fleming] Fulfilling of the Scripture, Boston edition, p. 411. § See his Sermon at Mr. Vinal's Ordination at Newport, October 29, 1746, pp. 25, 26.

AN INTERNAL CALL

111

Thus far he. Now though I highly esteem this man as an eminent servant of the Lord and believe the main of that book to be clear truth, yet I desire never to have such an esteem of any man as to take what they say for truth when it appears evidently to be contrary to God's Word, which I think is the case here. He mentions Ζech. xiii, 5, as a description of Gospel-Ministers, but I rather think, with the excellent Mr. [John] Flavel, that it describes a false teacher. Mr. Flavel speaking of false teachers, says, "We find in a clear prophecy of Gospel times what shame God will pour upon them, Ζech. xiii, 4, 5. They shall be brought with shame enough to confess, J am no prophet; I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth." * 5 This is evidently the genuine meaning of that text if we compare it with the foregoing words. In ver. 1 God says, He will open a fountain to cleanse His people from sin and uncleanness. And ver. 2 mentions in particular that He will take away the idols and false prophets. Ver. 3, he says The prophet's own parents shall rise against him, yea he himself shall be ashamed of his vision, and he shall say, I am no prophet, for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth, q.d. " I own 1 never was sent of God, but I had my education and commission only from man." Agreeable to this is what Paul says to Timothy when he charged him to be faithful in preaching the Gospel. For (say he) the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall keep to themselves teachers having itching ears, 2 Tim. iv, 3, i. e. Men will get to that as to hold that they can educate and commissionate their ministers themselves, and when they have made them, the work which they do is by fleshly wisdom to please itching ears rather than by manifestation of the truth to commend themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, 2 Cor. iv, 2. Note one thing here, and that is, it seems remarkable that when a good man (as I take Mr. Edwards to b e ) undertook to vindicate a false scheme, the main text he brings to support it is that which properly describes a deceiver. And as it seems plain that here he misconstrues Scripture, so I think it is as evident that in what follows he lays down a plan contrary to Scripture. God's Word says, Having gifts differing, let us improve them, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of * Flavel's Works, vol. I, p. 634.

112

Isaac Backus

faith: or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation, Rom. vi, 7, 8. And again, As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth that God in all things might be glorified through Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. iv, 10, 11. But Mr. Edwards (and a great many others) say that if persons do not get their gifts and abilities at college, though they may be better qualified for the work of the ministry than some others that have taken their degrees and are ordained, yet they may not be received. And why? Because it will break over the bounds that have been set, not by God, for his bounds and limits are described above, but they are bounds which were set by the traditions of men. The Lord says nothing about the college nor any particular place or manner of education, but only says that every man must improve the ability that He gives, etc. And though Mr. Edwards thinks that this is the way "to avoid bringing odium upon themselves," yet I doubt not but that those who persist in this way will find that God will make them contemptible and base before all the people, according as they have not kept God's ways, but have been partial in the law, Mai. ii, 9. Neither is this the way to prevent "breeding uneasiness and strife among others," but quite the contrary. For many that they cannot but own are godly persons within these few years past have been brought so clearly to see that the scheme that is held and practiced in the land, do (in this respect as well as many others) contrary to God's Word that they could not be easy under it any longer and therefore have openly renounced communion with it. 2. Another thing that evidenceth that many in our day set up man in Christ's place is that they hold that if a man has college learning and is regularly introduced according to their order, he is a minister of Christ and sent of God, though unconverted. But Christ says, I am the door; by me if any man enter in he shall be Saved. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers but the sheep did not hear them, John x, 8, 9. That unless they make a Christ of themselves, none come in by the door but those that are in a state of salvation. All others are thieves and robbers let them have what learning or approbation they will of men. Unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my covenant into thy mouth, Psal. 1, 16.

AN I N T E R N A L C A L L

II3

The most plausible plea that any have for unconverted men's being Christ's ministers is the instance of Judas. But if they duly consider how the Scriptures represent that case, methinks they would have done with them arguments. It is plain that he was chosen to fulfill a particular prophecy concerning Christ rather than to be one of his messengers as the others were. Therefore how much pains did Christ all along take to distinguish him from his other disciples? John vi, 70. One of you is a Devil, chap, xii, 6. He was a Thief and had the bag, and bare what was put therein (a proper description of a false teacher, chap, x, 8 ). Again, says Christ, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen, but that the Scripture, Psal. xli, 9, may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lift up his heel against me, John xiii, 18. So that instead of Judas' doing as much good as any of the apostles (which some assert he did), we have no account that he ever did any good in the world, but we have an account of much mischief that he did, for what he was after was filthy lucre and not God's honor and souls' salvation. Therefore when he could get the most money by selling Christ he readily embraced the opportunity: And so will any unconverted man do by the cause of Christ, let him have never so much human learning. 3. What makes it still more evident that many in our day have set themselves in Christ's seat (or rather have exalted themselves above all that is called God) with regard to this matter is that as they can commissionate ministers so they can dispense with their commission when they think proper. Paul says, Necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel, 1 Cor. ix, 16. But these men, though they say they are called of God as was Aaron, 1 Heb. ν, 4, yet, when worldly interest suits best, they can lay down their commission and others can dismiss them from it so as to speak no more in God's name. W e have plain accounts of sundry that the Lord took from other callings and brought into this. He called Moses from the honors of Pharaoh's Court, Exod. ii, 10, etc.; Elisha from his plowing, 1 Kings xix, 19-21; Amos from among the Herdsmen of Tekoa, Amos, i, 1 and vii, 14, 15; Peter and others from their fishing, Matt, iv, 18-22; Matthew from among the publicans, Matt, ix, 9 and x, 3; and Paul from among the learned persecutors, etc., 1 Tim. i, 12, 13. But for any of the ambassadors of the King of Heaven to be by his order taken out of that work and put into any other business in the world is what I think the Scriptures are silent about. Or rather that they speak terribly against.

114

Isaac Backus

The Lord says, Woe to the idle shepherd that leaveth the flock; the sword shall be upon his arm, etc., Zech, xi, 17. The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling and careth not for the sheep, John x, 13. Ministers are called stars and angels, but how dreadful is it for such to leave their stations? Rev. i, 20; Jude vi, 13. Yet there has been so many instances of this nature in our land that it seems needless to stand upon the particular proof of it. Some have left the place of an ambassador of Christ, for the judge's bench or Governor's chairé Others have turned to merchandizing or pleading law, and so some to one business and some to another as worldly interest seems to suit best. And yet they will pretend to read thundering lectures to those that they affect to call lay-teachers; * and will tell them that every man must abide in the same calling wherein he was called, χ Cor. vii, 20. When they can leave their sacred calling for the sake of the honors or riches of this world, Alas! to what a length have the children of men run in these things! Now, reader, if thy heart trembles for fear of this great host, and thou think it presumption for a child to come out against so great an army of learned men as there are that hold these things that I oppose, let us with Gideon and his servant take one turn down by their camp, and I doubt not but we shall hear something that will strengthen us against their scheme, and as David cut off Goliath's head with his own sword and afterwards said, There is none like it, 1 Sam. xvii, 51 and xxi, 9, so I have often thought that in this case I desired nothing better than men's own weapons to fight them with. When you come near you will hear them delivering their minds something in this form: God has always set a sacred guard around his ministry, and it is a dreadful thing to intrude upon it. Before Moses' time, the priesthood was confined to the first-born; after that it was limited to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron, and the stranger that came nigh must be put to death. This held till Christ came, who in an immediate way sent forth his apostles, and they were to ordain others which were to commit t One instance of this was the Hon. Gurdon Saltonstall, Esq. who formerly was taken out of the pulpit at New London into the place of Governor over Connecticut Colony. He was the chief instrument of changing the Constitution of the churches through that government, from Congregational, to what is called the Saybrook Regulation, by which, many godly men have thought that he did as much mischief as almost any man that ever was in the Colony. Î Dr. [August H.Ì Francke says, that this way of calling all but the clergy lay men is a "pernicious distinction derived from Popery, and it is not to be expressed what horrid mischief it is the cause of." Fear of Man, pp. 115, 116.

AN INTERNAL C A L L

II5

that charge to faithful men; and so the line was to descend down in an ordinary way to the end of the world! And thus they rank these things into four great periods: one before the Law, one under the Law, the third under the Gospel in the apostles' time, and the fourth from their deaths to the end of the world. Now if we take a view in Scripture light of either of these periods, we may find many things in them to cut down the scheme which these men plead for. As to the first, they say, that "From the beginning till Moses' time the ministry or priesthood was limited to the first-born:" which should we allow yet it is certain that the line ran rather in the spiritual than natural birth. Thus in the first family that was created, Cain, the firstborn was rejected while God had respect to Abel and his offering, Gen. iv, 4, 5. Also in Noah's family the line was limited to Shem, though Japheth was the elder brother, chap, x, 21. So in Abraham's house, though Ishmael was the first-born, yet Isaac was the promised seed, xxi, 12. Likewise in Isaacs family God said, The elder shall serve the younger, Rom. ix, 12. Thus you see that those who were spiritually the first-born which were written in Heaven, Heb. xii, 23, the Lord took for His servants and ministers let them stand where they would as to their natural birth. Which clearly cuts off the notion of any man's being His minister that is not born again. Secondly. "From Moses' time, they say, the priesthood was limited to the seed of Aaron, and the stranger that came nigh should be put to death, Num. iii, 10." From whence they argue that it is a dreadful thing for any to come into the ministry that are not introduced in their way. But let us take a more close view of these things; and first observe that them priests had a work to do which no mortal has now and that was to offer sacrifices for sin in which they typified Jesus Christ. But then I allow that they were to teach Jacob God's Law, Deut. xxxiii, 10, as well as offer sacrifices. But what will men do with this now? I trust none will be so vain as to say, that none may be Christ's ministers in these days, but ministers' natural seed. Then I think I must bring it here: Aaron was a clear type of Christ, and none might be priest but his seed. So I believe that none now ought to come into the ministry but such as are truly the children of Jesus Christ, our glorious high priest. Thirdly. In the apostles' time all own that Christ did by his divine

ii6

Isaac Backus

authority and Holy Spirit call them forth, some from one business and some from another, to be his messengers. And that all Christ's true ministers experience essentially the same, I think is made evident in this treatise. Concerning the last period, they say, that "whom the apostles ordained, were to ordain others, and so the authority is transmitted down in an ordinary way." Now I find that those who hold the scheme that I oppose, disagree among themselves. Some say that Timothy and Titus were (what they call) ordinary ministers. But others, when we mention that Timothy was called by prophecy, ι Tim. i, 18 and iv, 14, and that he was to do the work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. lxi, 5. I say, when these things are mentioned they say we must not expect such things now, for they were extraordinary ministers. And so they make all the ministers that we have a particular account of in Scripture to be men in an extraordinary standing. And the ministry which they hold to is that which has taken place since the Bible was completed; which for my part I do not want to have any concern with. But I choose such a ministry as is described, both by precept and example, in God's word. One main text that is brought to support this scheme is that promise, Lo I am with you, always, even to the end of the world, Matt, xxviii, 20. From whence they reason thus, "The apostles themselves did not live to the end of the world, therefore the promise extends to them that they ordained, and to their successors, that are introduced in an orderly way to the end." But waving [sic] many gross absurdities that might be mentioned, this one is sufficient to cut off the scheme entirely, viz. that it is contrary to the Gospel to apply that promise to any unconverted man, let him be introduced how he will. All the promises of God in Christ are yea, and in Him, Amen, 2 Cor. i, 20. And Peter tells us that a being by God's power brought to the knowledge of Him, is the way whereby is given to us exceeding great and precious promises, 2 Pet. i, 3, 4. To be short the true meaning of Christ's words undoubtedly is this, that all his children, in every age, who are by his Spirit called into this work and go on faithfully to teach all things that He commands them, He has promised that He will be with, assist and bless them even to the end of the world. And in no other sense can I conceive it to be true at all for Christ has never promised to be with his own children when they turn aside from his ways, and then surely He has not promised to be with those who never were in

AN INTERNAL CALL

II7

Him, who is the way, the truth, and the life, John xiv, 6. Much more might easily be said to illustrate these things, but I have already enlarged much farther than I had any design of when I began this discourse and therefore I must hasten to a close. USE η. Hence let every soul that profess themselves to be Christ's ministers, examine whether ever they were called into that great work by the influences of the Holy Spirit or not. All will own that to run before they are sent, is a dreadful thing, and I think it has been clearly shown in this treatise that all run before they are sent who are not called by the Spirit of God. O, therefore, my dear reader, whoever thou art, that art called a minister of Christ, I charge you in my Master's name, search critically into the case and see, hast thou ever been brought into a saving acquaintance with Jesus Christ? If not, how canst thou pretend to lead souls to Him, and never knew Him yourselves? Art thou a master in Israel, and not born again? John iii, 10. If thou hast not got into the kingdom thyself, thou wilt be in danger of hindering those that are entering; and woeful is the case of such souls, Matt, xxiii, 13. O, therefore, look to your standing. And if you find that your standing is in Christ, then examine whether He has called you to this work or no. Had you ever such a view of Christ and his dear flock as to draw forth your soul to love them above every thing here? yea, so as not to count your life dear to you so that you might finish your course with joy! Acts xx, 24. Has the treasure of the Gospel ever been opened and committed to your soul? and has God's command been therewith set home upon your heart, to go and feed His sheep and lambs! John xxi, 15, 16. Have you been enabled clearly to count the cost and to see an infinite fulness in Christ to supply all your needs and to carry you through all the trials of this evil world; and have his promises been sealed to your souls so as to bring you with all your heart to yield unto God and (like Abraham's servant) to swear unto Him to be faithful in this work of winning a bride for your Masters SonP Gen. xxiv, 2-9. Surely, if you have experienced these things, you know something of it. USE in. Of Exhortation. First. To those who are called of God into this great work of preaching the Gospel: O, my fathers and brethren, suffer a word of exhortation, though from a child. Be exhorted always to view the worth of souls and let the terrors of the Lord and the love of Christ constrain you and I ever to be faithful in our Master's work, 2 Cor. v, 11, 19. Ministers are called

ii8

Isaac Backus

soldiers, 2 Tim. ii, 3, and therefore they must expect to endure hardness and to go through a variety of trials here and not to have a life of fleshly ease or worldly applause. Then let us fight the good fight of faith and lay hold on eternal life. Many considerations there be that will move our souls to be faithful, if rightly viewed. The souls we have the care of are the price of Christ's blood. Thus says the apostle, Feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood, Acts XX, 28. O, did Christ count souls to be worth so much that He gave his life a ransom for many and shall not we spend life and strength, and exert ourselves to the utmost for their salvation? Again, if we are found unfaithful, their blood will be laid to our charge, Ezek. xxxiii, 8. And soul blood is dreadful to answer for. On the other hand, if we may be instrumental of turning any to God, this will be infinitely preferable to all the gains and honor of this world. Souls that ministers are instrumental of converting will be their Crown of rejoicing in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming, 1 Thess. ii, 19. Oh, how joyfully will faithful ministers come up before their Judge with a great number of spiritual children round them that they have been instruments of turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 17, 18. Secondly. Let me exhort all Christians in general to improve faithfully what talents God has given them. Though all are not called to be public teachers, yet all are commanded to improve the gifts that they have. It is as necessary in order for the welfare of the Church of Christ that every gift be improved as it is for our temporal welfare that all the members of our body be used in their proper place, as the apostle clearly shows, Rom. xii, 5, etc.; 1 Cor. xii, 12-21. The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee, nor again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you. The neglect of thus living is undoubtedly one great cause of the decay of vital religion and of bringing barrenness upon the people of God. For Christ says, Unto every one that hath (i. e., improves what he has) shall be given, and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not, shall be taken away, even that which he hath, Matt, xxv, 29. By a faithful improvement of what light and strength the Lord gives, souls not only gain more and also do good to others, but also they hereby get further establishment of soul and a clearer knowledge of what their gift is. And therefore, if any of my readers have some conviction on their minds about preaching and yet are at a loss about the case, my advice is that with all your hearts you obey your God in what has been made clear

AN INTERNAL CALL

lig

duty to you. I do not desire any soul to go into any thing without clearness, but then be obedient to whatever God has made known of his will to you, and that is the way to have other things made clearer and clearer. Christ says that, If any man will do His fathers will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself, John vii, 17. Thirdly. Should these lines chance to fall into the hands of any that are called ministers of Christ who disregard or have not experienced such a call from God as has been described, to such I would say a few words. Sirs, probably you may look with disdain upon such a child as I am. Yet while you are making so much of human learning as though none could understand the Scriptures without such a great degree of it, be entreated to pause a little and take a more serious view of things and see if you are not running in the path that those did of old who were found fighting against God whose language concerning Christ and his followers was, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? But this people who knoweth not the Lord are cursed, John vii, 48, 49. As if none knew the law but they. But let men go as far as they will here, yet without the special teachings of the divine Spirit they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tim. iii, 7. For he that knows the truth, the truth shall make him free, yea, free indeed, John viii, 32, 36. What an awful warning might that passage be to you! Jude ix. Woe unto them; for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. The way of Cain was this: he brought an offering to the Lord without faith and the assistance of his Spirit, and no doubt but he thought the priesthood belonged to himself. Therefore, when he saw that his younger brother was preferred before him, he was wroth, and when he could get opportunity he slew him, because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous, Gen. ix, 3, 5, 8; 1 John, iii, 12; Heb. xi, 4. And have you not often felt your wrath boil, because you have been convinced in your consciences that God has greatly favored some that you reckon far below yourselves? Surely your wrath has often prevailed too far to be concealed, and had you the power that many have had in ages past we have no reason to think but that you would proceed to murder or putting to death as well as they. Blessed be God that you are so far restrained. The error of Balaam was his teaching for reward or to get tem-

120

Isaac Backus

poral gain instead of seeking the good of immortal souls, 2 Pet. ii, 15. And how common is it in these days among you that profess to be Christ's ministers, not only when you first settle to be governed by this to settle where you can get the most money? but also after you have taken the solemn charge of a flock, if you can see a prospect of getting more some where else, presently the people are threatened that if they will not give you more salary, you must leave them? And sundry have thus left, and gone off from the people which they had said, The Holy Ghost had made them, overseers of. Like Micah's priest (which I think is the only one that we have account of in Scripture that made a particular bargain about his temporal support) who when he had a bigger offer by the tribe of Dan, though he was content with Micah before, yet now not only leaves Micah, but also robbed him of his gods, Judges, xvii, 10, 1 1 and xviii, 19, 20. Very contrary to that is Paul's example who tells the Corinthians, I will very gladly spend, and be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved, 2 Cor. xii, 15. And perished in the gainsaying of Core. This is often applied to such as withstand the scheme that I have spoken against in this book. But observe more closely who Korah's company were. Not the meaner sort of people, but they were princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown. And what they gainsayed was this great truth. That it is God alone that can sanctify and fit men for, and also call them into this great work of teaching and leading His people. As is evident; for Moses and Aaron were sanctified and called into that work by the immediate influences of God's Spirit, but they saith, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the Congregation of the Lord? Num. xvi, 2, 3. How exactly does this character agree with those who deny the necessity of being specially called by God's Spirit into this work and reckon it to be pride in any to pretend to it? They perished in these gainsayings, and Oh! take heed lest you follow them down to eternal woe. There is no men's case under Heaven that the Scriptures represent to be so awful as the case of unconverted and unfaithful ministers. What dreadful things are spoken to such in the twenty-third chapter of Jeremiah, the thirty-fourth chapter of Ezekial, and twentythird chapter of Matthew, as well as many other places? O, therefore fly immediately to Christ for pardon and salvation! If you come to believe in Christ, and so to stand in the counsel of God, there is

AN INTERNAL CALL

121

a possibility that you may yet do good to souls, Jer. xxiii, 22. As I doubt not but there are some in our days who did run into this work without being sent of God that yet have been converted and made a blessing afterwards, yet that is no more of a warrant for others to run so than it is to run into any other courses of wickedness out of which some have been saved. But if you still go on to make merchandize of souls, you will find that your Judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and your damnation slumbereth not, 2 Pet. ii, 3. Fourthly. I would speak a word to those people that look upon all in general which are introduced according to the common way of the land to be ministers of Christ. My dear fellow men, Be entreated no longer to take things by tradition but first examine your own standing, whether you were ever born again or not. If you have not experienced that change, you are constantly exposed to be deluded and ruined forever. For Christ tells us that false men, if it were possible, shall deceive the very elect, Matt, xxiv, 24. O! therefore rest not in being like your ministers, Hos. iv, 9, unless they and you too are conformed to Jesus Christ, Heb. xiii, 7, 8. If you have not this, read and tremble at that awful passage in Jer. v, 30, 3 1 . A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bare rule by their means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the land thereof? Finally. Does the Lord as really by his Spirit call forth his messengers now as formerly? Then let every soul that has an interest at the throne of grace earnestly cry that the Lord of the harvest would send forth laborers into his harvest, for the laborers are few, Matt, ix, 37, 38. Plead that He would deliver all his people from devourers and give them pastors according to his heart, Jer. iii, 15. Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant; make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ to whom be glory for ever and ever. AMEN, Heb. xiii, 20, 21.

AN APPENDIX Containing Some Short Account of the Experiences and Dying Testimony of Mr. Nathaniel Shepherd, Pastor of a Church of Christ in Attleboro, who died April 14, 1752

122

Isaac Backus

After I had finished what was designed in this book, sundry serious people who had heard something of the experiences and dying testimony of Mr. Nathaniel Shepherd were very desirous to have them published with this treatise. But at first I declined it because the subscribers were not informed thereof. Yet after further consideration, I remembered that many people in various places had heretofore manifested to me a desire to have something of that printed. And also apprehending that his experiences would be entertaining to the generality of those that like this book and sundry renewing their request to have his testimony preserved with this discourse, I at last thought I would venture to add it here by way of appendix. And what made me more free to do it was this: He was the first ordained pastor that has died among those in this land, that have in this day openly withdrawn communion from the scheme that I have opposed in this book. And though some have been so bold as to say that No person which has done so, and persists in it can die in peace, yet his example, as well as scores of others, clearly evidence the contrary. What is here set down is an extract out of a larger account which I took down when I happened to be at Attleboro some few months after his death, only for my own satisfaction and because I thought such things ought to be preserved, and not lost. I set down from the mouths of those that were with him in his sickness, and at his death, with the utmost exactness I could, looking upon it a very great evil to impose upon mankind with a false representation of such things. I had it mainly from these three persons following, viz., Mr. Joshua Everett that lived near him and was with him every day of his sickness; Mr. William Carpenter, pastor of a church in Norton, and his afflicted widow who though she was much tried about parting with him at first yet was brought to a sweet submission a few hours before his death, and was remarkably borne up under her trials afterwards. I have added scarce any remarks of my own on this account, partly for brevity sake and partly because many have complained that often "such accounts have shown more what the publishers could say than what the person spoken of said or did." Therefore I have endeavored as plainly as might be to give you his own words in which He being dead, yet speaketh. The person of whom we write was born in Norton on February 13, 1712/13. But before he was grown up he went and lived in sundry towns near Boston, and after he was married he settled in or near

AN INTERNAL CALL

123

Brookline where he joined to the [Standing] Church. And for some years he went on with some outward strictness in religion but was ignorant of the New Birth, as he was made to see afterwards, a very short account whereof I find written with his own hand, as follows. I thought one day in my retirements that I could not delay to put down a few lines to keep in mind what God had remarkably done for my soul. Which lines I hope God will make use of to bring fresh to my mind his love to my soul when ever I see them. Although I had in my life before thought myself a passable Christian, though under a great mistake, as I found afterwards, and had been a false professor of Christ in his Church almost eight years, for which abuse I desire to lie low at his feet all my days, it pleased the blessed God in the twenty-eighth year of my age to send his dear servant Mr. Whitefield here amongst us, and by his preaching I was much affected and thought I was reformed, but grew careless again. But I was several times awakened again by God's faithful ministers that came among us, but still remained a stranger to myself until the summer in the year 1742. Then it pleased God to send his dear servant, Mr. Davenport, among us, which was a wonderful man to search hypocrites. And thus it pleased God to make him an instrument to open my case to me in a sermon at Boston preached upon the Common from Matt, iii, 10. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees. Which was in the thirtieth year of my age, on Tuesday the twenty-seventh of July. And I was now under a sharp work of the law and was dead to and slain by the law and was in a deplorable condition — like the woman that had the bloody issue and had spent all upon physicians and was nothing bettered, and then applied herself to the hem of Christ's garment, which proved her cure. And as long as a poor sinner has a pennyworth of self-righteousness he never will come to Christ. I thought if I did not let go self-righteousness I must perish. And if I should let all my own props go, I did not know but that I might fall into the arms of Christ, as I believe I did the next Monday after, the second day of August in the year above dated — a memorable day to my soul from which time I believe I can date my conversion, while hearing Mr. Davenport preach from John vi, 37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. And there I seemed to see the power of CHRIST'S resurrection, and that He had satisfied God's justice that before was out against men, and that God was satisfied with what He had done. Glory to His name. This is my experience in short. NATHANIEL SHEPHERD

Glory be given to

FATHER, SON,

and

HOLY SPIRIT.

Amen.

Sometime after his conversion he withdrew from the [parish] church in Brookline, over which Mr. [James] Allen then was pastor. The chief reasons whereof were because Mr. Allen, who had favored

124

Isaac Backus

the work of God that was then going on in the land, afterwards came out against it, calling it a delusion of the Devil. And also because many were received into the Church without giving any satisfying evidence of their union to Christ, yea, without being examined anything about that. And persons of a corrupt life were indulged in the church without being dealt with according to Gospel rule. Sometime in the year 1746 he was called forth publicly to preach the Gospel, I trust by the influences of the divine Spirit. And in the beginning of the following winter he began to preach to the congregation [of Separates] in Attleboro over which he afterwards was pastor. And in the spring, at their earnest desire, he removed his family there and labored among them with considerable of a blessing. And in the fall in 1747 he was chosen their pastor and was ordained on January 20, 1747/48. And he was enabled so to walk as to gain a good report of them that were without, and was beloved by many who were not of his sentiments in religion. Though it seems he was so sensible of the want of more conformity to God that among other means that he used to attain it he determined upon this method in the fall of the year 1751; viz. to spend one day in the week in secret fasting constantly, when he was at home and other necessary business did not hinder, to seek for greater measures of the divine Spirit to assist and bless him both in his private walk and his public improvements. And this practice he kept up till he went his last journey a little before he died. And before his death he told some intimate friends that he had enjoyed very great comforts and blessings from the Lord in this exercise. On Wednesday, February 26, 1752, he set away a journey up the country towards Northampton and was gone five weeks, and he had remarkable assistance and success in his labors. Five souls he apprehended were converted in the journey. He came home on April 2. And though he used commonly to come home from his journeys so spent that he could do but little for some days after it, yet now his soul was so overborn with a sense of divine things that he spent every day but one till he was taken sick, in visiting, and laboring with souls round him, not only publicly but also in teaching and warning them from house to house with tears, and seemed to be like one in haste to have done his work. Wednesday, April 8 (the day he was taken sick), as they were going to family prayer in the morning, he said to his children. "Come we

AN I N T E R N A L C A L L

125

are going to worship the great God, and see to it that you do it in reality! Do not make a mock of it as you have too often done!" Then he spake to his children one by one, beginning with the eldest, and down to the youngest that could understand, and addressed his discourse to their particular cases with remarkable clearness. And he told them that he expected in a little time to leave their mother a widow and to leave them fatherless children. Then he went to prayer and had astonishing nearness to God therein; and God's power seemed greatly to seize every soul present. And his beloved consort said that when he went away that morning it looked to her that he had discharged himself to his family as if he was never to see them more. Soon after prayer Mr. Joshua Everett came in, and they set away together to go to a meeting, and by the way they visited several families. And Mr. Everett said, he never see him have such strength and fervency in laboring with souls before, as he had now. Every word appeared weighty, and Mr. Everett said he heard him not less than a dozen times that day vocally renew covenant with God and give away his all to him, and said he longed to spend every remaining breath for him. In the afternoon they went to the meeting and Mr. Carpenter preached, and in meeting time Mr. Shepherd was taken ill. So that as soon as meeting was done he hastened Mr. Everett about going home, and they set away together. But he was so swallowed up in discoursing on divine things that [he] said no more of his bodily weakness till they had got just home, which was five or six miles. Soon after he got into his house he was seized so bad that his wife could but just get him to bed. And he was exceeding ill, and something delirious most of the night. But on Thursday morning the free exercise of his reason was restored, and it was continued to him ever after till death. And as Mr. Everett called, as he was going to a church meeting, he asked him if he had any particular message to send to his Church? And (after pausing a little) he said "Yes, I have a message from God. Tell them to up and be doing, for time is short, and there is a great work to do. I hear the sound of death a coming. O tell them — up, up, up!" His distemper increased upon him very fast, and in the afternoon they got a doctor to him, and he judged that he had the quick fever or "malignant pleurisy" and that he was seized very hard. But he remained comfortable in mind through the day.

126

Isaac Backus

On Friday morning some neighboring brethren went over to see him, and as one of them was going to prayer they asked what petition he desired them to put up for him. He answered that he had no certain views whether he should live or die in this sickness. "But," said he, "that is not the thing with me, but what I want is that I may spend every remaining breath for God!" His distemper prevailed very fast upon his body, but as his outward man decayed, his inward man evidently was renewed day by day, which he sundry times expressed (to people that came in and asked how he did) in these remarkable words: "I have a shaken body, but an unshaken mind." Saturday sundry Christians met and spent some hours in prayer with him, but he was so weak that he could say but little most of the day, only he manifested a sweet calmness of mind and an entire resignation to God's will, whether it was for life or death. After they had prayed sundry times, Mr. Carpenter and Everett went into the room where he lay, and he told them that he had a desire of seeing, and bearing testimony to his dear church for the work of the Lord in these days, but whether he should have opportunity or no he knew not, and therefore he did call them as witnesses to testify "That he was just of the same mind about the building of the Church of Jesus Christ and about the ordinances and discipline thereof, as he had been heretofore and that he did bear testimony against all false religion, both antinomianism and Arminianism, whether in learned or unlearned." And he gave them a solemn charge always to be faithful for God in his work. On Lord's day his first fever broke, and the putrid fever set in, so that all hope of his recovery seemed to be gone. But he continued serene and comfortable in Soul. And sometime in the afternoon he desired a woman that was with him to call in his dear consort and children, "For," said he, "I don't know but this is the last opportunity that I shall have with them; 'tis likely that I shall be a cold corpse laid against the wall before morning." And after they were come in (there being no brethren present) he desired his wife to pray, which after some urging she did, but the trial seemed so hard, to part with such a friend in her difficult circumstances, that she could not freely give him up to God, which he perceived. Therefore after she had done, he prayed, and ( though he was very weak and could bring out his words but slowly yet) he did very distinctly and with great freedom and strength, first give up his beloved companion to the Lord, and prayed

AN INTERNAL C A L L

127

that He would give her both temporal and spiritual supplies as she needed and as He see best for her. Then he went on and prayed for his children, beginning with the eldest and down to the youngest, expressing their names, which were all but one of them Scripture names, and asking particular blessings on and for them, with considerable reference to persons of the same names in Scripture § and resigned them all up to God who first gave them to him. Then he also gave up to God his unborn child.* After that he came on to the case of his dear flock, which he could appeal to God that the Holy Ghost made him, an overseer of. And he did in a wonderful manner resign them up to his divine Master, expressing his desire and belief that He would take care of them and carry on His work among them in this evil day. Afterwards as people came home from meeting many came in to see him, and he had astonishing assistance, and clearness in speaking to each one according to their several cases, and to leave his dying counsels and charges with them. And though death evidently was approaching on very fast, yet he was so far from fearing it that he wanted to have it hasten. Which ( among other things ) he showed by this, viz., he held up his hands several times to see if the blood did not begin to settle under his nails. And when he perceived that it did, he said, 'twas what he had been "desiring and looking for." Monday, before day, they sent and called in the neighbors, for they thought he was dying. But when the person that has been often mentioned came in, Mr. Shepherd seemed exceedingly swallowed up in views of divine things, and he took him by the hand and said, "O brother Everettl is this dying! I never thought it was so easyl It has seemed hard to me to leave my dear family in this evil world, and above all, to part with the dear flock of God, but Oh! how easy it is now! I can leave them with greater freedom than ever I met with them in the world." Then after one had prayed, he spake particularly to every person present with special clearness according to their several cases and took them by the hand one by one and took his leave of them. And to those that he counted saints he said, "I must bid you farewell but for a little time." But to others he said, "If you get an interest in Christ, then farewell for a little space, but if not, farewell to eternity." To his § Their names are Jonathan, Nathanael, Ebenezer, Mindwell, Isaac, Jacob, and Hannah. ° W h o was born in the following June and his name was Samuel.

Elizabeth,

128

Isaac Backus

brother Isaac Shepherd then present, he said, "O brother, you and I have made many crooked paths, but THE way is straight still." And for an hour or more he went on in speaking of divine things in a wonderful manner. After that he made his will and settled his temporal affairs; in the forenoon he seemed to revive a little, but it was not long before his bodily distress came on heavier again. But through his whole sickness he scarce ever spake of any darkness in mind but only once or more he said, "Satan has been throwing his fiery darts, but Christ hath gotten the victory." Late in the evening, when the neighbors were generally gone home and the watchers were some of them gotten to sleep, and he had been in a drouse, his wife, who sat by him, thought she would just step into the other room to the fire. But she soon perceived there was some alteration and run back and he said, "Call the folks, for I am a going:" Which she soon did and sent to the neighbors and sundry of them came in presently, and several of them prayed, and he appeared to have great comfort of soul, though he spake but a few words more. Once he said, "Farewell, vain world, I bid adieu." And as the Christians that were round his bed were with freedom speaking of the Lord's faithfulness to those that have lived devoted to Him here, how He will stand by them in a dying hour, and were mentioning that Scripture, Psal. xxxvii, 37, Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace. I say, as they were speaking of these things, his wife (who set by him wiping off the cold sweat) said, "I don't question but he understands what we say, though he can't speak." And then she desired him that if he understood what they said, he would hold up his hand. Which he did, first one and then both of them, and then spake out just so they could hear him, "Glory! Glory! Glory! to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!" Which were the last words they ever heard him speak. Soon after he breathed out his spirit into that eternal world where undoubtedly he is and will be unwearedly ascribing praise and glory to the sacred Trinity for ever and ever. He died about three o'clock in the morning on Tuesday, April 14, 1752. His funeral was attended next day by a great number of people, after a sermon preached by Mr. Carpenter, from Psal. xxxiv, 19, Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him, out of them all.

PAMPHLET

1

A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BONDWOMAN AND THE FREE BOSTON,

1756

B A P T I Z E D INTO T H E Standing church as an infant, Backus grew up with all of the prejudices of his day against the ignorant, deluded, and bigoted Baptists who denied the validity of this divine ordinance. When he separated from the Standing church in 1745, he still believed in infant baptism, and when he formed the Separate church in Titicut in February 1748 he formed it on pedobaptist principles. When two brethren of this church, in August 1749, introduced the claim that God did not ordain the practice of infant baptism but instead required that only adult believers be baptized, Backus thought they had done so simply to escape paying religious taxes to the Standing church (Baptists being exempt by law from these taxes while Separates were not). Nevertheless the arguments against infant baptism gradually impressed themselves upon him and after tremendous wrestlings with his conscience during the next two years, he finally allowed himself to be re-baptized by immersion in August 1 7 5 1 . He could not, however, convince all of his church members to follow his example. In order to keep the church together over the next five years he practiced a system of open communion. He refused to baptize infants, but he did not exclude from membership and communion in his church those who had their infants baptized by other Separate ministers or who had not themselves been immersed as adults.

This compromise failed. In January 1756 he dissolved his Separate church and formed a new one upon closed communion antipedobaptist principles. He maintained this position for the rest of his life. But the change alienated many of his friends, and he felt compelled to justify his new position. This pamphlet, the second he published, constituted that justification. It was apologetic rather than polemical. And it raised some important questions which went far beyond the immediate issues of immersion versus sprinkling and adult versus infant baptism. For in order to justify his position Backus had to repudiate the covenant theology upon which the whole New England Standing Order was based. Backus was by this time fairly well-read in Baptist literature, and he chose the writings of John Gill, the eminent English Baptist theologian, as his main line of support. The purpose of this treatise was to marshal all of the best arguments he could find to refute the Puritan claim that the covenant which God had made with Abraham and the Jews in the Old Testament was carried over essentially unchanged in the covenant which God made with Christ and the Christians in the New Testament. For this purpose he found the typological method of Biblical exegesis particularly

E D I T O R ' S INTRODUCTION

131

useful. His starting point was Paul's discussion in chapter four of the letter to Galatians which concludes, "So, then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." Backus took this to show that God had made two distinct and separate covenants with mankind, the first being the Abrahamic covenant of works and the second, which superseded it, the Christian covenant of grace. The bondwoman stood for "the Jewish church" upon which the Puritan system of church and state was modeled; the free woman was the anti-type, "the Gospel church," upon which the Separate-Baptist principles were modeled. Under the former men were slaves to "the law"; under the latter, men were "free in Christ." Backus later summarized this tract as showing "that Abraham's first son that was circumcised was the son of the bondwoman, an emblem of the national church of the Jews; in distinction from regenerate souls, the spiritual seed of Abraham, of whom the Christian church was constituted; into which neither natural birth nor the doings of others [infant baptism] can rightly bring any soul without its own consent." As in his first tract, Backus started with an ecclesiastical issue which many theologians have considered extra-fundamental to the Christian faith but expanded it into a major confrontation with the whole Standing system. To deny infant baptism was to deny a basic tenet of the covenant theology, and to deny that was to frustrate the argument for territorial parishes, tax-supported meetinghouses and clergy, and the whole system of ecclesiastical laws which formed the warp and woof of the New England social fabric. Backus had begun in 1 7 4 1 by objecting to the prevailing definition of conversion. By 1756 he had worked his way to total rejection of the ecclesiastical system. The problem of infant baptism had always been one of the great unresolved inconsistencies in Puritan pietism. The founding fathers had, like Backus, objected to an established church which admitted non-believers, but they lived too close to the Munsterite Anabaptists to reject infant baptism entirely. Their compromise was to baptize only the children of true believers. But when this proved unstable, they had moved on to admit the children of non-believers halfway into the church. This only made matters more complicated until some, following the views of Solomon Stoddard, decided to admit all morally upright persons into full membership. And thus the "pure churches" of "visible saints" became national churches with birthright membership. The Separate-Baptist position cut the Gordian knot once and for all. By denying that infant baptism was a divine ordinance, "the gospel form of circumcision," and by insisting upon believer's baptism as the prerequisite for church membership, they guaranteed the existence of "pure churches." But this necessitated disestablishment and voluntarism. Following this tract

132

Isaac Backus

Backus had no choice but to evolve a rationale for separation of church and state. It is also important to note in this tract Backus' insistence that the true Christian serves God "not out of slavish dread" of hellfire but "without fear." Christian liberty is a joyful experience because it frees men from Satan's bondage and grants them Christian liberty. It is joyful also because Christians look forward to "the great day" when "their bodies shall be raised from the dust and shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God." But this hopeful note differs sharply from that of nineteenth-century Evangelical millennialists who implied that salvation was easy and open to all upon their own volition. On the contrary, Backus argued, "the law [of God] requires not only that which is hard, but that which is impossible for us to do. It requires us to make a new heart and a new spirit," and this only God can do. "I know," he went on in answer to the Arminians of his day, "some say that God cannot justly require of us more than we can do," but such is nevertheless the case, and we should rejoice that God, through Christ's intercession, has at least decided to save some of us (perhaps in America, most of us). Backus made an interesting analogy between God's requiring man to do the impossible and imprisonment for debt: "What, is it become an unjust thing for this glorious Creator to demand his full due because man is turned bankrupt and is no way able to pay it!" The historian would undoubtedly reverse the analogy, for it is evident that the repeal of laws imprisoning men for debt coincided in America with the rejection of Calvinism.

A SHORT/DESCRIPTION/Of the difference between the/Bond-woman and the Free;/As they are the two Covenants, with the/Characters and Conditions of each of/their Children:/Considered in a/SERMON,/Delivered at Middleborough,/By ISAAC BACKUS,/Preacher of the Gospel./ Wherein is particularly shewn, that/none are proper Subjects of the special/Ordinances of the Gospel-Church, but/real Saints./ BOSTON; NEW ENGLAND,/Printed by Green & Russell, at their PRINTING-/ O F F I C E near the Custom-House, and next to/the Writing-School in QueenStreet. 1756.

THE PREFACE The chief occasion of publishing the following discourse is because of what is said therein about the subjects of baptism; which is a point that has been long controverted among the greatest and best of men. But since there has been so many volumes written upon it, pro and con, many will be ready to object against any more's being added now, especially from one that some are pleased to call a young upstart, and disdain to be taught by him. But without regard to such stings, I shall beg leave in answer to this objection to tell the reader a little of my own experience. I was educated from a child in the contrary principles to what I now embrace concerning baptism; and my education had this to enforce it, that it came from progenitors who were sundry of them eminently godly, whose instructions, godly examples, and prayers I trust I shall bless God for to eternity. And after I trust my soul was brought to the saving knowledge of Christ, I made a public profession in that way: to which may be added that I have since been called ( though most unworthy ) to preach the Gospel, and to take the charge of a flock, in which I practiced infant baptism myself. All these, and some other things, concurred to bind me in that way; but the irresistible evidence of divine truth broke through them all. Though when this point was first brought in dispute among us I labored under some peculiar disadvantages, having my mind heavily burdened with a sense of past neglect of duty in things of another nature, which at times made me afraid of looking into these matters, lest I should be left of God to embrace an error; and this, together with the hot disputes and vehement urgings that we then had among us on both sides, occasioned such tossings in my mind as seemed as if they would have sifted and shaken me ( as it were ) to pieces; after which I was much overwhelmed with melancholy and discouragements for a great while. Yet having since obtained through divine mercy sweet deliverance and establishment, them words have often born with weight upon my mind, When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And being sensible that many of my brethren are laboring under some of the same difficulties that 1 did, and having some clear view of several things in this affair that I

THE BONDWOMAN AND THE F R E E

I35

have not lit of in any human writings, these and some other considerations have inclined me to yield to the request of those who have desired that this sermon might be published. I don't expect in this little piece to please the curious, much less a vain carping world: but if it may benefit or be any help to serious inquiring minds, I have my end. Of such I ask this one request, viz., that when you get near to God you would remember your unworthy brother and servant in the Gospel. Middleboro, January 20, 1756

ISAAC BACKUS.

Ν. B. The reason why I have said nothing in this tract upon the mode of baptism is not for want of clearness therein in my own mind, but because this subject more naturally led to show who might partake of this ordinance than how it should be administered. And also, I scarce ever meet with any that deny immersion's being a Gospel mode; and I believe that when men shall have done bringing infants to baptism, they'll generally have done with sprinkling therein likewise. GAL. iv, 31 So then, brethren we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Although mankind are awfully inclined to disregard God's law when in a careless state, yet when they are wounded by conviction, instead of coming to Christ, they fly to the law and their own works for relief. And though (as one observes) man's legal disposition has little need of being encouraged by legal preaching, yet some will teach people in this way: which it seems was the case among the Galatians, that occasioned the writing of this epistle. Some teachers (it appears) had zealously brought in the same doctrine among them which before was preached to the disciples at Antioch, viz., That except they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses they could not be saved. Which then was called a subverting their souls, Acts xv, 24. And now 'tis called a perverting the Gospel of Christ, chap, i, 7. Therefore the apostle warns them sharply against such snares, and he intimates that the reason why men cleave so close to the law is because they don't hear the law, nor understand its true nature and strictness, context, ver. 21. And in order to make this matter more plain, he sets before them the instance of Abraham's two sons that he had, one by a bondmaid,

136

Isaac Backus

the other by a freewoman, which things he shows to be an allegorical representation of the two covenants: and after some discourse upon each, he concludes with these words; So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Which expressions naturally lead us to enquire who each of these women are, and also to look into the characters and conditions of their children. ι. Who is this bondwoman? Answer 1: the moral law, as it was first given to men, commonly called the covenant of works, the tenor of which is, Do this and thou shalt live, but in the day that thou sinnest thou shalt surely die, Gen. ii, 17; Lev. xviii, 5; Gal. iii, 12. Which shows that in order to enjoy the blessing promised, we must perfectly and constantly live in a conformity to this law without the least failure, for if we don't continue to do all things that are written in the law, we are immediately bound under the curse, Gal. iii, 10, and so stand exposed to eternal damnation, from which nothing can deliver but a complete satisfaction to divine justice for the offences committed (and without shedding of blood there is no remission — Heb. ix, 22). This law and covenant of works was evidently given to and made with our Father Adam in Paradise, though we have it not so fully expressed and recorded till Moses' time. Then as Paul says, The law entered, Rom. v, 20, or was published and proclaimed to the congregation of Israel from Mount S inai, out of the midst of the fire and smoke, even the ten commandments. Hence the apostle says here, ver. 25, that this Agor is Mount Sinai in Arabia, i. e. 'tis the law that was delivered from thence, which gendereth to bondage. 2. This bondwoman includes also the ceremonial law, which likewise was given to Moses, and from him to the children of Israel at Sinai. Exod. xxv, etc. I know indeed that the ceremonial law, as it was a shadow of good things to come and typified Jesus Christ and the blessings of his grace, brought very joyful news to perishing souls; and those who were enabled by faith to look through them signs to the things signified, enjoyed great blessings therein. But then those rites and ceremonies in themselves could never take away sin, and they seem to be given much after the tenor of the old covenant. If any man had sinned, then he must provide his own offering, and bring it for his sin that he had sinned. Lev. iv. And so for any uncleanness: what a long train of ceremonial labors must they do in order for cleansing?

THE BONDWOMAN

AND

THE

FREE

I37

Lev. xivth and xvth chapters." And from what the apostle says concerning the end of the law's being given, viz., That the offence might abound·, and that it was added because of transgression, Rom. v, 29; Gal. iii, 19. I humbly conceive that we may learn, that one great thing designed in those ceremonies, was to show the heinous nature, and great evil of sin, and thereby to discover more clearly man's awful, and helpless condition, and his necessity of a Christ. That when he had brought the greatest and most costly sacrifices, even thousands of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil, Mie. vi, 7, 8, all would avail nothing for the taking away sin and guilt. As says our glorious mediator, sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offerings for sin, thou wouldest not (which are offered by the law); then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O, God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second, Heb. χ, 8, 9. Indeed it is plain that the body of the forms and ordinances of the Jewish church are often represented as a yoke of bondage. In the council at Jerusalem Peter calls them, A yoke which neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear, Acts xv, 10. And in our context Paul shows that one part of the bondage which he warned them people against consisted in being held under those beggarly elements and in observing ceremonial days, months and years, ver. 9, 10. And further, by the bondwoman seems to be intended the Jewish church in her legal standing. Hence the apostle adds, And answereth to Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children, ver. 25, and in the beginning of the next chapter he warns them as they would keep clear of this bondage, to beware of circumcision. Should it be said that what is here designed is not that them ordinances were such a yoke in themselves but only that the Jews had perverted them from their proper use, I reply, that 'tis in a measure so, though in themselves they were an insupportable task. In short, by the bondwoman I understand the covenant of works in general, and all the ways in particular, wherein men seek for life by what they can do, and think, either in whole or in part, to satisfy for their sins, and purchase divine favors, either by duties of morality or by observing any ordinances and forms of worship whatsoever. Dr. [Isaac] Watts, speaking of the Sinai covenant says, "Some persons indeed call it a legal dispensation of the covenant of grace (with whom I will not contend) but it is more agreeable to the language of Scripture to call it a distinct covenant or a covenant and law of works, as a Jewish appendix to the Gospel." Orthodoxy and Charity united, p. 36. β

138

Isaac Backus

π. Let us consider who her children are and what a condition they are in. [1.] And here the case is very plain that the children of the bondwoman are all that are born after the flesh, ver. 23, that is, all mankind in their natural condition. But should any say that Ishmael's being born after the flesh intends an unlawful birth, his mother not being Abraham's lawful wife, I answer no, by no means, for then he would have been a bastard, and such an one must not come into the congregation of the Lord, Deut. 23, but he was circumcised and admitted to outward privileges as well as Isaac. This objection might as well be laid against four of Jacob's sons as against this, their mothers being maids or handmaids before, yet they are ever reckoned to make up the twelve tribes of God's Israel. But it is evident, beyond dispute, that his being born after the flesh does not intend a being illegitimate, but only that he had no other than a natural birth. He was never born again, without which none can enter into the kingdom of God. And so now all who have only a natural birth are children of the bondwoman. Paul says of himself, and other saints, We are, by nature, children of wrath even as others, Eph. ii, 3, and he tells the Romans that he had proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin, Rom. iii, 9. Jews, Pharisees, and all the world are guilty before God, ver. 19. And never did a child more naturally run to its mother for help than man when wounded with a sense of guilt flies to his own works for relief. His cry is, Have patience with me, and Til pay thee all. But very sad is the condition of such souls. They may justly be called children of the bondwoman for these reasons: 1. Because their work is hard. Slaves have often both hard work to do, and are drove hard in it to do a great deal. So is the case here. The law requires not only that which is hard but that which is impossible for us to do. It requires us to make us a new heart and a new spirit as we would escape death, Ezek. xviii, 3 1 . And it demands that we make recompense for all past faults and walk in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, as we would hope to live, Ezek. xxxiii, 15. Yea, it follows the soul up so that it says, If thou keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, thou art guilty of all, Jam. ii, 1 0 . 1 know some say that God cannot justly require of us more than we can do. But this discovers men's awful blindness. What! is it become an unjust thing for this glorious Creditor to demand his full due because man is turned bankrupt and is no way able to pay it! Luke vii, 42. O Heaven-daring madness! Nay, this sets aside all that

THE B O N D W O M A N

AND THE FREE

I39

Christ has done as vain, for He came upon this very footing, namely because we were without strength, therefore in due time He died for the ungodly, Rom. v, 6. And what the law could not do (i. e. justify a sinner) God sent His son to do, Rom. viii, 3. 2. Souls under the old covenant are like bondservants in this, that they can claim no right to the inheritance or even to a continuance in the family but may be sold away, or shut up in prison notwithstanding all that they have done when the master thinks proper. The servant abideth not in the house for ever; hut the son abideth ever, John viii, 35. Since the law is broken, man can claim nothing by it but wrath and damnation. The law worketh wrath, Rom. iv, 15, and as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, Gal. iii, 10. So that, after all their performances which they boast themselves in, the sentence will justly be given out and executed upon them. Call out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 3. Bondservants, when they have toiled and labored many years, are no more released from their bondage than when they began. So all that are under the law, let them fast twice in the week and make many and long prayers and be as exact as ever the Pharisees were in all their walk, yet our Lord assures us that they must have a righteousness beyond all this or they can in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven, Matt, ν, 20. By the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in the sight of God. So that every unbeliever will eternally remain under condemnation after all their doing. Ah! deplorable case indeed! Well might the apostle think that those who desired to be under the law did not hear it nor know its true nature and strictness. Surely if they did, they would soon cry (as Israel did at Sinai) for a mediator to stand between God and them. Hence I proceed, III. To show who the freewoman is, here spoken of. And by this I understand, first the glorious covenant of grace made between the Father and the Son, before the world began. Therefore God says, I have made a covenant with my chosen; I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people, Psal. lxxxix, 3, 19. The sum of which covenant (for I cannot be large in describing of it) is that the Son of God should assume our nature and in that nature perfectly obey the law which we have broken and bear the punishment due unto us for sin, and so make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in an everlasting righteousness through which God could be just and

140

Isaac Backus

yet the justifier of the ungodly. As the fruit of which the Father engaged by the influences of the Holy Spirit effectually to draw many of the sons of men to Christ, work faith in their hearts, justify and sanctify their souls, and keep them by his power through faith unto eternal salvation, Heb. ii, 9-17; Psal. xl, 6-8; Dan. ix, 24; John xvi, 7-13; Rom. viii, 29, 30; 1 Pet. i, 2-5. Which glorious plan, is so far from destroying or setting aside the law that it establishes, yea magnifies, and makes it honorable, Rom. iii, 3 1 ; Isai. xlii, 21, and shows how heinous every breach of it is, even so great that no transgressor of that law could escape eternal punishment without a perfect satisfaction for every offence against it. But by Christ's obedience and sufferings there is a way opened wherein the greatest sinner may be pardoned and God's image be re-instamped on his heart, and that he may come to enjoy all divine blessings here and for evermore. Hence the Lord says, This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days; I will put my laws into their minds and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people, Heb. viii, 10. Further, by the freewoman is intended the Gospel-Church in her pure standing. Hence in our context she is called Jerusalem which is above — which is the mother of us all, ver. 26. So in Heb. xii, 18-24, it is said that we are not come to the mount that burned with fire, but we are come to Mount Zion and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written in Heaven, and to Jesus, the mediator of the new-covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel. On mount Sinai the fiery law was proclaimed which gendereth to bondage, but now on mount Ζion or in the Church of the living God is proclaimed the Gospel of peace and salvation. And souls are brought to embrace the same. All the saints in Heaven and earth make but one catholic church, but it is in the Gospel-Church here below that God appears to publish his grace and to draw others in. Therefore we are told that The law shall go forth out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and many nations shall flock in, Isai. ii. And again, The Lord shall send the rod of his strength out of Zion, the effect of which will be that his people shall be willing in the day of his power, Psal. cx, 2, 3. In short, by the freewoman we may understand the glorious plan of salvation laid in the eternal mind from everlasting which in time has been made manifest, first by gradual

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

I4I

discoveries thereof in the Old Testament, and then by Christ's actually coming in the flesh and working out salvation which he began to preach himself, and 'twas afterwards confirmed unto us by them that heard him whereby the Gospel-Church was gathered and increased. His usual way of bringing others in being to cause Ζion to travel [sic] and so to bring forth children, for God is the Father and the church the mother of all the saints. The apostle here, ver. 27, adds a passage from the fifty-fourth of Isaiah where, note, that the foregoing chapter concludes with the happy fruits of Christ's sufferings, viz., That he should see his seed, justify many, etc. upon which the Church, who had been desolate as a widow, is comforted with a declaration that her maker is her husband and that she should have a numerous offspring and her seed should inherit the Gentiles, etc. Which leads us IV. To describe the character and state of her children. And here we are told that ( as the child of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, so ) the child of the freewoman was by promise. God promised that son to Abraham long before he was conceived in the womb, and he exercised a strong faith in that promise by which he gave glory to God, Rom. iv, 20. And 'twas through faith that Sarah also received strength to conceive this seed, Heb. xi, 11. There appeared nothing more than the actings of nature in Ishmael's birth, but in Isaacs there was faith on both sides, which made him a wonderful type of the seed here pointed at. He was promised before he had a being, and so was every child of the freewoman here spoken of. They were chosen in Christ before the world began, Eph. i, 4. And God that cannot lie, promised eternal life so early, Tit. i, 2. Therefore Christ refers to this promise in his glorious prayer, John xvii, 1, 2. Father, glorify thy Son that thy Son also may glorify thee. As thou hast given Him power over all flesh that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him. But this election of grace is not known to us till we are born again. Therefore, as Isaac was born according to promise so every one of these who are promised to Christ shall be converted in due time. Hence He says, All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out, John vi, 37. Such are born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God, John i, 13. These souls may well be called children of the freewoman because 1. They are set free from that condemnation and dreadful load of guilt which they lay under before. There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the spirit of life in Christ

142

Isaac Backus

Jesus hath made them, free from the law of sin and death; yea, so that no things present nor things to come shall ever be able to separate them from his love, Rom. viii, 1, 2, 38, 39. Agreeable to this is what our divine Master tells us, John v, 24, that he that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 2. These children are set free from Satan's tyranny. By nature they are his slaves. He is called the prince of this world, and the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, John xii, 31; Eph. ii, 2. Hence we are told that Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christ took part of the same that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage, Heb. ii, 14, 15. Christ casteth Satan out and takes from him all his armor wherein he trusted and divideth the spoils, Luke xi, 22. 3. They may be called children of the freewoman because they are made free from the dominion of sin. Christ tells us that Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin, but if the Son shall make us free, we shall be free indeed, John viii, 34, 36. And Paul told the Romans that, being made free from sin, they became servants of God, had their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Yea, says he, sin shall not have dominion over you, because ye are not under the law but under grace, Rom. vi, 14, 22. Sin takes occasion by the law and often beats down and overcomes souls when they essay to reform and turn to the Lord by throwing their past transgressions and guilt in their way and representing to them that such guilty creatures as they can never come to a holy God, and therefore they had better go on and get what pleasure they can in sin, for they'll never have any thing better. And God's own children are often worried here when they have backslidden from Him; and Satan will not be wanting to help keep them back. Hence he is called the accuser of the brethren which accuseth them before God day and night. The Spirit of God convinceth of sin, and the Devil accuseth of sin, but one special difference between them lies here, the one shows us our transgressions in order to awaken us to repentance and reformation and says, It is high time to awake out of sleep, and the time past of our lives may suffice, and more than suffice, wherein we have served sin. But Satan says 'tis in vain to turn now for there is no help for you. Nay, because souls are got once into his snare, he claims a sort of propriety in them, and if at any time they

THE BONDWOMAN

AND THE F R E E

I43

would attempt to reprove another for iniquity, he will immediately throw their own faults in their teeth and tell them that 'tis in vain to pretend to deal with another when they are so vile themselves; and so, because we have once done wrong, he would make that a sufficient argument against our ever doing right again. O, this cruel adversary! how miserably are sinners befooled, that they'll hearken to him more than to Jesus Christ! But what shall a poor soul do when the tempter throws such things in his way as he knows he is guilty of? He can't deny the charge. Why, we are told that they overcame him by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony and they loved not their lives unto the death, Rev. xii, 1 1 . Therefore, O soul if Satan tells thee of thy guilt, learn to overcome him by flying immediately to the blood of the Lamb who, if we confess our sins, is ( not only merciful and gracious but also ) just and faithful to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 1 John i, 9. Does the tempter say thy sins are very heinous? Learn to make that an argument with Christ saying, Pardon, O Lord, mine iniquity, for it is great, Ρsal. xxv, 1 1 . Which leads me 4. To another point of their freedom which is open access to God. When Adam had sinned he was turned out of Paradise and cherubims and a flaming sword were set to keep him off and to guard the way of the tree of life, Gen. iii, 24. But now through Christ we have access by one Spirit to the Father, Eph. ii, 18. Saints have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear but they have received the spirit of adoption whereby they cry Abba Father, Rom. viii, 15. And they may come with as great freedom as children do to a father, for the blessings they need, Luke xi, 13. Yea, we are bid to be careful for nothing but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving to let our request be made known to God, Phil, iv, 6. Once more 5. They are made free to serve God and walk in his ways so that his commands are not a yoke of bondage but a law of liberty to their souls, James i, 25. And as on the other side the children of the bondwoman drag on like slaves, and they say of God's service, what a weariness is it, so the children of the freewoman obey Him not out of slavish dread but ( like free born souls ) they serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of their lives, Luke i, 74, 75. Hence David reckons it his freedom to observe the divine will. Says he, I will walk at LIBERTY, for I seek thy precepts, Psal. cxix, 45. And the saints at Galatia, being brought into this freedom, the apostle ( in the

144

Isaac Backus

words next after our text) chargeth them to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. In short, the children of the freewoman are freed from the condemnation of the law, from the power of sin and Satan and have freedom of approach to God through Jesus Christ, and it is made their freedom and liberty to walk in holiness all their days, and they have the liberty of Christ's house and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God here and are heirs of an incorruptible inheritance above, and by and by they shall be received to that glory. And in the great day their bodies shall be raised from the dust and shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, Rom. viii, 21, 23. And when the bondwoman and all her children shall be cast out into outer darkness then shall these children of the freewoman be openly received to enjoy the kingdom prepared for them before the foundation of the world, Matt. xxv. Let us now proceed to some improvement of what has been said. USE ι. We may here see the great folly of all those that seek salvation either in whole or in part by their own doings. This Mount Sinai gendereth to bondage, and those who would get life by the law let 'em come before it and see the darkness, fire, and smoke and hear the thunderings and the fiery law that comes from thence. Surely if souls come here, they will soon see the need of a Mediator to stand between them and this God who is a consuming fire. Alas! how blind are men that they should ever imagine that they can satisfy divine justice or get life by a broken law! Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? What does it say? Why it says, If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life WITHOUT COMMITTING iniquity, he shall surely live, he shall not die, Ezek. xxxiii, 15. Observe the terms well: you must restore the pledge, give again that you have robbed; not only what you have unlawfully taken from your fellow men but also what you have done against the eternal God, for He says, you have robbed me, even this whole nation, Mai. iii, 9. You must fully pay that dreadful debt and walk in the statutes of life for the future without ever committing another sin, else there's no life by that law. If you say that this is too strait, be entreated to look a little farther into the nature of the law, and you will find it is so strait that Heaven and Earth will pass away, before one tittle of the law can pass away, till all be fulfilled, Matt, v,

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

I45

18. When God treats with men in the old covenant he deals with them according to the strict tenor of it, and when he treats with them in the covenant of grace then though their debts are very great, yet when they have nothing to pay he frankly forgives them all, Luke vii, 42. But sinners vainly expect some of the blessings of grace while they yet cleave to the law. USE η. Hence we may learn who have a right to the privileges of the new covenant, viz., those (and those only) who are born again. The children of the freewoman partake of her blessings, but the children of the bondwoman shall not be heirs with the children of the freewoman. I am sensible that there are many contentions among professors of religion about these things. Many think that sinners may claim a right to some of the promises of grace, particularly such as these, Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find. And if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But if they look a little further, they are told that they must ask in faith if they would think to receive any thing from the Lord, James i, 5, 6, 7. Indeed, here God appeals to their consciences and says, are not my ways equal? ( Ezek. xviii ) are not your ways unequal? If you keep under the old covenant, I deal with you according to the tenor of it: but if you perfectly obey its precepts, you shall have the blessings promised, but he that offends in one point is guilty of all, and then there is tribulation and ivrath, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, Rom. ii, 9. The promises and threatenings of the old covenant belong to the children of the old covenant, and the promises of the new covenant belong only to her children. Hence such alone are styled heirs of promise who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, Heb. vi, 17, 18. None others can claim the promises of grace for All the promises of God in Christ Jesus, are yea, and in him amen, 2 Cor. i, 20. Therefore to those only that come to and receive Him does He give power ( or privilege ) to become the sons of God, John i, 12. And if sons, then heirs to all the blessings of Heaven, Rom. viii, 17. And as these alone are heirs to those eternal blessings so none others have a right to the special privileges of Christ's house here below. This I shall enlarge more upon. As for preaching, exhortation, etc., God has given them forth in general to the world and calls all men every where to repent. But some imagine that the Lord's Supper was appointed for a converting ordinance and so that unconverted persons, if moral, ought to come to

146

Isaac Backus

1

it. But if it was appointed for conversion, surely the profane have as much need of that as any, though 'tis evident that this is children's bread, and therefore by no means to be given to dogs, Matt, vii, 6. Many others think that baptism is not confined only to saints but that their natural offspring are also to partake of it. And I find that the main arguments for both are fetched from the constitution of the Old Testament church, holding that to be modeled according to the new covenant. Though here in our context we are told that This Agar is mount Sinai and answereth to Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children, i. e. the Jewish church in her legal standing. That church and the Gospel-Church are set as wide apart as the old covenant and the new. In Heb. viii, the covenant at Sinai is called Old, and God says expressly that the new covenant is not according to that. And that old constitution we are told was then ready to vanish away, ver. 9, 13. The original constitution of that church was such that it took in whole households and so a whole nation. Natural generation (being born of professors of that religion) gave a right to circumcision and so to all the privileges of that church. And a being bought with an Hebrew's money gave the servant a right both to circumcision and the Passover, Exod. xii, 44. And the covenant that Moses mentions in Deut. xxix, took in such as had not an heart to perceive, eyes to see, nor ears to hear. But Paul shows clearly that in the New Testament, The children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. ix, 8. And lest any should say that a being born after the flesh meant an unlawful birth, he immediately adds the instance of Jacob and Esau as exactly parallel, who were not only both born of one mother but also at one time; and yet Esau was in as bad a case as Ishmael, ver. 10-13. But what will, I apprehend, set this matter in the clearest light is to consider it in the line of type and antitype. It is abundantly shown in Scripture, that the Jewish church and the forms and ordinances thereof did shadow forth and typify heavenly things, Heb. viii, 2-6 and ix, 9, 23, 24, etc. The seed of Abraham, Isaac and Israel's being selected out of other nations and being redeemed with almighty power and brought near to God to be his peculiar people and to partake of those ordinances and privileges which no other nation then enjoyed, did remarkably shadow forth God's spiritual Israel whom He hath chosen and by almighty grace redeemed, Out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation, Rev. v, 9. And as the Lord said to Israel at Sinai, Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, Exod. xix, 6, so these saints say, Thou

THE

BONDWOMAN

AND

THE

FREE

I47

hast made us unto our God kings and priests, ver. 10. And in the forementioned ninth of Romans, Paul evidently shows that as Israel literally was chosen out of other people so that Israel spiritually are chosen out from among both Jews and Gentiles. The same apostle calls the Old Testament dispensation the letter, and the New Testament, the spirit, 2 Cor. iii, 6. That church had a literal house and temple where God's name was fixed and His worship confined. Deut. xii, 13; 1 Kings viii, 29. But in the New Testament we are confined to no place, John iv, 21, but the saints are God's house who are builded for his habitation through the Spirit, Eph. ii, 20-22. That old temple was built with stones which Hiram's servants hewed, but this with lively ( or living ) stones; that was a worldly sanctuary, Heb. ix, 1, but this is a spiritual house; there was offered fleshly sacrifices, but here spiritual ones, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. ii, 5.* Hence an outward cleansing was required in order to receive the ordinances of that church, but here that which is spiritual, even the purging of our consciences from dead works in order to serve the living God, Heb. ix, 13, 14. And here let me remark one thing that is not generally observed, and that is that a ceremonial cleanness was particularly required in a child before he might be circumcised, which plainly appears in the first appointment of that ordinance in that he must not be circumcised till eight days old, Gen. xvii, 12. The reason of which is shown in Lev. xii, 2, 3, which is that when a woman had born a manchild, she should be unclean seven days and in the eighth day he should be circumcised; i. e., he must be circumcised as soon as he was clean which by the way proves undeniably that circumcision in its original appointment was designed to be a part of the ceremonial law, notwithstanding what many say to the contrary. Therefore from hence I conclude that as outward cleanness was necessary in order for circumcision and none might partake of it without so that spiritual cleanness is absolutely necessary now in order for any to receive baptism or the Lord's Supper aright. These brief hints may furnish us with an early answer to many objections that are often urged against our refusing to give these pret Should any think that my discourse here, too much favors the scheme of those who deny the outward use of baptism I reply that a person's experiencing of this spiritually is so far from disproving the need of the outward use of that ordinance that the apostle Peter makes the evidence of persons being baptized with the Holy Ghost to be a sufficient proof that such are meet subjects of, and ought to be baptized with water baptism, Acts x, 4 7 , 48 and xi, 16, which is such an evidence for our practice as I never yet see any writings on that side pretend to confute.

148

Isaac Backus

cious ordinances to the unconverted. I shall speak more particularly as to baptism and that will sufficiently answer the other, for none will plead for persons coming to the Lord's Supper who have not a right to baptism. Objection I. God says to Noah, With thee will I establish my covenant and come thou and all thy house into the ark, Gen. vii, 18. And Peter tells us that the like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us ( not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God ) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. iii, 21. Hence we conclude that now children are taken into covenant with their parents, and they ought to answer a good conscience in having of them baptized. Answer. That which saved 'em was the ark that Noah built which was a clear type of Christ, and as the old world was destroyed when Noah entered into the ark so shall the wicked when the Son of Man cometh for the salvation of his people, Matt, xxiv, 38, 39. But what is mostly hinged upon is Noah's children's going in on their father's right. Though they were saved only with a temporal salvation which can't entitle to Gospel-Church privileges. But what will you do with this here? The dispute is commonly about infant baptism, but here is nothing like an infant, for they were all married men and women, Noah and his wife, and his sons and their wives. And where is the person in our days that will baptize such only on their parents right? Thus by jumbling type and antitype together persons run themselves into a sad dilemma. Whereas if we take them distinct, the case is easy. Noah, as well as the ark he built, did typify Christ. His children were saved, so are all Christ's children. Noah's children went voluntarily into the ark at God's command, Gen. vii, 1, 7; so must each one of us personally believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and answer a good conscience towards God in obeying His commands or else Noah, Daniel, nor Job can never deliver son nor daughter from destruction, Ezek. xiv, 20. Objection II. But the Lord made the covenant of grace with Abraham and said, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee, and so took his seed into covenant with himself which is called an everlasting covenant, and as a token thereof ordered him to circumcise his children, Gen. xvii. So we believe that now children are in covenant with their parents and ought to be baptized. Hence Peter says on the day of Pentecost to those who were pricked to the heart, Repent and be baptized, for the promise is unto you and your children, Acts ii, 39.

T H E B O N D W O M A N AND T H E F R E E

I49

Answer. This is the main hinge on which all the controversy turns; and therefore I will be a little more particular upon it. And first let us observe that Abraham stood in a double capacity. As he stood personally before God the covenant of grace was no more made with him than with any saint in the world. The Gospel was preached unto him, Gal. iii, 8, and he believed it, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Rom. iv, 3. But as he stood a type of Christ, he appeared as the visible head of the Jewish Church, and the covenant was made with him and his seed after him, and they were all taken into the church and many favors were granted or promised to them. Nextly, let us examine who his seed are, and here I find that his seed is taken in three senses in Scripture. 1. His natural seed, which includes all that descended from his loins, these were all taken into that typical covenant, and they had the privilege of the oracles of God and the outward ordinances of his worship, which no other nation then enjoyed. They had the promise of the land of Canaan and of many outward blessings there and in conclusion that Christ should come out of that nation. And they had the first offer of the Gospel, Rom. iii, 1, 2 and ix, 4, 5. 2. Christ is Abrahams seed in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed, Gal. iii, 16, and sundry of them ancient promises evidently point directly to Him in whom alone they are fulfilled. 3. All saints are Abrahams spiritual children. Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all, Rom. iv, 16. Now as to these seed, God is indeed their God in covenant, which covenant and the blessings of it are everlasting. But then take notice that, though all saints are Abraham's children, yet they are not all made fathers as he was. He is the father of us all, and they that be of faith are his children, Gal. iii, 7. As he stood the head and father of that nation and church, he was, as has been observed, a type of Christ who is our everlasting father, Isai. ix, 6, and is head over all things to his church, Eph. i, 22. In which sense no mere man upon earth now stands as Abraham did. Now if we take these things distinct, there is no difficulty; but to jumble them together leads into endless confusion. Typically, all Abraham's posterity were in covenant, both believers and unbelievers. And anti-typically all his spiritual seed are in the covenant of grace, both Jews and Gentiles, Rom. iv, 1 1 , 12. And so that text is limited in

150

Isaac Backus

Acts ii, 39. which is so much insisted upon. The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that far off, EVEN AS M A N Y as the Lord our God shall call. There is the limits; as many of us and of our children, as are effectually called are heirs of promise, and no others, Heb. vi, 17, 18 and ix, 15. And to cut this matter short, we in general don't pretend to be Abraham's natural seed; then show me, if you can, how the natural seed of believing Gentiles as such ever become Abraham's spiritual children; that which is born of the flesh is flesh. And how came those who are only your fleshly posterity any way be Abraham's seed? If you say that you are Abraham's seed, and they stand to you as his did to him. Then let me inquire where God has shown you that you shall be a father of many nations and that a church shall spring from you which shall be large and that natural instead of spiritual birth shall bring persons into it? Here lies the pinch of the point: a being born after the flesh did bring them into the Jewish church which is evident because if they were not circumcised, they must be cut off from their people, Gen. xvii, 14, which could not be if they were not in; for there is no casting any out of the church that are not in it. Which if it be the case now under the Gospel, then we have a fleshly and not a spiritual church directly contrary to many texts that I have mentioned and scores more that might be brought to the same purpose. Here some bring Rom. xi to prove that the limits of the church stand the same now as formerly only is changed into different hands. Because from a similitude of the olive-tree is represented the rejection of the Jews and the reception of the Gentiles to partake of that which is called the root and fatness of the olive-tree, which they take to be partaking of the same, or like, external as well as internal, privileges. From whence is argued the rights of professors now to baptize their children because the Jews circumcised theirs. But by the root and olive-tree I understand, Abraham typically and Christ spiritually, who is plainly pointed at in ver. 26, 27. He is the vine, his people are the branches, John xv, 5. The Jews were broken off through unbelief, and the Gentiles were graffed in, and stand only by faith, ver. 20. So that what appears from hence is that true faith is absolutely necessary in order for any soul now to partake of these great blessings, described by the root and fatness of the olive, which blessings the Jews lost by unbelief, though it is called their own olive-tree, ver. 24, and they had the first offer of grace when Christ came. Therefore whatever privileges are intended by the root and fatness

T H E B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

I51

of the olive, it is evident that as the branch must have a living union to the tree or vine in order to receive nourishment therefrom, so every person, both great and small, must by faith be united to Christ, in order to partake of them favors: which shows that no arguments can be drawn from hence to prove that any others are subjects of baptism but real saints. Objection III. But it is evident that in old time God did grant to the children of those who were eminently godly many favors and privileges that He did not to others. And so the prophet, speaking concerning the last times, tells the saints that they shall be the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them, Isai. lxv, 23, and there is much more in Scripture to the same purpose. From whence we cannot but think that children now are taken into covenant with their parents and therefore have a right to baptism. Answer. 1. The first part of this objection is undoubted truth, but the consequence drawn from it, I think, has no foundation in Scripture. For a great part of the favors thus granted are only of a temporal nature and that not only to children but also to other friends round. Thus, for instance, not only Noah's and Lot's children were saved from being drowned and burnt up, but Rahab the harlot's father and mother, brothers and sisters also were preserved from being slain, for her sake because she received the spies with peace, Josh, ii, 13 and vi, 23, 24. And how often does God speak of preserving the kingdom and the privileges of it in the hands of the posterity of David, his servant, for their fathers sake, 1 Kings xi, 13, 32, 34, 36; 2 Chron. xxi, 7; Isai. xxxvii, 35. So that it appears that a great part of the favors thus given are of a temporal nature which no ways entitles to Gospel Church privileges. If it did, parents or brethren of the godly might claim a right to them, as well as children, Yet 2. If any spiritual favors are shown to children for their parents sake, they are either the advantage of their godly examples, counsels and instructions, and the enjoyment of the outward means of grace (chiefly because unto them are committed the oracles of God, Rom. iii) or else out of regard to His saints and in answer to their prayers, the Lord is pleased to pour out his Spirit on them and savingly turn 'em to himself; then we readily own that they have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God. J will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring. What then is the consequence? why, one shall say, I am the Lord's, and another shall call himself by the

152

Isaac Backus

name of Jacob, and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel, Isai. xliv, 3, 5. Note, first God's Spirit is poured upon 'em, and then they openly confess him. But what proof is there from hence that unconverted children have a right to Church privileges? The Lord in comforting Zion in Isai. liv, 13, says, All thy children shall be taught of God; which chapter the apostle quotes in our context to describe the freewoman, and then adds, We, brethren, are her children. All which shows that the church's children in a Gospel sense are only real saints. The same appears also from what God said to Jeremiah concerning the new covenant that he would make with his people not according to the covenant that he made with Israel, when they came out of Egypt. Which new covenant is a writing of his law in their hearts, etc., and in describing the extent of it he says, They shall all know me, from the least of them, unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more. From which it is evident to a demonstration that none are actually in the covenant but such as know God and have their sins forgiven. This is applied to the Gospel state in Heb. viii. Further, let it be observed that this point, of favors being shown to children for their godly parents sake was no ways confined to circumcision of old because it appears before, in the time, and after that was instituted. Before, it appeared in Noah's family as observed above. In the time of it we may see the same in Lot's house and that not only to his immediate offspring but also many generations after, God shows some regard to his posterity for his sake, Deut. ii, 9, 19. Yet none of them were circumcised. And after circumcision was instituted in Israel the same appears without any special reference to that, as may be seen in the family of Phinehas, David, and others though all the rest of Israel were circumcised as well as they. Which proves that God's bestowing some favors on saint's children that He didn't to others of old, never could argue any right to circumcision without an express command. Then surely no proof can from hence be drawn for baptizing believers' seed now without the plain direction of the lawgiver. Objection IV. According to this you make as though saints in Gospel times have not so great privileges as they had under the law, but we believe them to be greater now than then. Answer 1. In order to solve this difficulty, 'tis necessary to consider what were truly the privileges that they enjoyed under the law. And

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

153

Paul plainly shows that their chief privileges were the enjoyment of the oracles of God, Rom. iii, 1, 2, which were as means for their conversion and salvation. And that they might not partake of these means without being circumcised is manifest because that Christ himself when he sent out his apostles before He had by his death abolished the Jewish ceremonies, forbid their preaching to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt, x, 5, 6. But now our children may enjoy these means with vastly greater clearness than they without being baptized. Should any here say that baptism is a means for conversion and as such ought to be used for children, I reply that I conceive this was the footing upon which the baptizing of infants was first introduced into the world. Though I don't pretend to be much acquainted with the history of those times, yet I gather this from the account that paedobaptists themselves give of this affair. Mr. [Peter] Clark in his late defense of the divine right of infant baptism, 2 though he can produce no express mention of infants being baptized in the two first hundred years after Christ, yet he would persuade us that the fathers of the third century had the apostles minds and practice right in this matter who plainly mention it. But one of the first passages that he cites is from St. Origen in these expressions, viz., "It is for that reason because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized," p. 111. And hence they frequently called baptism regeneration, which language the Church of England retain to this day. But if all were regenerated who are sprinkled in infancy, surely we should see other men of them, than multitudes of them appear to be. And the notion of the pollution of our births being washed away by this outward application of water looks so absurd that I would persuade myself that 'tis needless among us to stand to confute it. Were it needful, what the noted Mr. Joseph Allen ( a paedobaptist ) in his Alarm to the Unconverted, p. 10, lays down, is somewhat to the purpose. Says he, It is not the end of baptism to regenerate, x. because then there would be no reason w h y it should be confined only to the seed of believers, for both the law of God and the nature of charity requires us to use the means of conversion for all as far as w e can have opportunity. Were this true, no such charity as to catch the children of the Turks and Heathens and baptize them and dispatch them to Heaven out of hand, like the bloody wretches that made the poor protestants (to save their lives) swear they would come to Mass, and that they would never depart from it, and then put

154

Isaac Backus

them forthwith to death saying, They would hang them while in a good mind. 2. Because it presupposeth regeneration and therefore can't be intended to confer it. In all the express instances in Scripture we find that baptism doth suppose their repenting, believing, receiving the Holy Ghost. Acts viii, 37 and ii, 38 and x, 37; Mark xvi, 16. I also observe in Mr. Clark that there is an early mention of Godfathers and Godmothers, as there is of infants right to baptism, p. 105. He likewise speaks of a dispute that after rose among the churches whether infants might be baptized as soon as they were born or not till eight days old, which affair was settled by a council in Cyprians time. All which make me think that instead of having the pattern from the apostles, these things were introduced gradually among other corruptions of those times. Answer 2. If you think we must have as many external ordinances of worship as they of old or else that our privileges are less, you are greatly mistaken, for 'tis justly reckoned a great favor to have that large handwriting of ordinances taken out of the way, Col. ii, 14. The Jews had three stated feasts in which all their males were to appear before God, Deut. xvi, 16. But there is but one stated ordinance in the Gospel Church which is so called, 1 Cor. v, 8, and who will say that our privileges are less than the Jews because of that? Much of the glory of that church was outwards ( as of circumcision the Lord says, My covenant shall be in your flesh, Gen. xvii, 1 3 ) and they had a great deal of outward splendor. In particular their temple, built by Solomon, doubtless far surpassed any house that any Gospel Church now in earth have to meet in, yet that don't prove our privileges to be less than theirs. Answer 3. Aaron was chosen God's high-priest of old, and then the priesthood was limited to his natural seed, and the Lord says of his grandson Phinehas, Behold I give unto him my covenant of peace, and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and made an atonement for the children of Israel, Num.. xxv, 12, 13. Now mark — here is an everlasting covenant, made with Phinehas, as well as with Abraham; but who will say that the gospel ministers' privileges are less now than those ministers of God's sanctuary were then, unless the ministry may now be limited to their natural posterity? A part of the priests' work was to teach Jacob Gods judgments and Israel his law, Deut. xxxiii, 10, which is the work of gospel ministers now. Natural birth, and some outward ceremonies then brought persons into the

THE

BONDWOMAN

AND

THE

FREE

I55

Church and into the priesthood, but now spiritual birth and the work of God's grace is necessary in order to bring souls aright into the Church and into the ministry. As to both, it then ran in a natural but now in a spiritual line, and there is every whit as much reason to plead that ministers in these times must have all their offspring maintained by the offerings of the people, and that none may come into the ministry but their seed, Deut. xviii, 1-5, or else their privileges are cut short, as to say, that church members now must have all their children baptized to prevent a complaint of their privileges being abridged. What has been said may be sufficient to answer that objection that is often urged, viz., that children were once in covenant, and where were they cut off? For they were only in a typical covenant, as has been shown. But when John the Baptist came to prepare the way for the evangelical administration he told the Jews to think no more about having Abraham to their father, for God was able of stones to raise up children unto Abraham, q.d., Abraham's children are now to be reckoned in another line therefore think no more of having a right to ordinances only by virtue of natural generation. And he plainly shows that evidences of repentance are necessary now in order for any to partake of baptism, Matt, iii, 8, 9. So that unconverted children were only in that old covenant which was then ready to vanish away, Heb. viii, 13. None are in the new covenant till God's law is written in their hearts, ver. xo, and such never can be cut off. Neither will there need much more to be said upon the distinction that is made between the external administration and internal efficacy of the covenant. This Mr. Clark, a late writer insists much upon. * And he owns that none are in the covenant in the latter sense but real t In his answer to Dr. [John] Gill on infant baptism. I will recite some of his words, p. 246. He says, " A man may be in the covenant of grace in respect of its visible administration. — and yet he may not be in the covenant of grace in regard of its spiritual dispensation and efficacy. This is the case of all close hypocrites, p. 2.48. The invisible church, it will be granted, are in the covenant of grace in regard of its spiritual efficacy." And further to evidence that there ought to be such a distinction made in the church as visible and invisible he says, p. 249, "Christ has directed his ministers to baptize all that profess themselves his disciples and appear such to a judgment of charity. But has Christ promised salvation to all such professors without distinction when he saith, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? No, but to those only who also believe in their hearts as well as confess with their mouths." And now what place has Mr. Clark got in the church to put children in before they believe? I confess I can see none but only along with hypocrites, to whom he acknowledges Christ has not promised salvation but to those only who believe in their hearts. And if it be a very great privilege to be in such a place, then he may have some color for complaining of our cutting children off from some valuable privilege, by not baptizing of them before they are converted.

156

Isaac Backus

saints, but their children were in the former external administration, and so he thinks they are now. But if the former administration was typical and the latter spiritual, as has been sufficiently shown, and if he is not now a Jew, which is one outwardly, but that he only is a Jew which is one inwardly, and if now circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God, Rom. ii, 28, 29, then surely there is no more place here for children than any others till their hearts are changed. And a few words may also suffice to confute the argument that is framed from the similitude of a king's giving out a patent or grant of land and certain privileges to a number of persons and their heirs sealed with red wax and afterwards should call it in and put a new seal in white wax to the same patent: that in such a case there would be no need of expressing anew who were interested in it. From whence is argued that 'tis the same covenant and grant that believers have now, which was given to Abraham, only that was sealed with a red or bloody seal, and this with a white one.5 But (to use this way of speaking) the difference appears vastly great, for the old patent to Abraham contained a promise of a numerous offspring, that he should be a father of many nations, and kings should come out of his loins, that they should be God's visible covenant people, and they should have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, Gen. xvii, 2-8. The head and capital of which country was Jerusalem. Whereas the new patent is given to Jesus Christ, the antitype of Abraham, which is justly called a better covenant established upon better promises, Heb. viii, 6. He has the promise of the heathen for his inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, and all that can claim a right to the blessings of this testament are such as are effectually called. Such have the promise of a better land than the old Canaan ever was, even an eternal inheritance, Heb. ix, 15. The old patent promised that some of Abrahams posterity should be made kings, but this new one makes all Christ's seed kings, as well as priests to God, who shall reign not for a few years only but for ever and ever, Rev. i, 6, and xxii, 25. The royal seat of them old kings was Jerusalem below, which in Paul's time was in bondage with her children, but these kings shall reign in Jerusalem that is above, and is free, which is the mother of us all. They of old were God's covenant, he says he regarded them not, Heb. viii, 9. But those that are in this new covenant, There is nothing present nor to § Vid. Mr. [Jonathan] Dickinson's Dialogue on Infant

Baptism.

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

I57

come, that shall ever separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, Rom. viii. And as the articles in these two testaments are very different one from the other so should we suppose (but not grant) these external ordinances to be seals, yet there is a great difference between them also. For, 1. Circumcision was only for the males; baptism is both for males and females. 2. Circumcision might be administered by common persons; Moses' wife circumcised his son, Exod. iv, 25, and Zechariah's neighbors came to circumcise John, Luke i, 58, 59. But baptism is to be administered only by Christ's messengers, Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. 3. Circumcision was not to be administered till eight days old, but baptism has no other age fixed than only, if they believe with all the heart, they may be baptized, Acts viii, 37. 4. Circumcision bound 'em to observe all those legal ceremonies which baptism does not, Gal. v. 5. Circumcision was a type of what should come, even of Christ's being cut off, and also of regeneration, Col. ii, 11. Whereas baptism is not a type of what is to come but is an outward sign or manifestation of what is inwardly wrought. As many as are baptized into Christ HAVE put on Christ, Gal. iii, 27. Here lies one special difference between the ordinances of the Old Testament, and the New. Old Testament ordinances were typical of what was to come whereas the ordinances of the New are open declarations of what is actually done. Thus, for instance, in the Lord's Supper we do show forth the Lords death or from time to time hold up a public witness to the world that Christ has really died for sinners. And this we are to continue in the practice of till his second coming, 1 Cor. xi, 26. Hence we may see the reason why those might be the subjects of circumcision that may not of baptism, viz., because that pointed forward to what was to be and so might be administered to subjects who had not the thing typified wrought in their hearts. But baptism is not a type that the subjects shall be converted but an open sign or witness that he is so. And thus the worthy subject in attending that ordinance declares that he has been crucified with Christ, and is made dead unto sin and alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. vi. This view I conceive may give us a true idea of that text which is considerably used in this affair, Rom. iv, 11: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith. From whence

158

Isaac Backus

many conclude that the covenant of circumcision was the pure covenant of grace and that circumcision then, and baptism now, are seals thereof. But you may observe, that what the apostle is upon is proving that great point of our justification by faith alone. And he brings in the instance of Abraham, as an evidence in the case and shows that he was justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Upon this there arises another question which is whether this great blessing comes only on the circumcision or on others also? To decide which he takes a review of Abrahams case from whence it appears that Abraham himself was justified by faith long before circumcision was instituted. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised. Circumcision (as has been shown) was a sign of what was to come, but Abraham had the thing signified then wrought in his soul so that he had both the type and antitype, and thus it was to him a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he then had. But how could it be a seal to Ishmael and thousands of others of the righteousness of the faith which they had not? The apostle from hence goes on to show that thus standing, Abraham was a father to all that believed though not circumcised and a father to those of the Jews that were not only circumcised but also walked in the same faith that he had before he was circumcised. Which brings out just the same thing that has been observed before, viz., that typically he was father of all that church, both believers and unbelievers, and spiritually he is the father of all the saints, both Jews and Gentiles. And without this distinction it seems impossible to reconcile many passages of Scripture together. Before I dismiss this point, I would show something of the absurdities and entanglements which follow, upon holding, that all saints' natural seed now are in covenant with em according to Abraham's covenant. This leaves men at a loss about how large the Church is and who have a right to its ordinances. Some hold that church members should baptize both their children and their servants only it must be such as are young. Yet then they can never tell exactly, what age to fix. Numbers there are who insist upon all baptized children's coming to the Lord's Supper at sixteen years old if not openly scandalous. But most of the first settlers of New England would receive none to the Supper, but such as they counted godly and would baptize no children, but only where one of the parents were church members. Yet when these children were grown up they began to plead that they were in

THE BONDWOMAN

AND THE

FREE

I59

covenant and therefore must have their children baptized or else they would be like heathens. And so by degrees they got into the practice of admitting such to own the covenant (as 'tis called) and have their children baptized who did not think themselves fit to come to the Lord's Supper. Which seems to bring in a sort of Purgatory or halfway between the Church and the world. This has been renounced by many in the present day who still hold to infant baptism. Though other godly and learned men, when they have owned some scruple in the case, yet have said, "What shall we do? they are in the covenant who have been baptized and how can we deny 'em the privileges?" Others say that though children baptized have not a right to the Supper nor to bring their seed to baptism till converted, yet they are under the watch and care of the Church, and if they are found obstinate transgressors, they must be disciplined and cast out. But we are commanded in any wise to rebuke our neighbor and not suffer sin upon him and to reprove even the unfruitful works of darkness, and would you cast 'em out from this? that is a great length indeed. Now all these profess to hold to Abrahams covenant and that they will show themselves to be his children by doing his works, and yet there is not one of them all, that come up to what they profess. For Abraham circumcised himself, his son, and all the MEN of his house of which there were 318 trained soldiers, Gen. xvii, 23 and xiv, 14. But these several sorts of persons discover something in the New Testament that contradicts so large a practice as that. Therefore they take a part of it, some a great part and others less, according as it appears clearest to them. The chief reason of all this confusion I conceive to be men's jumbling the constitution of the Old Testament Church and the New together: whereas if we take them distinct, the limits of each are expressed very plain. The limits of the old church are expressed as plain by Moses as they were to Abraham. If any man would join with that church and come to the Passover, he must have all his males circumcised. And every man's servant bought with money, when he was circumcised, then should he eat the Passover. A foreigner and an hired servant might not eat thereof, but all the congregation of Israel should keep it, Exod. xii, 44-48. There are bounds set exactly and as plain are they in the New Testament. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. They that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day were added to the Church and they continued in her fellowship. And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved,

i6o

Isaac Backus

Mark xvi, 16; Acts ii, 41-47. All who by birth or purchase were incorporated into an Hebrew's family had a right to all the ordinances of that church. So all that by Christ's purchase and the new birth are brought into the household of God have a right to all the privileges of the Gospel-Church, Eph. ii, 19-22. And to vary a step from this leads men into a jumble, and rather than yield the case they will say that the Scriptures have left this matter in the dark, about the subjects of baptism, when in truth all the darkness is in their own minds. Let none improve any of these things, to lessen their obligations of discharging their duty faithfully towards their children's souls as well as bodies. I believe that those to whom God hath given children ought to give them up to Him again, acknowledging their obligations to bring them up in his ways. And let us bring them to Christ for his blessing as they did of old. But some say, "How can we bring them to Him but in the way of his ordinances? We know not how to bring them to Him but by baptizing of them, as the seal of our faith." Answer. Sick persons were then frequently brought to Christ as well as children. And can't you find a way to bring your sick to Christ either publicly or privately without baptizing of them? Surely you can. And since there is no more hint of baptism in one case than the other, I think you may raise as good an argument from hence for having baptism administered as a seal of your faith in bringing your sick to Christ as your children. If it be urged that Christ says, Of such is the kingdom of God, I reply that He does not say all such but of such is the kingdom of God. And He immediately adds ( both in Mark x, 15 and Luke xviii, 1 7 ) an assertion that Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein. Which seems to relate rather to the tempers than to the persons of little children. But let all who have an interest at the throne of grace implore it for their children as well as others. And also use all their endeavors with them to bring them to know God through Christ Jesus. And when once there appears evidence of their being in such a happy condition then let them be as small as they will, it is readily granted that they have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God. USE HI. What has been said may lead us to an examination of our condition. Since all the world is divided into two families, as Christ says, He that is not for us is against us, so here all are children either of the bondwoman or the free. Then surely 'tis of infinite importance for each soul to know which mother they belong to. And the Scriptures

THE BONDWOMAN

AND THE FREE

l6l

have given many plain marks whereby we may come to know how our case is. For brevity's sake I shall instance but one, which is that If thou art a child of the freewoman, it is become thy LIBERTY to walk in holiness. Herein lies a special difference between the least Christian and the greatest hypocrite in the world. Both of them pay some regard to the same commands, and in many things their external walk may appear alike. But then the springs and motives of their obedience are vastly different. The hypocrite sometimes does things to be seen of men though what most commonly moves him is fear of Hell if he neglects duty, and hopes of escaping it by his performances. Hence you'll often hear them pleading that 'tis dangerous for persons to be too confident, and that 'tis needful for to always have some fear of miscarrying at last lest we should grow remiss and careless in duty. And some will plainly say, that if the doctrine which many hold concerning perseverance and assurance is true, and if they knew that they were in Christ, and should never perish, they would not care how they lived, for all would end well at last. But how plainly do these men discover themselves to be children of the bondwoman, for they look no further than their wages, or to escape the whip? We all know that the greater confirmations an obedient child has of his father's love and the security of his favor, the more cheerful, active and diligent he will be in doing his father's will and careful not to do any thing to offend him. And since it is so often asserted that saints love and delight in God's law, how can any rational soul ( if they would let reason, instead of their own experience, decide the case) imagine that clear discoveries of God's love and favor would make men less careful to serve Him! Don't we all know that what men love and delight in they will seek and pursue after without being drove? as, for instance, food that we love we labor for earnestly, and eat of it frequently, without being told that we shall die if we don't. And Job says that he esteemed the words of God's mouth more than his necessary food, chap, xxiii, 12, and David counted the divine law to be sweeter than the honeycomb, Psal. xix, 10. Also persons that we love — without driving we seek all opportunities to enjoy their company. So will all those that truly love God and his saints, yea, such as love the riches, honors, or pleasures of this world, not only voluntarily run after them but they also earnestly crave a great deal of them. And so do those who love Christ and holiness. And they that are content with a little degree of grace, never knew the glory and excellency of divine things. David says, I shall be satisfied

i62

Isaac Backus

when I awake with thy likeness, Psal. xvii, 15. Nothing short of this can fill the desires of a gracious soul. The first epistle of John is peculiarly calculated to detect licentious hypocrites and to press home a holy life upon all professors of religion. And observe well the beloved disciple's method: My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. But what if they should happen to be ensnared in sin? Does he then set the terrors of Hell before them? No, he presents the grace and blessings of Heaven. If any man sin, we have an advocate with the father; and if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, chap, i, 9 and ii, 1. And further to attain this glorious end he sets saints to admiring the wondrous love of God in taking them to be his children and asserts that now they are the sons of God, but what they shall be advanced to, does not yet appear. But he says, We KNOW that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. There is the strongest assurance expressed, but will that make them slack in their obedience? No, quite the contrary, for every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as he is pure. And he declares, that he that can run on in sin Hath not seen Christ, neither known Him, chap, iii, 1, 2, 3, 6. And now, are not hypocrites ashamed of their notion that assurance is a licentious doctrine? O, my readers, I entreat and charge you before God, who shall judge us all, to search critically your own hearts and see whether you are governed by a spirit of bondage and slavish fear, or by the spirit of adoption whereby you can cry Abba Father, Rom. viii, 15. I shall only answer a scruple that may arise here in some gracious souls and then dismiss this head. Methinks I hear some such say, "Alas, I fear that I am a child of the bondwoman, for I often drag on heavily in duty, and I feel my heart so dull and backward to spiritual exercises that I can't think there is any grace in it." But this short question may easily decide the case, viz., Is it the divine commands which are burdensome to thee or thy vile heart that often hinders thee from doing the things that thou wouldest? God's service is a weariness to hypocrites, Amos viii, 5; Mai. i, 13. But saints delight in his law after the inward man though they find a law in their members warring against it, Rom. vi, 21, 22, 23. Carefully observe this distinction and you may come to know what your condition is. In the last place I shall close with a short address to two or three sorts of persons. And,

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

163

First. To those that hold the contrary from me concerning the subjects of baptism, many of whom are very near to me. My dear friends, it may be some of you will be offended, and others grieved with me, when you see the foregoing lines. But I think I can truly say that 'tis not out of bitterness, but rather out of love to you, that I have penned what you here see. Therefore I would only beg this one favor of you, namely, that you would candidly weigh what is here said in the balances of the sanctuary before you censure or cast it by. And in order for this, let the characters of all that have held the one side or the other of this principle be put entirely out of the question or you'll never come to the right of the case. That there have been good men of both sentiments is no scruple to me, and I believe not to you neither. And 'tis as evident that there has been bad men on both sides. And should you try to find out which had the greatest number it would be little to the purpose. The mischiefs that I have found by experience in these things makes me caution you against them. David was a man of a much better character than Jacob, yet Jacob had the right of the case concerning numbering the people, 1 Chron. xxi. Therefore let us all obey the divine command to cease from man, viewing that all flesh is but fading grass, and be willing that this matter should be decided alone by the word of our God that shall stand forever, Isai. ii, 22 and xl, 8. And if after a diligent searching of the Scriptures, you still remain of a different mind from me, yet still remember that to his own master each soul stands or falls and so forbear all bitter censures. And, O, that each one would with greater earnestness forget the things that are behind and press towards the glorious mark, believing that wherein we are differently minded God shall in his own time reveal the whole truth unto us, Phil, iii, 14, 15. Oh, when shall that blessed day come when saints will have done with all misunderstandings of each other; when they shall all join with one heart and soul to praise our glorious King for ever and ever. Secondly. I shall say a word to such as are of my sentiments concerning baptism. Brethren, what I have to speak to you is, Live up to your principles. How inexcusable will those appear, who insist upon it that persons must believe in order to be baptized and yet admit such to this ordinance who give no proper evidence of any thing more than an historical or doctrinal faith? whereas a believing with all the heart is necessary to give a right thereto, Acts viii, 37.®

164

Isaac Backus

And though God alone can search the heart, yet fruits of repentance should be carefully looked after in this case. And as little excuse can be found for them that while they plead that we must be buried with Christ in baptism yet behave as though sin lived and reigned in their hearts still instead of being dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom. vi, 4, χι. Therefore let none, while they profess to know God, deny Him in works, but be exhorted so to walk as to adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. This would have a much greater tendency to bring others to embrace the truth in these things than many warm disputes without a good life. 'Tis not easy to imagine how much use is made of the corrupt lives of numbers of those in the land who are called Baptists to bar the minds of thousands against receiving, or even candidly weighing and examining, what I firmly believe are truths which they hold. And though I am not excusing such conduct, yet I would earnestly persuade you all as much as may be to cut off occasion from those that desire occasion thus to treat the truth and them that hold it. And if others say that we disregard, and are cruel to our children, because we don't baptize them before they are converted, let each head of a family walk in his house with a perfect heart and behave so towards the little ones that God has given him, as to evidence that he has a much greater regard for the spiritual than the temporal welfare of his children. Lastly. I will close with a word to all the children of the bondwoman, My dear fellow Men, be entreated to consider how sad your case and condition is. If you flourish in the world more than the saints and are let alone to live as you list, this is but a miserable portion which presently will be all stripped from you, and God will say, How much they have glorified themselves and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give them, James v; Rev. xviii, 7. Many of you are ready to think that there is too much ado about religion and can laugh at the devotions of the godly. But Oh! remember and take warning by your old father Ishmael. He made a mock of his father's joy in seeing the accomplishment of God's promise which is here, ver. 29, called persecution, for which he was cast out, not only from his father's house but also from the blessings of salvation which he had despised. Now therefore he ye not mockers lest your bonds be made strong, Isai. xxviii, 22, but fly to Christ that your souls may live. And are there any of you that are seeking help by the life of your

THE B O N D W O M A N AND THE F R E E

165

own hands; how does Christ expostulate with you, Isai. lv, 2, 3, saying, Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfteth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear and come unto me; hear and your souls shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. AMEN.

PAMPHLET

β

A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET BOSTON,

1768

the first nor the last time that Backus tangled with the Reverend Joseph Fish of Stonington, Connecticut. Fish is mentioned in The Internal Call (1754) and in A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Benjamin Lord (1764), and when Fish answered this treatise in 1769, Backus replied with An Address to Joseph Fish ( 1 7 7 3 ) . Fish's parish on the border of Connecticut and Rhode Island was the scene of turbulent Separate and SeparateBaptist activity. Fish claimed that he had lost two-thirds of his parish to these fanatics, and in a series of sermons delivered to the remnant of his flock and published in 1767, he endeavored to prove the many errors in practice and doctrine which had been practiced by them. Backus, who had many friends in Stonington and who, as an itinerant, was eyewitness to much of what Fish denounced, felt called to set the record straight. In so doing, he provided one of the most copious firsthand accounts of the Separate movement and his own most complete apology for "the new reformation." Solomon Paine, Israel Holly, and Ebenezer Frothingham also published apologies for the movement, but they remained pedobaptist Separates. This tract advanced upon theirs, for it defended the antipedobaptist position which most of Fish's parishioners had adopted. T H I S WAS NEITHER

While some of the material in this tract repeated his defense of the internal call to preach and of the two covenants, A Fish Caught in His Own Net went beyond theological argument to document with concrete examples the local struggles which took place in Connecticut and Massachusetts as the Separates fought to maintain themselves against the double pressures of church and state. Here Backus provided graphic details of arrests, imprisonments, harassment, and intimidation which produced the petitions and finally the civil disobedience necessary to overturn the closed society of New England. From his diary and letters we know that among those whose imprisonment he described here in Norwich in 1752 were his mother, his brother Samuel, and his uncle, Isaac Tracy, the town's representative to the General Assembly. Though a defense of the Separate movement, this treatise also acknowledged the pietistic extravagances of some of the Separates and SeparateBaptists and the havoc they wreaked with the local parish and town government when they became sufficiently numerous to constitute a majority and take the process of local government into their own hands. However, Backus denied the charges of Fish and Lord that the Separates, like the Munsterite Anabaptists, were "gainsayers of Core" and fomenters of "a rebellion against the S T A T E . " Yet while he rightly insisted that the Separates were perfectly

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

169

amenable to civil government as an ordinance of God, he could not deny that church and state were "so confounded together" in New England that the attempt to separate them into their proper spheres did in fact necessitate not only an ecclesiastical revolution but a social revolution. A more comprehensive chronicle of this social revolution is contained in Backus' fourvolume history of the Baptists in New England, published between 1 7 7 7 and 1804, but the gist of the struggle is described here. Backus' frequent use here of volume I of Lieutenant-Governor Thomas Hutchinson's History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay ( 1 7 6 4 ) is indicative of his growing awareness of the importance of history as a basis for justifying his cause. Throughout his works his most telling arguments were those in which he demonstrated how much the Standing church had departed from the practises of the founding fathers. For example, note his quotation from John Cotton, that written sermons were "a sinful manner of preaching." Thus his revolution, like that of the Sons of Liberty, was supported as a return to, or preservation of, ancient rights and principles. At one point in this treatise Backus tried to smear his opponents with the tarbrush of Toryism (a tactic later used against Backus and the Baptists) by pointing out that one of them had dedicated a sermon to Governor Thomas Fitch of Connecticut, who had sworn to enforce the Stamp Act. But if this tract depicted the oppression by the Standing Order, it also displayed the weaknesses of the Separates. Backus was at pains here to disown or dissociate from the new reformation those perfectionists and antinomians who believed that they had gone beyond sin, who bitterly slandered the parish ministers and Old Lights, who followed the commands of a divine voice heard only by themselves, and who no longer felt bound by the laws and customs of mankind. He also tried to excuse the anti-intellectualism of many Separates by pointing out that Harvard and Yale led their children astray. But he could not deny that a great many unstable persons who were directly or indirectly part of the movement were driven into wild and even criminal actions in the name of Christian liberty. His defense would have been better had he said such actions were extremely rare among the Separates rather than hiding behind Solomon's aphorism, "oppression maketh a wise man mad." The most important feature of this tract was that here Backus finally came to grips both theoretically and pragmatically with the definition of his basic principles for a doctrine of separation of church and state. But it is important too for Backus' insistence upon an oral rather than a written narration of relations of religious experience as a prerequisite for church membership so that the brethren, "the common people," and not the ministers, shall judge who is or is not a true Christian. In addition, this tract vividly asserts the pietistic preference for a pure heart over a learned head,

170

Isaac Backus

and insists upon the duty of all pietists "to exhort and stir up one another." It is now amusing, but then a galling reality for Backus and the SeparateBaptists, that their unsophisticated efforts to write books and to enter into debate with their betters met with such disdain that, as he noted in this Preface, the Standing Order derided him as "a young upstart" and "an honest gumphead."

A/Fish caught in his own Net./AN/EXAMINATION/Of Nine Sermons, from Matt. i6.i8./Published last year, by Mr Joseph Fish of Stonington;/ WHEREIN/He Labours to prove, that those called Standing Churches/in NewEngland, are built upon the Rock, and upon/the same Principles with the first Fathers of this/Country: And that Separates and Baptists are joining/ with the Gates of Hell against them./In Answer to which;/Many of his Mistakes are corrected; The Constitution/of those Churches opened; the Testimonies of Prophets/and Apostles, and also of many of those Fathers are/produced, which as plainly condemn his plan, as any/Separate or Baptist can do./By ISAAC BACKUS./Pastor of a Church of Christ in Middleborough./ Go thro', go thro' the Gates; — gather out the Stones, Lift up a/Standard for the People. Isa. 62.10./ "Separation generally hears ill in the world, and yet there is/a separation suitable to the mind of God: He that will/not separate from the world and false worship is a separate/from Christ." Dr. Owen's Eschol. p. 36./ BOSTON·. Printed by

EDES

and

GILL,

in/Queen-Street,

MDCCLXVIII.

THE PREFACE Peace is so lovely in itself and is so essential to happiness that all would be accounted friends thereto. The direction from above is, seek peace and pursue it, and the cry from below is peace, peace! Yet there is a great and important difference between the two languages, for the divine voice is, love the TRUTH and peace, and the way prescribed to promote union is speaking the TRUTH in love, Zech. viii, 19; Eph. iv, 15. But the two grand engines to support the contrary cause are deceit and violence. Which cause the Prince of peace came into the world on purpose to destroy, and wherever his truth prevails it breaks up that sort of peace. Hence the charge exhibited against one of his greatest ministers by men of principal note in the world for religion and order was, We have found this man a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition throughout the world, Acts xxiv, 5. And it was not only so among the Jews but also in the capital of a Roman colony when the power of truth had cut off the hope of an unlawful scheme of gain, the magistrates soon had a complaint laid before them that, these men do exceedingly trouble our city, Acts xvi, 20. However, this conduct both in Jews and Heathens is so plainly exposed in the Bible, that the whole Christian world will condemn it, and who will dare to appear now to plead for a peace contrary to truth? Instead of that, truth is set upon as high a pole among Protestants as the cross is among the Papists. And every author that writes has got the important word wrote in some place where the reader may not fail to see it. Yet there has been such galling of one another in perverse disputes, and striving about this and other words* in our day that some serious people are ready to condemn all disputing as being a principal cause of all the confusions that appear in our nation and land. Though if after the confused noise and garments rolled in blood, with the great perplexities which were produced by many defeats that we met with in the beginning of the late war, any had said we had better be easy as long as we can than to oppose the enemy any more, such advice would hardly have passed for good policy or for a token of true regard to our peace and welfare. * 1 Tim. vi, 4, 5.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

173

All rational attempts to remove calamities are levelled against the causes of them, and as deceit and violence have been the causes of all our woes from the beginning, so a great part of the work of God's servants in all ages has been to point out and expose the deceits of false men, which has often produced what the prophet speaks of, viz., A voice of the howling of the shepherds. And says he, my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me, Zech. xi, 3, 8. And things of like nature have appeared in our times, but none are willing to be accounted the idol shepherds; each one would turn it off to others; and many ministers in our land have been laboring these twenty years to fix the odious character upon a number of people who have withdrawn from their societies. Among whom Mr. Fish has lately distinguished himself by attempting to open the "rise, cause and tendency of these separations and the errors of the Anabaptists'' in a volume of about two hundred pages. This I have been requested by Christian friends to write some reply to, but as I have several times exposed some of my thoughts on these subjects to the world, I repeatedly told my friends that I thought I had done my part in that way. At length it was urged that many of the first leaders in separation were gone off the stage and scarce any left that are so fully acquainted with the circumstances and manner of the first separations as I have been. This argument prevailed so far that I agreed to take and read the book and act as light might appear. And when I came to read it no doubt remained whether it ought to be answered or not, though the doing of it was far from appearing a pleasing lot to nature. For whatever pleasure it may yield to appear to the public in matters that are pleasing or for amusement, yet in war to be distinguished as a mark for everyone to shoot at, that nature dreads. My unequalness to the task was still a greater difficulty; for though it was an easy matter to point out many of Mr. Fish's mistakes and inconsistencies so as to render his performance contemptible, yet to do the subject justice would be nothing less than to lay open the religious constitutions of the whole country and many transactions which deeply affect the characters of many noted men. Yet to omit it now could not be done with a clear conscience, for Mr. F. says, "If I have in any instance mistaken facts or misrepresented persons or things, I desire it may be corrected." Preface, p. 4. And after a long discourse on those things, he says, "The foregoing errors, principles, and groundless offences which they took, the charge

174

Isaac Backus

of all which must lie upon them until they purge themselves," p. 164. Therefore to be silent now would be a letting many things pass for truth, which I knew were not so, though many others did not know it. Mr. F. tells us he hopes, if there are any mistakes, "it will be looked upon as simple and undesigned." To which I would say I desire always to avoid the evil of judging the counsels of others hearts and to judge righteously according to what is made manifest. But as he has manifested that he has mistook the rule itself throughout his book I leave him and others to consider how simple or undesigned such a mistake can be; or what less can be expected than false actings upon a false rule. Three ivitnesses are allowed to prove any point, both by divine and human law. And that number shall suffice for the present to prove that he has mistook, and acted contrary to, the golden rule in the affair before us. 1. No man or community can think it reasonable to have their character drawn only by their imperfections without any of their virtues. Yet Mr. F. after a long attempt to draw the Separates' "picture to the life," says "Whatever good things they have among them, they have them not as Separates but in common with other Christians. The things that I have told you of above, are their characteristics," p. 160. 2. None can be willing to have the character of their whole denomination taken from evil persons and things which may be picked out among them. Yet in the midst of this labor to draw our picture, he says, "I would not here be understood to represent them all to a man, as advancing and uniting in every one of the particulars above-mentioned, but some of them held one, some another," p. 142. 3. No man can rationally be willing to be deprived of the liberty of hearing and judging for himself in important matters nor to be condemned by others without a fair hearing, yet this is the very labor of Mr. Fish's whole book. For a principal reason given for his writing it, in the first page of his preface is, that 'a considerable number, if not the greater part of his few remaining people inadvertently favored the Separate teachers, so far as to frequent their meetings' And a special article of advice, in the conclusion is, "Go not after them nor follow them. How can you, with any good conscience, after I have shown you from whence they arose, their principle, spirit and tendency," p. 191. Thus his whole drift appears to be to keep his people from hearing and judging for themselves. And he has con-

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

I75

demned us without a fair hearing; for accounts of our principles and practices have been published by various hands and at different times for these eighteen years; yet it does not appear through his whole book, that he has paid any regard to them, even so much as to point out our mistakes as inconsistencies ( as doubtless he might have found some such) but the chief of what he has held forth to the world against us, is upon his own bare word. I suppose the chief thing which blinded him in these affairs was a conceit of his good design therein, for speaking of "the grievous things," which he has written both against Separates and Baptists, he says, "Neither of which should I have meddled with, could I at this day, have seen how to plead the cause of the churches (that our brethren have separated from) which I believe to be the cause of God, without showing the younger and reminding the elder among my people, how and wherein this sacred cause has been injured," Pref. p. 4. Now 'tis no new thing for men under a strong conceit that they are engaged in a good cause to put good meanings to bad actions of their own and bad meanings to good actions of others; yea, and to esteem men's works for the person's sake instead of esteeming the person highly for his work's sake. And this temper will prompt men to think that evil don't belong to the sacred cause that they are in, and that good dont belong to the opposite party but are intruders on each hand; and they would attribute the evil among themselves to others and the good among others to themselves. And is it not from hence that our author, when he is going to reckon up a catalogue of the evil of the times, says, "If the Separates are not the only guilty persons or not MORE guilty than some that pretend to be of the Standing Order, yet 'tis manifest that the following disorders are owing chiefly, if not entirely, to the SEPARATIONS?" p. 172. Observe, 'tis only some, and they but pretenders to be of the Standing Order, who are allowed to be guilty, while the real guilt is laid chiefly, if not entirely, at the Separates' doors. On the other hand, he says, "I know not of one principle or practice, among them that is agreeable to the Gospel, but what they learned in our churches, p. 113. This is a fine way indeed of treating mankind! However, I trust it will yet be made manifest that it was what God taught us by his Word and Spirit of the corruptions which are allowed, yea, and pleaded for to this day, in those churches that caused us to separate from them. But as it seems beneath the dignity of these

176

Isaac Backus

learned gentlemen to take notice of laymen's writings, I would, to help Mr. F.'s eyesight a little, just point him, to one who calls him a layman, as he does us, and who has got a title as much above him, as he has above us. He has only the title of reverend, but one who has the shocking title given him of reverend Father in God, preached a sermon on February 21, 1766, before the Society [for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts] which supports the [Anglican] church ministers that are sent into this country, wherein he declares that PERSECUTION for OPINIONS was the most abominable of all the errors of the antichristian church.'f And his sermon abounds with the word charity, and he allows that our fathers were driven into this land for conscience's sake, yet speaking expressly of those colonies where Presbyterianism is established [i. e. New England] and remains in its ancient PUBITY, he says, "That very people, whose fathers were driven for conscience's sake into the waste howling wilderness, are now as ready to laugh at the Bible as at their fathers' ruffs and collarbands." t Here is a character given to the world of Mr. Fish's churches by one who stands so much above them that he treats them just as those ministers do us, namely to accuse without any proof but great swelling words of their own. And this very accusation from the bishop is given as the reason of their continuing their labors among us, instead of going on to gospelize the savages which he allows to be the original design of that society:§ for he says, "We might as well leave these factious people to themselves, did not a miserable circumstance still call for our rejected charity; I mean, the spreading of GENTILISM in the colonies themselves." * And if we were to judge by his account, it might be thought that such heathenism abounded the most in Connecticut of any part of the land, for by the list of their missionaries at the end of the bishop's sermon it appears that they have a third more of them there than in any other colony in America though it looks more rational to me to suppose that the clergy's power being carried to the highest pitch there, is the cause of it. This prelate's conduct in this matter has been justly complained of as an open violation of the laws of truth and equity. Yet if he were allowed our author's method, to claim all that is good among us to his side because our fathers came out of the Church of England then he might possibly find some such persons in t Bishop of Gloucester's Sermon before said Society, p. 9. t P p . 12, 13. § P. 2. " P . 11.

A FISH CAUGHT

I N HIS O W N

NET

177

New England as he speaks of, though likely he might find ten to one of that character in his own diocese. The common name that his charity prompts him to give dissenters in that sermon is fanatics. Now I suppose a proper definition of that name is, that 'tis one who is puffed up with a fancy that he has got some new discovery to make to others. And if so, what shall we think of the Bishop of Glocester? for he gives it in his sermons as a new discovery which he has made that the savages ought to be civilized as well as christianized, and he attributes their little success in times past chiefly to the want of knowing, or want of attending to, that maxim. Whereas to have told the plain truth he must have informed his honorable audience that the reason why they had done so little to christianize the Indians was because they had spent almost all their labors among the English and in the most wealthy places that they could get footing in. And if he could have stooped so low as to have looked into the life of Mr. John Eliot in the last century and the life of Mr. David Brainerd in this he would have found ( that instead of a new discovery) the very maxim he speaks of was known and acted upon both in the past and present age by the most zealous and most successful laborers to bring the Indians to true Christianity that America ever saw. The bishop proceeds to charge the colonists with the dreadful crime of yearly stealing slaves from the opposite continent, and sacrificing of them "to their great idol the GOD of G A I N , " p. 25. And he says, "Nothing is more certain in itself and apparent to all than that the infamous traffic for slaves directly infringes both divine and human law. Nature created man free, and grace invites him to assert his freedom, p. 26. Who then could think but that this great society for the propagation of the Gospel would set all these slaves at liberty as fast as they could? But behold! The case is altered. For Governor Cordington of Barbados (instead of setting his slaves free) bequeathed a plantation stocked with them to this society, which now is declared to be a pious intention in the donor, "God out of this evil (says the bishop ) having made us the honored instruments of producing good," p. 29. And the good which he talks of is that while they reap the profits of those slaves they would use them well and so set a good example to others: And he says, "It would be impiety to suspect that the society will not persevere in making this use of so fortunate a circumstance," p. 30. Here is a glass for Mr. F. to look into. A professed minister of

178

Isaac Backus

Christ, at the head of a society composed of the chief dignitaries of the church and of several lords in the state, after exclaiming against persecution characteriseth the colonists as fanatics, factious gentiles, yearly practising the worst of heathenism, even the sacrificing of human creatures to an idol; and this from the same mouth that tells of pious designs in all the proceedings of his own party and that charges it as impiety, even to suspect their perseverance therein! t But thinkest thou, O man, that judgeth them that do such things, and dost the same that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Perhaps some are ready to cry, Who is this that presumes to correct bishops and ministers at such a rate? Answer, he is a person of very little note in the learned world, and never was a member of their schools. Indeed they have given him a few titles; as sometimes he has been of a credible family and so it was wondered at that he would go with such a despicable people; yet anon he was pronounced a young upstart, not to be regarded. One sentence declared him to be a crafty deceiver, the next an honest gumphead. Sometimes 'twas asserted that he was pursuing worldly gain and at another time they declared that he had little or nothing for his labor and spent his own estate, but neither so did their witness agree together. The truth is what little he does know was gained in the school which Dr. [August H.] Francke speaks of, where the highest wisdom is to know Jesus Christ and him crucified; and wherein things are taught in an experimental way. Hence the reader will find several lessons in the ensuing pages, repeated in that manner: and though he is not insensible that telling of [religious] experience is treated with contempt by the fashionable Christians of our day, yet he is not daunted at their sneers while he sees the chief apostle of the circumcision taking this method to satisfy his brethren, and the great apostle of the Gentiles doing the same before his learned persecutors, when they were complained of, for leaving the customs of their fathers, Acts xi, 4-18 and xxii, 1-21. One special order of that school is, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light." This he takes to be a sufficient warrant for improving a fair opportunity to attempt to hold up light to his fellowmen, and to labor to convince all he can, be they ever so much above him, wherein they have mistook darkness for light; and he expects the same from others. t And all this to move people to contribute money to that Society. And yet churchmen have as great a hand in the slave trade as any.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

I79

He would be far from representing Mr. Fish as singular in what he has now published. No, his sermons are a proper specimen of what has often been delivered from pulpits in our land, for more than twenty years; and being persuaded that many worthy men, both in public and private stations, have not known the true state of these affairs, therefore the author was induced to enlarge more upon them than his love of brevity would otherwise have permitted. And may we all so speak and so hear and do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Middleboro,

March 25, 1768.

T H E INTRODUCTION Containing Some Brief Remarks upon the Characters Mr. Fish Gives of a Church of Christ

Which

Those who desire to bring any controversy to a just issue will endeavor to hold up what light they can concerning the merits of the cause, and not amuse or perplex others minds with things foreign from the things in hand. Therefore as Mr. Fish begins his preface with this information that "The special occasion of the following discourses was, the revival of the spirit and principles of Separation and Anabaptism," I shall endeavor, according to the light I may be favored with, to attend closely to these points and show wherein the difference between us lies and the grounds of that difference. I heartily concur with him 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," p. 3. But I can't say so of some of the characters which he gives to describe the Church of Christ by, the first of which is "That Jesus Christ has but one Church in the world and that it is the same which it always was." To explain which he says, "We gentile believers were graffed in among the Jewish believers, making one Church. As the apostle Paul shows, Rom. xi, 17. And the whole is but the continuation of the same Church, from the beginning of the world," pp. 6, 7. It is readily granted that the invisible church is always the same, but that is not what Mr. F. intends; for he has just before said, "I mean to speak of Christ's visible Church upon earth which contains both good and bad, true believers and nominal." And his sixth character of the Church

i8o

Isaac Backus

is only an explanation of this: which is that "The Church of Christ has always consisted of visible believing parents and their children bound together by covenant to be the Lord's," p. 22. And after some discourse upon Abraham's covenant he says, "Hence it appears that believing parents cannot enter into that covenant which God made with Abraham without taking their children with them. They therefore that take God for their God, but not the God of their seed equally so, they leave out half, or the greater part of the subjects of it," pp. 24, 25. He adds "If any say that this promise To thee and thy seed after thee, under the Gospel intends thy seed or children when they are grown up or become actual believers, and not while they are in a state of infancy, I apprehend the exposition will not stand." And after citing Deut. xxix, 10, etc., he says, "Here you see that great and small, parents and children, even little ones, stand forth in a body that they might all enter into (or renew) covenant with their God. Which shows that children, even infants, were always reckoned a part of that body or church which the Lord gathered in Abraham's family," pp. 25, 26. 'Tis true that this was the constitution of the Church which was gathered in Abraham's family as appears from verse 13 which is, That he may establish thee today for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. But when Mr. Fish says, "Is it not altogether reasonable to suppose that the Christian Church is made up of the same materials that the Jewish church was?" The answer must be No, by no means because God has said the contrary; and 'tis perfect madness to set up our suppositions and reasonings against divine revelation. Now that God has said the contrary appears from Jer. xxxi, 31, 32, where he says, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt." Those who stood forth then as a body to enter into covenant, though they had seen great signs and miracles, yet the Lord had not given them an heart to perceive, eyes to see, nor ears to hear unto that day. But of this new covenant he says, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people, and they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

l8l

Lord." The constitution, priesthood, and ordinances of the Jewish church served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, but this is a better covenant which is established upon better promises. That old covenant Israel brake, and he regarded them not. But this new covenant is established upon better promises which are, I will and they shall, Heb. viii, 5 - 1 3 . I cannot imagine that 'tis 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; even the same that there is between shadow and substance, flesh and spirit, type and antitype. All Abraham's natural seed were circumcised, and God said, my covenant shall be in your flesh, and all his seed in a Gospel sense have the law written in their hearts, and their sins shall be remembered no more, Heb. χ, ι6, 17. Accordingly it was such as gladly received the word and such as should be saved that were added to the church in the apostles' times, Acts ii. And when some of a contrary character got in, they are said to creep in unawares, Gal. ii, 4; Jude 4. Therefore I think we may justly return to our author's question and say, 'Is it not altogether unreasonable to suppose that the Christian Church is made up of the same materials the Jewish church was, since the Holy Ghost has so plainly declared the contrary?' Having given a few of my thoughts upon Mr. Fish's first mark of a true church; and also of his sixth which explained it, I come to his second, which is, that the Church's "Foundation is one, and ever the same," p. 7. This is strictly true of the invisible church, but the leaders of the visible church when Jesus came were builders who set at nought this glorious cornerstone; and he shows that none build on the Rock but such as hear his sayings and do them, Matt, vii, 24. Faith cometh by hearing, and those who hear and believe with their hearts ought to confess with their mouths and obey all Christ's commands, and thus they are built up for an habitation of God through the Spirit. In this sense I would join with him. His third mark is that "Christ Jesus was always the head and king of his church," p. 9. So he is, and I heartily concur with him that our Lord Jesus "has done enough to make us tremble at the thoughts of attempting anything in his house and worship, which he has not directed us to do, much more any thing that he has forbidden." Our author's fourth character is, "Christ's Church has always been furnished with officers of his appointing," p. 1 1 . Here again we agree

i82

Isaac Backus

in general truths, but when he comes to trace the order down from the beginning why was his memory so short as never to mention the prophets in the Jewish church while he enlarges upon the case of the priests and Levites? Perhaps he might think the latter would best agree with his notion of a line of succession, but he may find himself mistaken there. For after the return of the Jews from Babylon some of the children of the priests sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore they were, as polluted, put from the priesthood, Ezra ii, 62. Now if the power of ordination is not in the Church, but is wholly committed to the ministers of the churches, as Mr. F. expressly holds, pp. 80, 145, then, according to this plain example every minister who can't produce the register of his ordination, as being derived in an uninterrupted line down from the apostles, he ought, as polluted, to be put from the ministry. And where will he and his brethren be then? Indeed, he would have us think that they have such a register where the very names of such a line is preserved, p. 18. But it seems by the margin that 'tis in Latin, and as we are come out of the Latin church we shall expect to hear it in English before we believe it. Paul's charge is not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies which minister questions rather than godly edifying, 1 Tim. i, 4. And how fully have these words been verified in the disputes which catholics, prelates, and presbyters have had upon this affair these many hundred years? And it still ministers questions which are as much unresolved as when they began the dispute. Our author's fifth character is that "The Church of Christ is a confederate people, a people in visible covenant with God and with one another," p. 19. This is true, and so is his seventh, that 'tis "further known by special ordinances which God hath given it," p. 34. Though it ought to be remembered that the false church hath covenants and ordinances as well as the true, only the true church endeavors to keep to the divine pattern, while the false adds inventions of her own. These are therefore by no means so plain marks to distinguish the true church as his eighth and last is, viz., that "Christ's Church has always had, and always will have, his Holy Spirit dwelling in it," p. 44. This is a great truth, for if any church as well as person, have not the Spirit of Christ, it is none of his. Thus I have given a little touch upon the characteristics which Mr. F. has given of the church: two of them I think are not true, in the others we agree in general, though

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

183

when we come to apply them the difference between us will more distinctly open in many particulars. PART I The Constitution which Mr. F. Pleads for, Opened, and Proved to be Essentially Different from the First Churches in This Country [i.e., Massachusetts] When Mr. Fish comes to apply these characters he, to prepare the way, promiseth several things, the substance of which are, That the rule is perfect, but the best of men are imperfect, so that when they come with honest hearts to apply divine rules they differ so widely in their opinions upon some modes of worship, as to render it difficult, if not impracticable, for them to worship harmoniously together. Which shows the necessity as well as grounds of mutual forbearance and should make us cautious how we give hard names. These are weighty considerations, and if they had continued with due weight upon his mind through his following discourses, it would doubtless have prevented my troubling him in the affair, but since it has proved to be otherwise, I will also give mine opinion, and then leave it with the reader to judge for himself. Our author first applies his rules to those which he calls Standing churches, and he says, "We have sufficient reason to be comfortably satisfied that these churches are true churches of Jesus Christ," p. 78. As to their constitution, he says, "They are in general of the congregational way; and although in many parts, particularly in this * colony, they are for mutual benefit, consociated or united together by agreement, yet they remain congregational," p. 79. This title, as I understand, is derived from the fathers of this country, therefore we must look there for its true meaning. Now Cambridge Platform says the church since the coming of Christ is "only congregational, therefore neither national, provincial nor classical." 1 National churches have their parishes, for managing the common affairs of their worship, who yet are under the government of the whole. But the plan before us, in express distinction therefrom, has the whole power of church government in each particular church, "power to open and shut, to choose and refuse, to constitute in office, and remove from office." This is the express meaning of the name as it is explained t Connecticut.

184

Isaac Backus

by our fathers who gave it. And though they freely improved the advice and assistance of other churches, yet it was as sisters or equals who still had the whole right of government within each church. And are the Standing churches such? No, Mr. F. has not got two pages forward before he lays down this as the first thing which ought to be corrected in the churches, viz., "The imposition of hands at the ordaining of elders which, says he, I apprehend the Gospel has committed wholly to the care of the presbytery, or ministers of the churches, but is by the indulgent Cambridge Platform disposed of to the brethren, at the pleasure of the church," p. 80. Thus while he usurps the name because 'tis credible, he denies a principal point in its meaning and directly sets up a power above the churches, for if the power of ordination is not in the church, then she must be beholden to a power without her, and so above her to give her office authority. But our fathers had seen too much of this spiritual tyranny to be willing to come under it again; and as they knew that the Church of the living God, is the pillar and ground of the truth,§ they rested the matter there and desired with Timothy to behave as they ought in the house of God, but not like Diotrephes to love a pre-eminence over it. However, Mr. F. would have it that their practice was not agreeable to their principles, and says Plymouth Church "attempted not to ordain a minister merely as a church, of brethren only, with their own hands," p. 84. But Mr. [Thomas] Prince, who knew as well as he, informs us concerning the first church in Salem that on August 6, 1629, "They proceeded to ordain their ministers as also Mr. Houghton, a ruling elder, being separated to their several offices by the imposition of the hands of some of the brethren appointed by the church thereto. Governor Bradford and others, as messengers from the church of Plymouth, being by cross winds hindered from being present in the former part of the service, came time enough to give them the right hand of fellowship* If any say these ministers had been ordained by bishops before, I answer, that they were now out of that order, and we are expressly told that one of them was silenced for nonconformity." + And they did not hold the indelible character but were, as we have just seen, so consistent as to know that "to constitute in office and remove from office are acts belonging to the same power," therefore, as they § 1 Tim. iii, 15; 3 John ix, 10. ® [Thomas Prince,] New-England chronology, pp. 190, 191. t New-England Chronology, p. 182.

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

185

were put out of office by the same power that put them in, they were now ordained anew. The like was done to Mr. [John] Wilson, the first minister of Boston. Indeed a late honorable historian tells us, concerning him that "all joined in a protestation that it was not a renouncing of the ministry he received in England, but that it was a confirmation in consequence of their election." * Upon which I would desire leave to observe that none could have reason to think that they renounced his right to improve his ministerial gift, but 'tis plain that they judged the ordination to be needful to put him into office here. And the same author informs us in the next page, that one distinguishing character of a congregational church is, "That there is no jurisdiction to which particular churches are or ought to be subject, by way of authoritative censure, nor any other church power, extrinsical to such churches, which they ought to depend upon any other sort of men for the exercise of." Here the point turns: We all hold it proper occasionally to improve the advice and gifts of other churches while all are equal as to power. But all ministers who think they have a power to impart to another church which that church has not within itself and has not a right to exercise without assistance received from abroad, they are not congregational men let them pretend what they will. Another great point in the congregational plan is that the "power to open and shut" is in the church as a body, and therefore that they all ought to hear and judge of the evidence that any give of their right to be received as members. Dr. Increase Mather says, "There is no congregational man but he reports to the church something of what the person desiring communion with them has related to him which the presbyterian does not, only declares his own satisfaction and giveth the brethren a liberty to object against their conversation." § And he tells us that in the declaration of the faith and order of the congregational churches in England, given at Savoy, October 12, 1658. They declare, "That the members of particular churches are saints by calling visibly manifesting their obedience to the call of Christ, who being further known to each other by their confession of faith wrought in them by the power of God declared by themselves, or otherwise manifested, consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ." 9 The doctor further says, "It is evident, that t Mr. [Thomas] Hutchinson's history of the Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 419. § [Jonathan] Mitchell's Life, dedicat., p. 23. 0 Ibid., p. 24.

i86

Isaac Backus

the Church (and not officers only) have power given them by Christ to judge who are meet to be put out of their communion," Matt, xviii, 17; 1 Cor. ν, 12. Then they must needs have the like power as to those that are to be taken into their communion. And is this the way now of the churches Mr. F. pleads for? No, I never knew an instance in my day, of any who were admitted into any of those churches by declaring personally the faith wrought in their souls; and a great part of them have now dropped even giving written relations. This leads us down to a third article of difference which is the root of all, namely, the matter of a Gospel-Church. W e have already seen that Mr. F. supposeth that the "Christian Church is made up of the same materials that the Jewish church was." But the Cambridge Platform expressly says, "The matter of a visible church are saints by calling, 1 Cor. i, 2; Eph. i, 1," and that the church under the law was national, which since the coming of Christ is only congregational, therefore neither national, provincial nor classical." Yet Mr. Fish has the face to tell the world that their "churches are, in general, properly congregational." And then goes on to produce the testimony of President [Urian] Oak.es [of Harvard] in favor of that plan as the "highest step that has been taken towards reformation;" in which he says, "The venerable Dr. Increase Mather adds the weight of his approbation," p. 80. After which, a long quotation is produced from the doctor in favor of the college, from whence almost all the churches were supplied with ministers; yet he stopped a little too short at last, for that venerable author's next words are these, viz., "Nor are the churches like to continue pure golden candlesticks if the college, which should supply them, prove apostate." And in the same book, he lets us know what he means by that dreadful name, "The debasing," says he, "the matter of particular churches must needs corrupt them." A learned and renowned author (i. e. Dr. [John] Owen) has evidenced that "the letting go this principle, that particular churches ought to consist of regenerate persons, brought in the great apostasy of the Christian Church." "The way to prevent the like apostasy ( says Dr. Mather ) in these churches is to require an account of those that offer themselves in communion therein, concerning the work of God on their souls, as well as concerning their knowledge and belief." * And he tells us that "Blessed Mr. Mitchell would frequently assert, that if it should pass for current doctrine in New England, that all persons orthodox in t Mitchell's Life, dedicat. pp. 27 and 16.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

187

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 apostasy from former principles." * And are ministers now of these sentiments? A worthy gentleman told me that he sat a number of years at Marblehead under the ministry of Mr. [Edward] Holyoke,* before he was elected president of the same college that these words were directed to, and that his common method of admitting members into the church was without giving them any relation of experiences at all either verbal or written; and that has now got to be a prevailing custom in many parts of the country. Yet ministers pretend to be upon the same foundation with those fathers. But here is a treble testimony that they are apostates therefrom. And Dr. Increase Mather had such a view of its coming on, that he said in the year 1700, that "If the begun apostasy should proceed as fast the next thirty years as it has done the last, surely it will come to that in New England (except the Gospel itself depart with the order of it) that the most conscientious people therein, will think themselves concerned to gather churches out of churches." 0 Now we may form some judgment how far this apostasy had proceeded when our separation began more than forty years afterwards, by a sort of pastoral letter which all the ministers in Windham county [Connecticut] published against us, wherein they say, "This notion of a pure church as separating the converted from the unconverted is contrary to the revealed will of God. This is as evident as any thing can be by that way of evidence, in divers parables of our Savior," p. 20.2 The first parable which they refer us to is that of the tares of the field in Matt, xiii, 24, etc. And they say, "Our Savior explains it to his disciples, as you see from ver. 37, where he says, The field is the world; in which therefore is this kingdom of Heaven. The good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. Both the one and the other are in the kingdom of Heaven which is in this world, i. e. the visible church," p. 21. And after giving their thoughts upon several other Scriptures they say, "There are many other texts which might be urged and plainly show that it is the will of Christ that all those who make an outward credible profession Í Ibid., p. 10. § He has been President of Harvard College this thirty years. a See the preface to his vindication of the order of the churches in land.

New-Eng-

i88

Isaac Backus

of Christianity should be admitted into his church and though unconverted be there among the wheat the honorable vessels so long as he has a church in the world that they may be under proper ordinances for their conversion, and for the trial of his people and their usefulness to them, etc.," p. 23. I leave the reader to judge how near this doctrine comes to what Mr. Mitchell and other fathers call apostasy, and also how current this doctrine has past when the ministers of a whole county have published it to the world, and would only remark here that they have done like those who formerly made void the divine command by their own traditions; for as they have contradicted our Savior in explaining the parable of the tares, and the field which he says is the world, they say is the Church, so they have made void his command in this very affair. His command is, Let both grow together. But their practice has said, No they shall not, for as soon as any appeared against their schemes, they would not let them grow nor enjoy their natural rights. Mr. [Samuel] Finley, who has since been president of New Jersey college, happened to come in those times to New Haven, and only for his preaching to the Separates there he was taken up by civil officers and carried out of the colony; and those who belonged among us, that ventured publicly to improve their gifts without the ministers license, were not suffered to enjoy worldly privileges, but were taken up one after another and cast into prison. Yea, these very men who cried so loud for Peace, yet prepared such war against those who would not put into their mouths + as not only to load them with slander and reproach, but also to send their servants and take away their goods by force.* This was done in many places, till the practice became so odious that none would buy such goods; and then they took to seizing their persons. I have an account before me of no less than eleven persons who were seized thus and carried to jail in Norwich only in eight months after June 17, 1752, one of which was a widow [Elizabeth Backus] fifty-four years old who belonged to another church where she attended and did her part towards the support of divine worship according to her conscience and had no concern with the parish minister; therefore she did not think that the rate which was demanded for him was just. Yet for her refusing to pay it she was taken and, though a weakly woman was carried to prison in a dark rainy night. One told them then that it looked like the t Micah iii, 5. 1 1 Som. ii, 16.

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

l8g

works of darkness. But the Christian character she bore and the Christian temper which she and others then discovered, greatly weakened the cause they designed to promote hereby. 3 Not long after a gentleman in the same place [Isaac Tracy] was imprisoned for the same cause while he stood a representative for the town in the General Court. About the same time a single woman of a good character in Raynham [Esther White] was confined more than twelve months in Taunton gaol, which the minister might have prevented by crossing out only an eight penny rate. At length the evidence she gave of true conscientiousness in the matter caused such uneasiness among that minister's own people, that they raised money and went and set her at liberty. This is but a little sketch of what has been done of that nature in various parts of our land. If any say, Why are these odious things published now? I answer, Is there not a cause? When the Jesuits complained a few years ago to the king of Spain that many things were published against them and desired him to forbid it, his reply was, "The way not to have faults published, is not to commit them." These are often called Standing Churches·, therefore one design of this is to show what they stand upon; even the same that other national or provincial churches do — civil authority. Hence how often do they tell us, "That if it were not for the support of the civil powers their churches would soon be broken up?" And an author of great note has lately told the world that, "After all that may be said in favor of the constitution, the strength of it lay in the union declared with the civil authority." § And he gives us an instance of what the authority did to preserve order more than one hundred years ago. He says, "In 1653 the general court restrained the North Church in Boston from calling Mr. Powell to be their minister, who had the character of a well gifted, though illiterate man [i. e. lacking the ability to read Latin and Greek]." And about the same time he tells us, "They laid a large fine upon the church at Maiden for choosing a minister without the consent and approbation of the neighboring churches and allowance of the magistrates." And he says "Mr. [William] Hubbard observed upon that occasion that, All men are naturally so wedded to their own apprehensions that unless there be a coercive power to restrain, the order and rule of the Gospel will not be attended." 0 I am much obliged to his Honor [the Lieutenant-Governor] for § Mr. Hutchinson's history of the Massachusetts, p. 434. 0 Ibid., p. 188.

îgo

Isaac Backus

the ingenious account which he has given us of former times, yet I shall take the liberty to say that if he was not unawares, a little wedded to his own apprehensions, I hardly think he would have called this a just observation, for elsewhere, speaking of the tests which had been imposed by authority in both Englands to produce uniformity in religion, he says, "Both the one and the other must have occasioned much formality and hypocrisy. The mysteries of our holy religion have been prostituted to mere secular views and advantages." t Now the test referred to restrained civil freemen from choosing any into civil offices who were not church members; and is it not as bad to restrain the Lord's freemen from choosing any into office in his church who have not been members of human schools of learning? "The experience of all reformed churches," is appealed to for proof, that this coercive power is needful to keep the order of the Gospel. But the same appeal might more justly be made to prove that the clergy, when thus supported, have been the most tyrannical of all men; which has often served to harden infidels against all Gospel preachers. A plain reason why such men have been the most tyrannical is because they claim authority, more immediately from the higher power, than others do. Though civil authority is of divine appointment as well as ecclesiastical, yet the highest civil rulers know that they are set up and supported by men while the others claim a commission from God. Hence they have often assumed authority over the very rulers that set them up. And since we [Separates and Separate-Baptists] are often represented as rebels; * I will a little further lay open my views of this affair which are that, as civil rulers ought to be men fearing God, and hating covetousness, and to be terrors to evil doers, and a praise to them who do well; and as ministers ought to pray for rulers, and to teach the people to be subject to them; so there may and ought t Ibid., p. 431. t Mr. [Benjamin] Lord who has been a minister in Norwich, the place of my nativity above fifty years expressly compares our separation to a rebellion in the STATE; Sermon at Mr. [William] Hart's ordination, p. 18. And he with six other ministers as plainly compared us to Core and his company in their preface to Mr. Jonathan Dickinson's Dialogue, p. 7. Now observe Core raised a rebellion in Israel, where ruler, priest and laws were appointed immediately from Heaven, and where the church was national. Yet it has been the constant method of these, who pretend to be congregational men, for these twenty years, to compare us to Core, which naturally implies, that they think themselves to be like Moses and Aaron while we are represented as proud rebels for not owning them as such.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

lgi

to be a sweet harmony between them; yet as there is a great difference between the nature of their work, they never ought to have such a union together as was described above. For, ι. The Holy Ghost calls the orders and laws of civil states ordinances of man, ι Pet. ii, 13. But all the rules and orders of divine worship are ordinances of God, and it defiles the earth under its inhabitants when these laws are transgressed and ordinances changed, Isai. xxiv, 5. And one of his laws is, "As EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which GOD GIVETH that GOD in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. iv, 10, 11. But this law and order has been so much changed in our land that churches have not looked so much at the ability which God has given as to the titles which man has bestowed. I say titles, for many of their ministers have not gifts to deliver a sermon without reading, notwithstanding their name of being learned men. And yet it is called the "order of the Gospel," now to have such men's persons in admiration so as not to choose any others into the ministry lest man's glory should be brought down. 2. The civil magistrates work is to promote order and peace among men in their moral behavior towards each other so that every person among all denominations who doth that which is good may have praise of the same, and that all contrary behavior may be restrained or forcibly punished. And as all sorts of men are members of civil society and partake of the benefits of such government therefore they ought to be subject and pay tribute to rulers, Rom. xiii, 1-6. But the work of Gospel Ministers is to labor to open men's eyes and to turn them from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And as any kind of force tends to shut the eyes rather than open them, therefore Christ's special orders to his first ministers were, Freely ye have received, freely give. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet, Matt, x, 8, 14. This should be a testimony against them, that Christ's ministers had not forcibly taken from them so much as the dust of their city, Luke ix, 5. But w e have a set of men in our day who profess to be Christ's ambassadors and yet they act so contrary to these orders that if they once can get footing in a town or parish, let people dislike them ever

1Q2

Isaac Backus

so much, they will not go out without a considerable quantity of white or yellow dust. Yea, we have had several instances, wherein both church and society have been wearied out with these men, and have voted them out of their meetinghouse, and yet where a little number would follow them they have held meeting in their own house for months or years, and then have applied to the powers which these churches stand upon, and they have forced the whole parish to pay the minister for all that time. And one minister has lately found out that for any to come and profess to "preach the Gospel freely, without being chargeable to their hearers, is so far from being an evidence that they are the true ministers of Jesus Christ and sent by Him that 'tis ( extraordinaries excepted) an argument why they should be suspected." § This is indeed an extraordinary discovery, and he seems not a little pleased with it. And it must be acknowledged that if this be a true discovery, we are in a deplorable case, for we used to think the Gospel's being freely preached to the poor was a convincing evidence that the Messiah is come, Matt, xi, 5. And if it is not so, we have been hitherto deluded, and must look out for new teachings, if not for a new Bible. However, we will endeavor to search our old Bible a little more before we part with it. The passage which our author attempts to draw this new discovery from, is 2 Cor. xi, 12. Now a material point, in order to come at the meaning of the text, is to know what those false apostles gloried in. Our author supposeth that they gloried in preaching freely without taking anything for it. But in ver. 20, speaking of the same persons, Paul says, Ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself. This clause, take of you, Dr. [John] Gill says, the Arabic version reads, "Took away their goods from them by force." This they did to exalt themselves, and if we look back to the foregoing chapter, we shall find, § Mr. Fish, pp. 63, 65. Extraordinary is a great word and great things are done by it. The power of Christ in qualifying men for the ministry without going to colleges for them is hereby limited to the apostles' days, and all are rejected with contempt by Mr. F. who do not now receive their gifts at college and their authority from "authorized hands," pp. 1 5 - 1 7 . And these "authorized hands" by the help of this word have got such an extraordinary power as the apostles never had. For the apostles were only witness 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 iii and vi, 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.

A FISH CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

I93

that the way of these teachers, was to commend themselves and despise the apostle: His bodily presence, say they, is weak, and his speech contemptible. When he first appeared among that people he wrought at tent-making on weekdays and reasoned in the synagogue every SabbathAnd his preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom.t Therefore they despised him and commended themselves as being men who made a much better appearance and taught in a more agreeable manner than the tent-maker did. But says he, Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? * It was a special command of our Lord, Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. And he gives this rule to judge by, namely, He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory, but he that seeketh HIS glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.§ This is the rule to try all teachers by. The occasion of its being given was the different opinions that people had concerning the teacher of teachers, some saying, He is a good man, others saying, Nay, but he deceiveth the people. And a particular difficulty which labored in their minds concerning him was that he had never learned letters in their way." Therefore he says, judge not according to the appearance; yet this rule was not attended to among the Corinthians, and instead of it those teachers who despised the apostle measured themselves by themselves and compared themselves among themselves. But he durst not make himself of their number.t These things show what those teachers gloried in. And Paul declares his godly jealousy over the Corinthians in the beginning of this eleventh chapter, and his fear lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Therefore to prevent their being further imposed upon ( though it be folly for a man to commend himself, yet) he would answer a fool according to his folly to prevent their being wise in their own conceits. And he sets out to compare notes with them and says, I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chief est apostles. And as to the low appearance which he made among them he asks, Have I committed an offense in abasing myself, that you might be exalted, because I preached to you the Gospel of God freely? And proceeds to show how he had received support from other churches to do them service. And he takes a solemn oath that no man in their regions should stop him of this boasting; not * Acts xviii, 3, 4. 1 1 Cor. ii, 4. t 2 Cor. χ, 7, 10.

§ John vii, 18, 24. " Ver. 12, 15. t 2 Cor. χ, 12.

194

Isaac Backus

because he did not love them! But, says he, what I do, I will do, that I may cut off occasion from, them which desire occasion that wherein they glory they may be found even as we, for such are false apostles, etc. Now if they had gloried in preaching for nothing, 'tis certain from ver. 20. that the Corinthians knew that they practiced the contrary, and Paul would not have said, even as we, to that. Wherefore Dr. Gill thinks his meaning is, "That these men were desirous that he would take wages because they did; that in this respect he might not excel them, and that they might be able to plead his example and authority and so get an occasion of extorting more money from the Corinthians. Wherefore, to cut off all such occasion from them, the apostle resolves to take nothing himself; that whereas they boasted they were equal to, or superior to the apostles they might be found, would they follow their example, even as they, not taking any money at all of them, and poor, working with their own hands." 1 I cannot find the least account of their glorying in preaching without wages, but I have shown something of what they did glory in. And the apostle proceeds further and says, I speak foolishly; are they Hebrews? so am I; are they Israelites? so am I; are they the seed of Abraham? so am I; are they ministers of Christ? I am more. Thus he shows that as to outward appearance he could vie with them while in real services and sufferings for Christ, he vastly exceeded them. Yea, while they had taken much from that church only for a show of service, he had done them much real service without taking anything at all of them. I shall close this head with this remark; that while Mr. F. seems pleased with what he thought would do great execution against us, he has unawares involved himself in a sad dilemma, for if the case be as I have represented, he stands a fair chance of falling among false teachers. But if his sense of the text be right, he shows a want of Paul's temper, and instead of cutting off occasion of being called a hireling, he still pleads up for that scheme, which often extorts wages from such as receive no service from them instead of doing real service without wages as Paul did. At the same time he endeavors artfully to blend a free support to ministers and a forced one together, whereas there is as much difference between them, as there is between the power of truth in the mind and the power of the civil sword on the body. The first is abundantly clear in Scripture, the other has no warrant there. Î Exposition of the new-testament, vol. II, p. 765.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

I95

3. Another difference between civil and ecclesiastical government is that civil states, if large, have various degrees of offices one above another who receive their authority through many hands, down from the head and that often, more according to estate or favor than of merit. But 'tis the reverse in Christ's kingdom; he forbid the first notions of this in his disciples and expressly told them that it should not be so among them as it was in earthly states, Mark x, 43; Luke xxii, 26. An obvious reason of this difference is that an earthly king cannot in person see to but little that is done in his kingdom and therefore must trust others to manage affairs for him in his absence; but Zion's King is present everywhere and sees to all that is done and tells every church, I know thy works, and he takes care that the faithful are supported and rewarded and that the unfaithful are corrected or punished. If civil officers are resisted or abused, 'tis found necessary, in order to maintain the dignity of government, to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders, if within the state, and to take up the sword against abuses from abroad. And I suppose it is a true maxim, that "civil government and a defensive war will stand or fall together." Hence Jesus said, If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not he delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence, John xviii, 36. Therefore the dignity of his government is maintained not by carnal but by spiritual weapons, and not by resisting, but patiently bearing evil treatment. Hence when one of his chief officers was greatly abused he said, Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made the filth of the world and are the off-scouring of all things unto this day, 1 Cor. iv, 12, 13. And the way in which the saints finally obtain victory over the dragon and his angels is by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony, and not loving their lives unto the death, Rev. xii, 1 1 . I have been the more particular on these things because the core of our difficulties lies here. And if the kind reader finds here but an imperfect description of the way of the churches acting upon truth in distinction from all earthly powers, let him remember that this is a highway that has been very much unoccupied in later ages, and men have gone in byways. But 'tis hoped that this good old way will speedily be opened so plainly that fools shall not err therein, and if this weak attempt may be owned as any means thereof, that will overbalance all the world's reproaches on that account. The confounding of civil and ecclesiastical affairs together has done amazing mischief

ig6

Isaac Backus

in the world, and as Dr. Cotton Mather observes "The reforming churches flying from Rome carried some of them more, some of them less, all of them something of Rome with them, especially in that spirit of imposition and persecution, which has too much cleaved unto them all." This was the worst mistake that our fathers brought with them to this land; and though their posterity will generally explode those bitter fruits, yet few of them seem to be sensible of the root from whence they sprang. What our Lord said of serving two masters may in some sense be applied to the joining of these two powers together; one or the other will carry the day, and they have each had their turns in our land. Under the old Massachusetts charter none could be so much as freemen in the state till they were members of the church, and such as afterwards fell under church-censure were not allowed to be in the court [the legislature]. And struggles on these points were a principal cause of losing that charter. But now the scale is so far turned, that 'tis a professed rule with many ministers not to deal with any person in the church for moral evil till they are convicted in the state. A great turn indeed! As nearness tends to beget likeness, so there have been several attempts made in our land to establish various degrees of power in ecclesiastical as there is in civil rule. This was tried for above sixty years in the Massachusetts province, but it was prevented there; yet Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, who had quitted the pulpit in New London for the governor's chair in Connecticut colony, brought in the scheme there soon after for a classical power in each county [i. e. The Saybrook Platform] that men might appeal to as they do from an inferior to a superior court! and after much contention it was established by law, only with this reserve, that as many as would might dissent from it. My honored grandfather, Joseph Backus, Esq., with the other representative from Norwich, soon felt the eiïect of this new power, for as they had thought it duty to oppose it in the court [legislature] so they did also in the church. But Mr. [Samuel] Woodward the minister was resolute to bring in the scheme there and got a majority on his side; therefore rather than come under such a yoke, they, with a considerable part of the church withdrew, and held a separate meeting three months, and then the minister consented to have the matter tried by a council, though in the mean time he had laid them under church censure·, an account of which being conveyed to the general court, the representatives were not suffered to sit therein. Such were the early

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

I97

effects of this new power. However, after many councils and much fatigue, a sum of money prevailed with that minister to quit his place, § and the church in Norwich resolved to continue upon their old platform. These and such-like things prevented that new plan called Saybrook regulation, from taking so deep effect as many intended it should, yet they obtained one great article of power thereby which they have generally held ever since, and that is the licensing of candidates for the ministry and so limiting the churches to such in their choice of pastors. Yea, this spiritual court has attempted to deprive churches of their pastors who were already in office. One notable instance whereof I will mention. In the beginning of our glorious revival of religion in the land, New Haven consociation made some laws against ministers preaching in others parishes if they were desired to the contrary." Soon after which, Mr. Philemon Robbins of Branford (who was a great friend to that work of God) received a letter from the pastor [John Merriman] of a Baptist church in Wallingford, which informed him that though they were of different sentiments about the form of religion yet as they agreed in the essentials they desired him to come and preach among them. This he thought to be a reasonable request and therefore appointed a meeting among them in the beginning of the year 1742. But before the appointed time came he received two letters, one from some of the inhabitants of that town, the other from some neighboring ministers, which informed him that they did not think it would be for the best for him to preach among that people, and desired he would not, but gave no reason at all. Yet because he would not put by a meeting which he had appointed merely at their request, without any reason given, he was first excluded from the consociation, and then complaints were received there against him from a few of his disaffected people, upon which he made an attempt to get reconciled again to the ministers, but found it could not be done upon any lower terms than confessing that he did wrong in preaching to that Baptist society as he did. That he could not in conscience do, so they parted, which opened a wider door for complaints than before; and so many were carried in that a consociation was appointed in his own town to try the case, and a citation was sent to him to come and answer to many articles. i And rarely can any society now get rid of a bad minister, but by that means. " Laws of the same nature were soon after carried into the General Court and passed there.

xg8

Isaac Backus

Hereupon Mr. Robbins called his church together and laid these articles before them with answers thereto, and the church manifested satisfaction therewith. And as they found that the church was originally settled according to Cambridge Platform, and had never voted an alteration, they now voted to abide by their old constitution and appointed Mr. Robbins and others to go and inform the consociation that they denied their jurisdiction and would not be tried by them. This was accordingly done; yet this spiritual court declared that they had jurisdiction of the case and went on to hear and try charges against him without any to answer for him, and drew up and published their judgment that "Mr. Robbins was criminally guilty of the breach of the third the fifth and ninth commands and many Gospel rules," and so warned all to beware of him, till he made satisfaction therefor. Mr. Robbins, having copies of these proceedings, published them to the world, in 1747. Afterward four of the inhabitants of Branford (if I remember right their number) went to the General Court with a complaint that the town still held this condemned man for their minister and prayed the court to turn him out of his place. This caused a great turn in the ruler's minds; and I know not who will now appear to justify their conduct, and yet I fear there are but a few who are convinced that the root of all this mischief lies in man's trying to model church affairs according to worldly rule. In civil states particular men are invested with authority to judge for the whole; but in Christ's kingdom each one has an equal right to judge for himself. Indeed there is a likeness in this respect that all politic bodies have their limits and their power extends only to those within their bounds; but then the limits of civil jurisdiction is fixed by earthly power, and that of the church is only by voluntary consent; for Christ will have no pressed soldiers in his army. Paul said to the church of Corinth, What have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye fudge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. And after they had proceeded according to this direction, he calls it a punishment which was inflicted of many, 1 Cor. v, 12, 13; 2 Cor. ii, 6. Now Christ's church is either particular or universal. All the churches that are described in the Bible as having the power of discipline are particular, in which each member has his right to judge, as in this at Corinth, another at Ephesus, etc. The affair recorded in Acts xv, is only of one particular church which sent to

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

I99

another for advice in a controversy concerning principles, and the apostles and elders, with the whole church returned an answer accordingly. But now when men assume a power above particular churches, as they have neither divine rule to support their conduct nor earthly power to compel others to come to their bar, therefore they are obliged to act contrary both to Scripture and reason. I have been thus particular not to injure any man's person but only to open the nature of that constitution in order to show the true cause of our separation therefrom. It was observed long ago, that facts are stubborn things and can't be altered to suit men's notions or interest, and having shown from facts what the constitution of those called Standing churches is, viz., that in general they are national or provincial, and in Connecticut, classical; I shall come on to open facts concerning our separation.* PART II The Cause and Manner of Our Separation, with the Particular Points of Difference between Us and the Standing Ministers

I fully agree with Mr. Fish, that about twenty-six years ago, "There was the most wonderful work of God that ever was known in this part of the world, both for the extent and visible appearance of it," p. 114. I am also of his mind that "there was a marvellous mixture of almost every thing good and bad, for while the Spirit of God wrought powerfully, Satan raged maliciously, and acted his old subtle part to deceive," p. 115. And several of his observations concerning Mr. James Davenport I believe are just, but others I think are not so. He must be a great stranger to the Bible who does not know that in times of great declension, teachers are generally as much, if not the most, corrupt of any; therefore in a reformation those corruptions are always more or less exposed and warned against. And when Mr. Davenport had his eyes opened to see the dreadful case of ministers as well as people, he having been trained up among ministers who claimed most of the power to themselves, was more easily led to the extreme of openly declaring of his judgment concerning several ministers and so of calling people to separate from them because he judged them to be unconverted. And a number of separations were produced by that t Mr. Fish treats of the Baptists before the Separates; but as that inverts the order wherein Providence has carried on the work, I shall not follow him therein.

200

Isaac Backus

means; But those separations were not from the general constitution of the churches; they were only from particular ministers. Whereas our separations began several years afterwards and upon quite different principles; yet Mr. Fish would lay them all at his door while he speaks highly of Mr. Gilbert

Tennant, w h o travelled and preached in

the most noted places in New England in the beginning of that work. But did Mr. F. never see the sermon on the Danger of An

Uncon-

verted Ministry which that "son of thunder," as he calls him, published soon after from Mark vi, 34? wherein, after drawing the character of Pharisee teachers, and showing how people should be pitied w h o have such teachers, he says, If it be so, then what a scroll and scene of mourning and lamentation and woe is opened! because of the swarms of locusts, the crowds of Pharisees that have as covetously as cruelly crept into the ministry in this adulterous generation! who as nearly resemble the character given of the old Pharisees in the doctrinal part of this discourse, as one crow's egg does another. It is true some of the modern Pharisees have learned to prate a little more orthodoxly about the new birth than their predecessor, Nicodemus, who are in the mean time as great strangers to the feeling experience of it as he. They are blind who see not this to be the case of the body of the clergy of this generation. Alas! is not it the case of multitudes? If they can get one that has the name of a minister with a band, and a black coat or gown to carry on a sabbath days among them, although never so coldly and unsuccessfully, if he is free from gross crimes in practice and takes good care to keep at a distance from their consciences and is never troubled about his unsuccessfulness. O! think the poor fools, that is a fine man indeed, pp. 11, 12. It must be confessed that his language is sharp and cutting, like Luther's formerly, yet many of his reasonings are weighty, of which at present I will only give t w o extracts more; one is in his answer to that complaint that his principles will cause contentions among people; to which he says, "The proper cause of sinful divisions is that enmity against G o d and holiness which is in the hearts of natural men of every order, being stirred up b y the Devil and their own proud and selfish lusts. And very often natural men which are the proper causes of the divisions aforesaid, are wont to deal with God's servants as

Potiphar's

w i f e did b y Joseph; they lay all the blame of their own wickedness at their doors, and make a loud cry!" p. 16. T h e other extract is in answer to a saying which w e have often heard, viz., That 'tis a mere fiction to tell of getting good w h e n w e go over the parish line because, as they say, we are out of God's

way.

A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET

201

T o this Mr. Tennant answers, "That there are three monstrous ingredients in the objection, namely a begging of the question in debate, rash judging, and limiting of God," p. 18. They b e g the question who suppose w e go out of God's way because w e go over man's line. And how rash is it to judge that others get no good only because they don't go in their way? And such are much more inexcusable than the Jews were if they think to limit divine blessings to any particular house or spot of ground. N o w Mr. F. ought to know that w e read and considered these things in those times, as well as what Mr. Davenport said. Yea, and so w e did the writings of a divine of greater note than either of these, who in those times said, " W e that are ministers, by looking on this work from year to year with a displeased countenance shall effectually keep the sheep from their pasture instead of doing the part of shepherds to them, by feeding them, and our people had a great deal better be without any settled minister at all at such a day as this." i And in the next page he observes that "The times of Christ's remarkably appearing in behalf of his church and to revive religion and advance his kingdom in the world are often spoken in the prophecies of Scripture as times wherein He will remarkably execute judgments on such ministers or shepherds as don't feed the flock but hinder their being fed, and so deliver his flock from them, as Jer. xxiii, throughout and Ezek. xxxiv, etc. These things w e knew had much of reality in them, and Mr. F. or his brethren might as well undertake to prove that deep waters are good to drink when they are fouled with mud and dung, or that it is good feeding in pastures which are all trodden down, as to prove that a great part of the preaching which w e had in those days was clear Gospel, or good food for souls. Sheep which are not unruly will try hard to get food out of neighboring pastures rather than starve in such barren places, and if they are pushed and beat for it, that will scatter them abroad the more. And I speak as I expect to answer it before HIM w h o has said he will judge between the fat and lean cattle, I know this to be a real cause of our separations. And the evidence of its being so will more and more open as w e go on. The same views of a holy God which gave many to see their woeful, polluted, and undone condition, led them also to see that they dwelt in the midst of a people of unclean lips, Isai. vi, 5. And when any had a manifestation of Christ to their souls, like the woman of Samaria, they t Mr. [Jonathan] Edwards' thoughts on the work, 1742, p. 134.

202

Isaac Backus

wanted to invite all to come and partake of the same blessings. But this gave offence to many, who would say, "You must not judge." But that was so far from preventing that it naturally produced a judgment in young converts that those who were offended at such free invitations were strangers to vital religion. And doubtless many exceeded due bounds in that way; yet to be more severely dealt with therefore than others were for the vilest crimes (as many were) this had no tendency to convince them that they were wrong or their reprovers right. Farther, such as had an appetite given them for the pure Gospel could not help seeking often to hear the sincere milk of the word, and consequently to hear it from the clearest preachers, if they went a few miles further for it. They also frequently assembled themselves together and exhorted one another with mutual advantage till at length some were ready to say concerning some exhorters much as the women sang concerning a youth in Israel, ι Sam. xviii, 7. To this Mr. F. bears me witness, p. 138. But great offense was taken at such things, and at length the ministers in general came into an agreement to try to stop them; and now a great part of the preaching that was to be heard at home or abroad, was concerning imprudencies and disorders, and especially against what they called lay exhorting. Our author owns that these things were frequently, and perhaps too often handled, p. 142. Yet because people would not patiently hear such preaching he says, "Sound doctrine was what they could not endure." Though I am glad he is so honest as to add, that he means "only such branches of doctrine, as took away (what he calls) false notions in religion; for, says he, as to many other sound doctrines, they relished them well," p. 163. I am far from thinking that we were free from mistakes and false notions in those times: Who can understand all his errors? But ministers ought to know that there is a vast difference between living persons and a dead image, which the workman hews or hammers into what shape he pleaseth. Yet because we would not be cut and hammered into their shape we have been treated as rebels ever since. Mr. Fish would have it, that when we turned from them we set up teachers who were "exceeding raw and unskilful in the word of righteousness," pp. 1 1 9 , 1 7 0 . Which may lead us to consider the particular grounds of our separation and of the difference between us. I. Of Judging Others. This has been much complained of in our day, and Mr. F. delivers high charges against us in that respect. But a calm view of his and

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

203

others conduct on that head might cause the same remark about judging that Bishop Burnet made concerning persecution, viz., that it looked as if "the only quarrel they had against it was because they had not the managing of it themselves." Our author tells a long story of how he and his brethren preached much better than the Separates, but I suppose he had forgot that Paul durst not make himself of the number of such as commended themselves and measured themselves by themselves. So Dr. [Charles] Chauncy, who wrote a great volume against the work twenty-five years ago, set down rash and uncharitable judging as one of the greatest evils of that day. And though he talks much of the Scriptures, yet his evident standard is, themselves, for he says, "I freely confess had the ministers of New England lost their character as men of religion by any deportment of themselves contradictory to the Gospel, I should have found no fault with any representation of them as bad men, nay dangerous enemies to the kingdom of Christ, for I am clearly of the mind that a visibly wicked minister is the greatest scandal to religion and plague to the Church of God. Nor is it a hurt but a real service to the cause of Christ to expose the characters of such and lessen their power to do mischief." 5 Thus he allows that if there had happened to have been a number of visibly bad ministers among us, it would have been a real service and not hurt to expose them, but he has judged it to be otherwise; therefore for others to judge the contrary is a sure evidence of their being rash and uncharitable men! The first whom he names as guilty of this daring crime, is Mr. [George] White-field, and he begins his evidence against him, with telling us that he "seldom preached, but he had something or other in his sermon against unconverted ministers"; and that afterward in his journal he expressed his fear lest "many, nay, the most that preach, do not experimentally know Christ." 0 And to prove this to be an abuse of the standing ministers now, he says, "Hear the opinion of that eminent man of God Dr. Cotton Mather upon this head": t who said, "There is not that spot of ground upon the face of God's earth, which can proportionably match New England for ministers." But when was it so? why I find by his life, that this opinion was published in 1691 when ( as the following words express ) "No man became a minister in § See Dr. [Charles] Chauncy's Thoughts on the state of religion in New-England, 1743, p. 141. * Ibid., pp. 140, 141.

tP. 14a.

204

Isaac Backus

these churches till he first became a communicant, and no man became a communicant, until he had been severely examined about his regeneration as well as his conversation. If any minister do misbehave himself he soon hears of it and becomes either a penitent, or a deposed man.* This was Dr. Mathers testimony of the order of the churches in that day, but "what a degeneracy" has come on since then! This same man of God said twenty-four years afterward, "There may be much chaff in the church. Now 'tis prophesied, Matt, iii, 12, He whose fan is in his hand, will thoroughly purge his floor. But verily it must be with more than a little shaking that the fanning work will be carried on." Again he says, "There shall be men, qualified like, and influenced by, the angels of God; these Boanerges's and sons of commotion shall fly through the midst of Heaven having this everlasting Gospel to preach unto the inhabitants of the earth. And our glorious Lord will shake Heaven and shake the earth and shake all nations till this glorious Gospel be complied withall." 5 Here reader take notice; when a passage from that author seemed to suit Dr. Chauncy's turn, then he is an "eminent man of God," but in this now quoted, which so exactly agrees with the work which he opposed see if Dr. M. escapes the charge of enthusiasm. The main objection which he advances against the work that was carried on under the ministry of those sons of Thunder is that "wherever it takes place, the subjects of it too generally are uncharitable to neighbors, to brethren of the same community, to relatives, to ministers in an especial manner." 0 That is, when their eyes were opened to see that they were men of unclean lips, they saw also that they dwelt in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and this caused "more than a little shaking in the churches." And as 'tis evident that Dr. C's notion of charity was, to have a good opinion of the ministers and churches as they stood; so because the instruments and subjects of that work had not such an opinion of them, therefore he judges of them as enthusiasts, Quakers, and what not? See Rom. ii. Many ministers will not approve of this conduct in Dr. Chauncy who yet treat us as he did them. Let us come to plain facts. The first of our Separate churches was at Canterbury, and the separation began in this manner. The parish called a man [James Cogsî Ibid.

§ Dr. Mather's Sermon from Hag. ii, 6, 7, in 1 7 1 5 , pp. 25, 28. * Dr. [Charles] Chauncy's thoughts, p. 170.

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

205

well] to preach to them who had been licensed for that purpose by the association in that county. But after the church in Canterbury had made trial of him they judged him to be "destitute of those essential qualifications that ought to be in a minister of Jesus Christ, and therefore refused to join with the society in their choice." And as the society [parish] persisted in their choice, and were justified therein by the ministers, the church at length withdrew and met at a private house. After which the consociation was called, and under their direction a number of the members openly renounced the former principles of the church and put themselves under Saybrook regulation and chose Mr. Cogswell whom the society had called before, and got him ordained as their minister. And they afterward "sent some of the members of the church to prison for not attending on his ministry, yea, and threatened to prosecute Mr. [Samuel] Buell for staying in the town to preach the Gospel upon the desire of many members of the church without the vote of the society." f These and many other facts, Mr. Solomon Paine published sixteen years ago and appealed to courts, ministers, and people for the truth of them, and I never heard any deny them to this day. Here reader is the plain state of our first separate church. It is the first church in Canterbury, who retain their ancient principles, their records, and other furniture of the church, and are called Separate only because they refused to give up their judgments to the clergy and the world * in so important an affair as the choice of a guide for their souls. Indeed that association in their letter against the Separates, pp. 41, 42, say, "If there be any of us, whose ministry is not edifying, or who dispense not the Word as we ought, you ought to use the means which Christ has appointed for our conviction and amendment, or rejection." 4 And they declare the churches have liberty "to choose their own way of church discipline, whether Saybrook Platform, presbyterian, or congregational." And yet in the next breath they accuse the Separates with "rejecting the ministry and churches of Christ, and setting up without any divine institution." Whereas, the very act of this church, which they are condemned for, was adhering to the congregational plan and taking the only Gospel way they had left to clear themselves of a minister whose preaching was not edifying to them. I say the only Gospel method they had left, for the church had called t Vid. Mr. [Solomon] Paine's view of the churches, 1752, pp. 17, 18. î I say the world; for the law requires no other qualification to make a voter in their parishes, but a certain quantity of worldly estate.

2o6

Isaac Backus

a congregational council before, and after he was ordained "against the vote and solemn warnings and entreaties of the church all the settled ministers of the county left the church"; and Mr. [Solomon] Paine "went to the general assembly in behalf of the church with a petition, showing them that the church was usurped over and oppressed, and prayed them to interpose and forbid the society" § oppressing the church to support the minister. But the court granted them no relief. No, but for many years afterward their goods were spoiled or persons haled to prison for that minister's support; and after their own pastor was ordained, he was prosecuted and fined for marrying a couple, because they would not allow him to be truly ordained. Mr. Fish says the qualifications of teachers "are to be judged of by the ministers of Christ; which trial lay teachers refuse to submit to," p. 147, and quotes several texts out of Timothy and Titus to prove it. Whereas those epistles are to direct ministers concerning their behavior in the church not over it. Our Lord commends the church of Ephesus, that they had tried them which said they were apostles, and were not; and had found them liars, Rev. ii, 2. And the true apostles, while they gave to the first Gospel-Church a description of what sort of men should be chosen into office in their presence, they did not pretend to nominate any but said, Brethren, look ye out among you, such men, Acts vi, 3. And Paul expressly shows that letters of commendation in his time were το and FROM T H E CHURCH, 2 Cor. iii, 1. But these ministers now arrogate the power to try and approbate ministers wholly to themselves; and assisted in causing a division in the church of Canterbury because they would not submit to that power contrary to the doctrine which they had learned in the Gospel. Here therefore the text which they often cast upon us is strictly applicable to them. "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and AVOID them, for they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their OWN belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple," Rom. xvi, 17, 18. They were as truly the cause of that division as ever King Charles was of beginning the civil war by invading the rights of the Parliament. There was an early dispute among the apostles about greatness, but their master told them that if any man desired to be first, the same i Mr. [Solomon] Paine's view of the churches, p. 1 7 , and his preface, p. 7.

A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET

Ä07

should be last of all and servant of all. Whereupon John discovered how their ambition had operated; it had moved them to forbid one who was acting in Christ's name because, says he, he followeth not us, Mark ix, 35-38. Yet what now is the import of their noise against Separates but this, They follow not us? Our Lord repeatedly warned his disciples against assuming such a lordly power as civil rulers have, and said, So shall it N O T B E among you, Mark x, 43; Luke xxii, 26. And Peter exhorted elders not to be as lords over God's heritage, 1 Pet. ν, 3. But one of Mr. Fish's brethren in the same county * who is a trustee of Yale College, asserts that the "rights conveyed b y the keys, belonging to the eldership only, are as distinct from the right of private members as the rights of a magistrate are from those of a freeman in a civil community." And adds that 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." Which assertions he would support with this notable argument, viz., " 'Tis not possible they should be in danger of abusing a power they never had,"t yet the experience of all ages proves that they are prone to assume a power which Christ never granted, yea, which he has expressly forbid. If ministers would leave their worldly comparisons and attend only to divine rule, I believe they would find that it belongs to the church with them to try ministers; and common people have the best advantage to know how men behave in their daily walk and have as good right as any to judge what gifts are edifying and what experiences are clear. W h a t then are those ministers doing w h o assume the power to themselves to judge for the church and to forbid all w h o follow not them? Indeed there is one qualification that is greatly set " County of New London. t Vid. Mr. George Beckwith of Lyme's second letter against lay-ordination, pp. 58, 59. His first letter was dedicated to Governor [Thomas] Fitch, and then he compared ordination to the swearing a magistrate into his office after the freemen had chosen him, p. 26. But before his second letter came out the freemen had dropped his patron and several magistrates out of office for favoring the StampAct. And what will he do now? for this comparison will by no means suit his turn? W h y he slips over and in his second letter compares power of ministers to that of the "governor of a province by the King's commission," p. 42. This is a fine comparison indeedl for such a governor can negative counselors and the acts of the general court; Yet by the way such power is too great to be conveyed by a long succession. If the governor dies, or is removed, the province must be without one till a new commission is granted, directly from the King, and the people have no choice in the affair. Thus Mr. B. by wandering from truth has involved himself in a sad dilemma; for at home his governor is left out of office by the people, and that power he would not allow the church; and abroad governors have commissions directly from the King; but he has no such thing to show.

2o8

Isaac Backus

b y which common people are supposed not to be fit judges of. This brings me to speak, II. Of Learning. Upon this Mr. F. advances a formal charge against us and says, "While w e give the Separates credit for this verbal concession, that learning is a good thing and that they don't despise learning, w e must charge them with saying in the next breath and confirming of it by practice that there is no need of any more than common learning (nor indeed any necessity for that, if they have but the Spirit) to qualify men for the work of the ministry. And accordingly they choose unlearned men and have none but such for their teachers. Neither do they use the means for obtaining any better accomplishments which shows that they make no account of colleges and superior schools of learning to educate their sons," p. 165. This you see is laid against us all without exception, and he often repeats it in that manner and our practice is appealed to for the proof of the charge. Then let that be examined. Mr. Elisha Paine of Canterbury was one of the greatest lawyers in that colony before he left the law for the Gospel; and some of the ministers approved of his preaching till they found he would not conform to their schemes. He is an ordained pastor among the Separates to this day. His brother Solomon, who was the first pastor of that church at Canterbury, had been a leading man in the town and had been their representative in the General Court. Mr. Josiah Cleaveland of that church sent two of his sons to college, and you shall hear how they were treated. Yale College, November 19, 1744. Present, the Rector and Tutors. Upon information that John Cleaveland and Ebenezer Cleaveland, members of this college, withdrew from the public worship of God in the meetinghouse in Canterbury carried on by Mr. Cogshall a licensed and approved candidate for the ministry, preaching there at the desire of the first parish or society in Canterbury, with the special direction of the association of the county of Windham, and that they, the said Cleavelands, did go to and attend upon a private separate meeting in a private house for divine worship carried on principally by one Solomon Paine, a lay-exhorter, on several sabbaths in September or October last. The scholars owned the facts, and gave in the state of the case to them, and showed that they met with the major part of the church which

A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET

209

they belonged to. I shall not trouble the reader with any more than the close of their first answer which was, That neither the major part of the members in full communion nor any other persons in any parish or society have any right or warrant to appoint any house or place for worship on the sabbath distinct and separate from, and in opposition to the meetinghouse, the public place appointed by the general assembly and the parish; but on the contrary, all such places and separate meetings, are prohibited by the ancient laws of this government. Whereupon it is considered and adjudged by the rector and tutors, that the said John and Ebenezer Cleaveland in withdrawing and separating from the public worship of God and attending upon the preaching of lay exhorters as aforesaid, have acted contrary to the rules of the Gospel, the laws of this colony, and of the college; and that the said Cleavelands shall be publicly admonished for their faults aforesaid; and if they continue to justify themselves and refuse to make an acknowledgment, they shall be expelled. THOMAS CLAP, Rector. They were expelled accordingly and became teachers among the Separates. And as the heads of the college then published this account, and Mr. Paine in his View of the Churches, transcribed it, pp. 13-15, in 1752. And as w e have some other ordained pastors w h o have considerable skill in both the Greek and Latin tongues, and three members of one Separate church in Norwich, have each brought up a son at college within these f e w years, one of which is now a tutor at Yale college; and as a like number have been sent to college from Windham, beside some in other places; I leave Mr. Fish to consider how he can answer what he has said, either to God or man. However, though his charge is far from truth, yet 'tis readily granted that w e have a great dislike to some sorts of learning, especially the art of disputing against the truth, as well as for it, the art of making easy things hard instead of making hard things easy; such oppositions of science w e * have no likening to, nor of the art of handling the Word of God deceitfully and twisting things into any shape to suit men's own turns. Such things as these I take to be the leaven which our Savior warned his disciples against, for what he calls doctrine in one place, he calls hypocrisy in another. 5 And what shall w e think of our author upon this point? Speaking of ministers' work he says, "Our Lord hath shown us that LEARNING is eminently useful, yea even necessary, Isai. 1, 4. t 1 Tim. vi, 20. § Matt, xvi, 1 2 ; Luke xii, x.

210

Isaac Backus

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, p. 175. When I read this I confess it caused this inquiry in my mind, If Mr. Fish 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 though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. Did any Pharisee ever abuse Scripture, to impose upon people worse than this? Let us consider another Scripture, namely 2 Tim. iii, 6, which our author gives us a large comment upon in order to guard against those that oppose their churches, and closeth it by saying, "This design is hid from vulgar eyes by the plausible covering or pretence of setting truth in a clearer light, and building up the church on a better footing, and of purer materials," p. 70. Now we may take notice that the apostle makes no distinction in the text between public and private houses, for he often taught both publicly and from house to house; but what he points out false teachers by is the manner of their getting in and the work they do when they are in. As to the first, they creep into houses, and we all know that creeping is opposite to going upright, therefore when Peter dissembled, Paul withstood him to the face, because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel; and that concerning introducing the Jewish schemes into the Christian church, Gal. ii, 11-14. I leave Mr. F. to consider how well this will agree with his notion that the "Christian church is made up of the same materials that the Jewish church was." I remember that Mr. [Jonathan] Edwards in his farewell sermon at Northampton, warned that people of their danger of being imposed upon, for he said he knew the art that some young ministers had got, of disguising their principles, till they could get into place, and then they would corrupt people's minds by degrees. This leads to the other branch of the text under consideration, which is that when those teachers are got into houses they lead captive silly women laden with sin, led away with divers lusts. And how many have there been in our day who have appeared in a Calvinist garb till they have got settled, and then as fast as any women or others came laden with sin, to talk

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

211

with them about their souls concern, they would lead them to the church instead of leading them to Christ first, and so they are settled down in a form of Godliness; and this sort of men, will soon deny the power of it, ver. 5. And they are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, ver. 7. Instead of that they are trucebreakers, false to the principles which they professed, and break through their solemnities and engagements, and so are Traitors, ver. 4. And if we had no such men in our land, can it be thought that we should have heard Judas cried up so much as we have? I mean not to reflect upon any man's person but only to hold up the plain truth and leave all men to judge for themselves; and where any such men are found God's command in ver. 5 is, From such turn away. Mr. F. pretends that those teachers were for building the church "of purer materials" than others; whereas the text speaks expressly of that sort of men who have the form but deny the power of godliness. This leads us to another article of difference between us, which is, III. The Nature and Power of the Spirit. Our author's last and most distinguishing character of the true church is that, "Christ's Church has always had, and always will have, his Holy Spirit dwelling in it," p. 44. This Spirit he says, "has always been distinguished from the spirit of Antichrist by his purity, meekness, gentleness, and patience. The true Church of Christ, in whom his Spirit dwells has never been a bitter, fierce, revengeful, persecuting Church, but the reverse. Whatever degree of such a spirit has at any time crept into his Church so far as to influence some individuals, it has ever been a blemish to her character, been disowned by Christ and His Church, condemned and exploded," p. 47. To this I say amen, with all my heart; by this let the controversy be decided; in order to which other facts must be laid open. It has been already observed that we agree in judgment concerning there having been a most glorious outpouring of the Spirit in our day for the conviction and conversion of many souls. But I think the same Spirit led us to see the corruptions of the ministers and churches so as to leave them, while Mr. F. holds the contrary. Here we part, and I have laid open the state of our first Separate church, and a little of the treatment they met with from the other party. Now we will proceed further. Though we had diverse separate meetings, yet 'twas more than a year after the breach at Canterbury before we had any

2.12,

Isaac

Backus

new church gathered, and many were in hopes that ministers would come to better terms, but their hopes were disappointed, for none were allowed to preach without the ministers license; and I will here insert their own account how one of our teachers was treated by the authority which these churches stand upon, and leave others to judge what spirit is discovered. Omitting the introduction, the charge was,'* That Elisha Paine of Canterbury, in the county Windham, who is not a settled and ordained minister, did on the 10th day of April, A.D. 1744, go into the third parish in Windham, in the county aforesaid, and in said parish, in the house of Benjamin Cleaveland, there said Paine did publicly preach and exhort in matters of religion, both as to doctrine and practice, to a great number of people then present that were notified many days before the said Paine was to preach at said Cleaveland's house, as before mentioned, as by presentment on file may appear. The said Paine confessed the facts, and pleaded this court hath no jurisdiction of the case, as on file.t This court having considered the pleas of the prisoner, do judge them insufficient, and say, That this court hath jurisdiction of this case, and the said Paine refused to make any other plea: whereupon it is considered by this court that the said Elisha Paine shall become bound to the treasurer of the county of Windham in a recognizance of one hundred pound lawful money, to his peaceable and good behavior that he, the said Paine, will not again offend in the like kind between this time and the sitting of the county court to be holden at Windham, in and for the county of Windham, on the second Tuesday of December next, and then appear at said court, on said day, and take up his bond, unless the court shall see cause to continue the same, and pay cost of this prosecution, and stand committed until bond is given. Cost allowed, two pounds thirteen shillings, old tenor bills. The said Paine refused to give bond as above-mentioned, or any ways to comply with the judgment, and was committed the day and year above written. N A T H A N A E L HUNTINGTON, Just, peace The above-written, is a true copy, as on record. Test. Ν. HUNTINGTON, Just, peace.

I shall only just desire the reader to observe that there appears nothing wanting here to make him a good preacher but only the ministers * [Solomon] Paine's view of the churches, pp. 20-22. t Windham, ss. Sept. 22, 1744, a justice's court. Present, Nathanael Huntington, justice of peace. And now the prisoner at the bar, being brought before this court for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and exhorting a number of people (as presentment) pleads that this court hath not jurisdiction of this case, for the facts complained of are warranted by the law of God and the King, and therefore not tryable by any court or law inferior thereto; and this he is ready to verify judgment. Elisha Paine The above written is a true copy, as on file. Test. N. HUNTINGTON, justice of peace.

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

213

license, for he preached and exhorted, both in a doctrinal and practical way; and who could think that such treatment from the other parties, could convince us that we were wrong, and they right? It was far from doing it; but on the other hand, it convinced us that they had turned so far out of the Gospel line that we ought not to follow them. And on October 9, 1745, a new Separate church in Mansfield was gathered, and they made choice of Mr. Thomas Marsh for their pastor, who had for many years been a deacon in the second church in Windham; and they appointed his ordination to be on January 6, 1746. But the day before, many of the standing ministers met in that town, and at the same time Mr. Marsh was seized by an officer, and carried to Windham gaol for preaching sometime before, without license from the ministers; and on the day proposed for his ordination, as a great assembly were engaged in religious worship, there came up a dozen or fourteen ministers, and desired a conference with this new church, hoping likely that now the shepherd was taken they might scatter the sheep. What they talked of was to try to convince them of their errors; but when they had begun with that old argument, "Take him gaoler!" that powerful argument upon the body, what free access could they rationally expect after that, to convince the mind? They complained afterward, of meeting with noisy treatment, and who could expect less? The writer of this happened to be a spectator of the transactions of that day, and though but young in years and experience, yet he endeavored carefully to observe what was done. Some of those ministers had been as great promoters, and others as great opposers of the late revival of religion as any in the land; and the promoters of the work were put forward, and as they came up, they were saluted something in this manner, viz., one would say, "Dear Mr. P. you was the instrument of my conversion, and where are you now?" Another, "Dear Mr. M. you was the means of awakening my soul, and will you now fight against the work of God," and others to like purpose. And afterward they were publicly addressed by one of the fathers in the separation,* as near as I can remember, in these words, "You dear ministers of Jesus Christ, who were as heralds a few years ago to sound the Gospel trumpet through the land, where are you now? are you not joined in confederacy with those who, your own consciences testify, are enemies to the work of God?" They showed no disposition to answer such questions but made Î Mr. Solomon Paine.

214

Isaac Backus

several attempts to get the church together by themselves, till they found it could not be done, and at last they read off a remonstrance which they had drawn up against these things and so departed. That church in Mansfield the next month chose and ordained Mr. John Hovey for their pastor, which was the first ordination among these churches; and after Mr. Marsh was set at liberty, he was ordained a colleague with him, in July following. The third Separate ordination, was of Mr. Solomon Paine at Canterbury, September 10, 1746, and there were five more such ordinations before that year was out, one of which was near Mr. F. at Stonington; and he gives a long story of his own behavior and of the treatment he met with upon that occasion, in order to show how bad the spirit of separation was, p. 156 etc. I would always abide by what we begun upon, under this head, that the Spirit of Christ is not a fierce, bitter, and revengeful Spirit, but the reverse; and that wherever such a spirit appears, 'tis a blemish to any people; and that treatment which he describes was so to us; but then he and all ought to consider that Solomon says, surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and if what we had met with was not oppression, I confess I know not what may be called so; and the bitter words which he sets down, were uttered by a poor Irishman who could not read and was never set up as a teacher among our churches but put himself forward at that time; and if others did not then rebuke him for it, what has been said above, may in some measure account for that. Mr. F. owns that there is a great alteration among us since and says, " 'Tis readily granted that they are now much more moderate and civil than they were in that day — are very peaceable, kind, obliging good neighbors." But, says he, "what does this reasoning argue? why, it only shows that they have lost a degree of their original spirit as Separates," p. 158. But stay; our author has forgot himself. As little learning as we have we used to think that we understood so much of logic as this, that if the cause was gone, the effect would cease. Therefore if so great a degree of the spirit of separation is lost, he need not have troubled himself nor others about it. But he has drawn out things to such a length that he will have hard work to bring his two ends together, for he begins with informing the world that the occasion of his writing was the revival of the spirit of separation, yet before he has got through his book, he contradicts it lest he should allow that we were governed by a good spirit in separating. He calls this labor of his, an "unpleasant talk," and well he might,

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

215

for 'tis hard work to strive to blind the truth. In order to finish this talk he says, "The rashness and severity of that spirit which these poor brethren were influenced by appeared in such accusations as respected the hidden man of the heart," p. 159. This brings me to speak, IV. Of Knowing Christians. When we first appeared against having the worthy and the unworthy partake together at the Lord's Supper (which was a principal reason of our fathers' separation from the Church of England ) ministers told us, as I have before proved, that tares and wheat must grow together in the church, till the harvest, for they knew there were many both in public and private stations who, notwithstanding their form of godliness appeared as plainly against the power of it as the tares appeared by their fruits in the field. But because we would not confound church and world together as they did, they shifted about and accused us with assuming God's prerogative to search the heart, while they asserted that we could not know who were saints and who not. And when 'twas replied that Christ said, ye shall know them: the return would often be, What, are you infallible? Whereupon disputes have ensued, which have often been carried to extremes on both hands. I confess with shame that I have sometimes been thus ensnared, and so have given occasion to those who desired occasion against us. And doubtless confidence has been carried beyond evidence in many instances, and I suppose many have been more concerned to keep up a good opinion of such as they have received for Christians than they have to discharge their duty towards them in a Gospel manner. And who will say he is clear of fault in these things? May all strive for greater reformation in them. But what is this writer doing when he often charges us with wilfulness in our way? and because we were not turned back by Mr. Davenport's retractions he says, "They held fast deceit, they refused to return," p. 128. Again he says, "The strength of their delusion seems to lie very much in this, that they cannot call their conduct in question," p. 186. This is the man who accuseth Separates with judging others hearts! See Rom. ii, 1-3. Mr. F. knows that our chief disputes have been upon visibilities and not secrets. The first thing which he advances to prove that Separates had a bad spirit is that, "They endeavored to draw off from us every true believer or Christian ( in their sense of the word ) and would have

2i6

Isaac Backus

left a congregation behind them of nothing but such as they judged to be hypocrites and graceless persons, without the benefit of one saint to assist them, in the affairs of their souls." And he directly turns to the parable of the tares as a sure proof that this was wrong; and adds, as a great aggravation of their crime, that they would call others to, "Come out from among them, and be separate," with this reflection, "If they are Christians, why don't they come away from the Shades of Babylon!" p. 154. I suppose the use of the word Babylon here was thought as criminal as any of their language, but as its signification is confusion or mixture, are there not at least the shades of it where civil and ecclesiastical affairs, church and world, are confounded together, as we have proved they are in our land? and the text referred to is a call to come out from, and not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor. vi, 14-17. Creatures that are unequally yoked together, are not like to work to any advantage. Old Mr. [Jonathan] Mitchell's thoughts are worthy o f 5 notice here, which were thus expressed; The over-enlarging of full communion or of admission of persons there, upon slight qualifications, without insisting upon the practical and spiritual part of religion, will not only lose the power of godliness but in a little time bring in profaneness and ruin the churches these two ways: 1. Election of ministers will soon be carried by a formal, looser sort. 2. The exercise of discipline will by this means be rendered impossible, discipline falling, profaneness riseth like a flood, for the major part, wanting zeal against sin, will foster licentiousness. It is not setting down good rules and directions that will salve it, for the specification of government is from men, not from laws. Let never so good a form of government be agreed upon, it will soon degenerate if the instruments (or men) that manage it be not good. Solomon tells us that words fitly spoken are like apples of gold in pitchers of silver. And I think these words of Mr. Mitchell are such; and as Mr. Fish often refers us to this godly man I would desire him to turn and look into this glass himself. If this great man thought that it would ruin the churches to have many loose members to vote for ministers in the church, what would he have said if he had seen the clergy set up the world over the church in that affair? as we have seen them do, which caused the first separation. I say set up the world over the church, for the law requires no other qualification to make a man a voter for a minister in their parishes but a certain quantity of worldly estate. And such voters turned the church in Canterbury out of the § His life [by Increase Mather] dedicat., pp. 17, 18.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

2,1J

meetinghouse, and then two members of it, because they would go with the church without the camp of such men, they were turned out of one of the fountains which Mr. F. would confine us all to for ministers. This is not a judging men's secrets, for they are open facts in the sight of the sun. But what a spirit does our author discover in his reproaching and condemning us as apostates from the sentiments of our ancient fathers? He spends several pages to try to prove that the ancient church at Plymouth was like the Standing Church now and not like the Separates, from an account of that church which is given in the appendix to Mr. [Chandler] Robbins' ordination sermon; and after picking out a few passages which are chiefly the opinion of the writer of the account now in the year 1760, he then refers it to the reader to judge how little resemblance there is between them and us, p. 84. But in that same account, p. 32, we are informed that the "church managed the whole affair, both of inviting and calling" ministers, and that the first instance that appears of the towns voting in the case was seventy-nine years after their first coming to Plymouth. In the same account, p. 21, we have an information of three members of that church who were ordained to the pastoral care of other churches 0 that were what Mr. F. calls lay teachers; yet this was done fifty-six years after Harvard college was founded. We don't pretend to take those fathers as our perfect pattern, but what I complain of is Mr. Fish's pretending to produce their example to support his cause and to condemn us, and then call others to judge upon the case while he conceals these material points, which are for us and against him. I will also add here, that Mr. [Thomas] Prince gives it as the foundation principles of those fathers which came to Plymouth that their church officers after "being chosen and ordained, have no lordly, arbitrary, or imposing power but can only rule and minister with the consent of the brethren, who ought not in contempt to be called the laity but to be treated as men and brethren in Christ, not as slaves or minors. And that no churches or church officers whatever have any power over any other church or officers to control or impose upon them, but are equal in their rights and privileges and ought to be independent in the exercise and enjoyments of them." t Yet now these β Viz. Mr. Jonathan Dunham at Marthas Vineyard; Mr. Samuel Fuller, the first minister in Middleboro; and Mr. Isaac Cushman the first in Plymton. Mr. Cushman lived to old age, and I have heard many that sat under his ministry speak of him as a faithful and successful laborer. t New-England chronology, p. 92.

2i8

Isaac Backus

men, who pretend to be their successors, have got so high an opinion of their own learning and knowledge, as to assume such a power as our fathers abhorred. Is not he a servant who has not liberty to act as he thinks best without leave from another? Yet such a power is now claimed by ministers over their people as not to allow them to have liberty to ask any minister to preach in their parish without their leave, and nothing is more common, than for them to call all such lay men who are not introduced into the ministry in their way. Our author is abundant in it, and Mr. Beckwith, who as I observed a little back, claims a lordly power in plain words, he uses the lay term about thirty times in thirty pages.31 And is not he a minor who must have another to act for him, and he only yield a silent consent thereto? and how near to this is the custom of our land concerning admissions into churches? I observed before, that I never knew a single instance in the Standing Churches of any members being received upon a verbal declaration to the church of what God hath done for his soul; no, instead of that, the ministers have assumed more to themselves in that respect than the judges do in our civil courts, for there they ordinarily insist upon having witnesses personally present where all persons concerned may hear their testimony from their own mouths and have liberty to ask what questions they think proper; the fear of witnesses blundering in their story shall not excuse them from giving their own account even before great men, for interest is concerned, and they are afraid written evidences would Î Many people love to have it so; Therefore that apostolic man ( as Dr. [Isaac] Watts call him) Professor [August H.Ì Francke, after exposing many excuses for the fear of man, says, To which may be added that pernicious distinction derived from Popery, and whereby those that are preachers, or designed for that office, are called spiritual men, and the rest of the people lay men; whereas indeed all true Christians be they in what state they will, must be spiritually minded as St. Paul teacheth, ι Cor. iii, 1 6 ; Rom. viii, 9, 14. But w e don't think of this, and scarcely know what the name Christian imports, viz., one annointed with the Spirit of Christ, and therefore think ourselves sufficiently excused when w e can say I am a layic and no spiritual man. It is not to be expressed what horrid mischief this wicked distinction is the cause of and what deep root it hath taken in men's minds. Insomuch that the Devil himself could hardly have found a better w a y to persuade people that one is not as much bound as another exactly to order his life in all things according to the rule of God's word. Accordingly Satan fails not presently to show his claws whenever this spiritual priestly office commended to all Christians is earnestly pressed and inculcated. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor and not suffer sin upon him, says God, Lev. xix, 1 7 . Not to teachers alone but to all in general. These were the sentiments of one of the greatest reformers in Germany near seventy years ago, see Fear of Man, pp. 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 .

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

2ig

impose upon them. Yet in this case, where the interest of Christ's Church is so much concerned, that as Mr. Mitchell observes loose admissions will ruin the churches, here none are allowed to witness a good confession with their own mouths before the church, but the ministers have turned them off with written accounts which have often been framed by somebody else, for those who are about to make an open appearance as God's witnesses. Nay, there are some godly persons among us who declare that when they were admitted publicly into the church, the minister read off an account different in material points from what they gave to him in writing and so made them silently assent to a liei From written experiences great numbers, especially in populous places, have now dropped giving any account thereof to the church in any way. And yet these ministers would fain make us believe they are going in the same way which our fathers set out in when they first came to this country; but let us hear their own testimony in the affair. Capt. Roger Clap, one of the first inhabitants of Dorchester, and who was many years captain of the castle in Boston harbor, he in writing of what they went through says, I took notice of it as a great favor of God unto me not only to preserve my life but to give me contentedness in all these straits, insomuch that I do not remember that ever I did within my heart, that I had not come into this country. The Lord Jesus Christ was so plainly held out in the preaching of the Gospel unto poor lost sinners and the absolute necessity of the new birth, and God's Holy Spirit in those days was pleased to accompany the word with such efficacy upon the hearts of many, that our hearts were taken off from old England and set upon Heaven. Many were converted and others established in believing, many joined unto the several churches where they lived, confessing their faith publicly and showing before all the assembly their experiences of the workings of God's Spirit in their hearts to bring them to Christ; which many hearers have found very much good by, to help them to try their own hearts and to consider how it was with them; oh, the many tears that have been shed in Dorchester meetinghouse at such times both by those that have declared God's work on their souls and also by those that heard them. In those days, God, even our own God, did bless New England. [Prince's] Christian History, vol. I, p. 72. You may take notice that this was their practice in the several churches where people lived. Accordingly old Mr. John Eliot of Roxbury said,

220

Isaac Backus

It is matter of great thankfulness that we have Christ confessed in our churches by such as we receive to full communion there. They open the work of Christ in their hearts and the relation thereof is an eminent confession of our Lord; experienced saints can gather more than a little from it. It is indeed an ordinance of wonderful benefit; the Lord planted many vineyards in the first settlement of this country, and there were many noble vines in them; it was their heavenly-mindedness which disposed them to this exercise, and by the upholding of it the churches are still filled with noble vines; it mightily maintains PURITY of churches, 'tis the duty of E V E R Y Christian. It is a thing that gives great glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, and young converts are thereby exceedingly edified; and the souls of devout Christians are hereby ingratiated one unto another. The Devil knows what he does when he thrusts so hard to get this custom out of our churches. For my part, I would say in this case, get thee behind me, Satan;

thou givest an horrible offence unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us keep up this ordinance with all gentleness, and where we see the least spark of grace held forth, let us prize it more than all the wit in the world.5

This was the testimony of one of the most faithful and successful ministers that New England ever saw; wherein he boldly ascribes to the Devil any attempts that were made to thrust that custom out of the churches. Yet now that custom is treated with contempt by many ministers who still would be accounted the true successors of those pious fathers. Indeed, our author has got a fine way to get along here, which is by turning off such things for imperfections, and he says the order of the churches "was more perfected and established afterwards in the year 1662," p. 80. Here we shall learn what his notion of perfection is, for in that year was the synod which brought in (what we have called) half way members. Mr. [Charles] Chauncy, president of the college, and Mr. Davenport of New Haven, both opposed that point in print as a great corruption instead of perfection, and Mr. Eleazer Mather of Northampton who was in that synod, wrote soon after to Mr. Davenport that "There was scarce any of the congregational principles but what were layen at [attacked] by some or other of the assembly; [such] as relations of the work of grace, power of voting of the fraternity ( or brethren) in admission, etc." ' Mr. F.'s notion of the order of the churches being perfected then makes me think of a story concerning a minister who descended from a member of that synod, who though his conduct was not good yet § Mr. Eliot's life, pp. 68, 69. 0 Mr. Hutchinson's history, vol. I, p. 224.

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N NET

221

boasted of treading in his grandfather's steps; whereupon another minister of greater note said, "He had got his grandfather's imperfections to perfection." Though Mr. Mitchell was then active in bringing in what he called middle way, yet the importance of being careful how persons were admitted to the Lord's Supper still lay upon his mind, and he wrote his thoughts thereon on Jan. 4, 1664. Wherein, among other things he brings in this objection, viz., Why may it not "suffice for a man publicly to say I believe on Christ or do unfeignedly repent of my sins? Or to consent to such expressions being read, or propounded unto him, without any more ado?" His answer is "ist. He that can groundedly so say, or profess before God, angels and men that he hath unfeigned faith and repentance, can say somewhat more, particularly to show the reality of his acquaintance with those things. And if he cannot say it groundedly, it is not meet to put him so to say. 2nd. He that either cannot or will not say any more than so, he renders the truth of his faith and repentance suspicious so that a rational charity cannot acquiesce in it." t There has been a great deal of smother [smoke] raised in our day to hide or get over these self-evident truths; many have been for lowering the profession so that it might not imply saving faith in it, but Zion's king says He that is not for me is against me, and he declares that publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before those who said, I go sir, and went not. Halting between two opinions, a pretending to be for God and yet not being truly so, has always been one of the greatest evils and most fatal snares that any men can be taken in. And as to the noise which many have made against our principles as though they tended to perplex minds, this argument has justly been retorted back again. For none will pretend to admit persons without some sort of qualification or other, and 'tis vastly more difficult to determine the point concerning moral sincerity than gracious sincerity, for the first is only restraints and influences upon a person, while the other is a living principle within him; and I think this is an unanswerable reason which Mr. Edwards gives why the latter and not the other makes meet members for Christ's Church, namely that moral sincerity is transient, and may be entirely lost, but a gracious principle abides forever. As to the frightful consequence which some draw, that if none but gracious persons ought to be received to communion, then we can never know whether our communion is right or not, in this world. Old Mr. t Mr. Mitchell's life, p. 86.

222

Isaac Backus

[Thomas] Shepard gave a sufficient answer thereto an 120 years ago in these words. Q. What members ought every particular visible church to consist of? A. Christ being head of every particular church, and it his body, hence none are to be members of the church but such as are members of Christ by faith, 1 Cor. i, 2; 1 Thess. i. Q. But do not hypocrites and no true members of Christ creep in? A. 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, Matt. XXV, 1; 2 Tim. iii, 5; Rev. ii, 20; Tit. iii, io.* I have been the more particular on this head because all the controversy turns very much upon it, and since Mr. F . says the Separates "admitted members not so much upon outward evidence as upon inward fellowship or feeling," p. 145, I will add a little more concerning that matter. And I doubt not but many have had confused notions concerning fellowship and have often put the effect for the cause, i. e., have taken what they felt towards others for the evidence of others good estate; whereas all affections toward others are caused by what is some way or other manifested from them; and if what others manifest be genuine evidences of grace, then our love thereto is genuine, but if what others manifest is not genuine language or exercises, and w e are delighted therewith, those affections in us are as corrupt as the causes which produced them. Hence Jesus says, First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. And though the word feeling is often cast upon us as a term of reproach, yet as certain as the Bible is true, all those professors that don't love one another with a pure heart have but the dead carcass of religion. And as a principal means of begetting and increasing this love is declaring to each other what God has done for our souls, so our Lord says, Every tree is known by his own fruit, a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good. And the beloved disciple says, That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you that ye also may have fellowship with us, etc. And to show that our sentiments are not singular, as well as for the edification of the saints, I will here transcribe a little of what was wrote in the last century by one who is allowed to have been a man of as great learning and piety as any in his day. I mean Dr. John Owen who, after observing how men are liable to mistakes in various ways and giving cautions accordingly, he proceeds $ His first principles of the oncles of God, pp. 25, 26.

A FISH CAUGHT IN HIS OWN NET

223

to speak of some duties which can't be performed without some knowledge of others state, and also of the w a y wherein it is attained. ist. There are (says he), many duties incumbent on us to be performed with and towards professors which without admitting a judgment to be made of their state and condition, cannot be performed in faith. And in reference unto these duties alone it is that we are called to judge the state of others. For we are not giving countenance unto a rash uncharitable censuring of men's spiritual conditions nor unto judging of any men, any other than what our own duty towards them doth indispensably require. Thus if we are to lay down our lives for the brethren, it is very meet that we should so far know them so to be as that we may hazard our lives in faith when we are called thereunto. We are also to join with them in those ordinances wherein we make a solemn profession that we are members of the same body with them, that we have the same head, the same faith and love; we must love them because they are begotten of God, children of our Heavenly Father; and therefore must on some good ground believe them so to be. In a word, the due performance of all principal mutual Gospel duties to the glory of God and our own edification, depend upon this supposition, that we may have such satisfying persuasion concerning the spiritual condition of others as that from which we may take our aim in what we do. 2. For the grounds hereof I shall mention one only, which all others do lean upon. This is pressed, ι Cor. xii, 12, 13. As the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so is Christ, for by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free and have been made all to drink into one spirit. They are all united unto and hold of one head; so is Christ mystical, that is, all believers under Christ their head. And this union they have by the inhabitation of the same quickening Spirit, which is in Christ their head, and by him they are all brought into the same spiritual state and frame; they are made to drink into one and the same spirit, for this same spirit produceth the same effects in them all, the same in kind though differing in degrees, as the apostle fully declares, Eph. iv, 3-6. And this spirit is in them and not in the world, John xvi. And as it gives them a naturalness in their duties one towards another, or in mutual caring for, rejoicing, and sorrowing with one another as members one of another, 1 Cor. xii, 25, 26. So that it reveals and discovers them to each other so far as is necessary for the performance of the duties mentioned in such a manner as becomes members of the same body. There is on this account a spiritually natural answering of one to another as face answereth face in the water; they can see and discern that in others whereof they have experience in themselves, they taste and relish that in others which they feed upon in themselves, and wherein the lives of their souls do consist, the same spirit of life being in them, they have the same spiritual taste and savor. And unless their palates are distempered by temptation or

224

Isaac Backus

false opinion or prejudices, they can in their communion taste of that spirit in each other, which they are all made to drink into. This gives them the same likeness and image in the inward man, the same heavenly light in their minds, the same affections; and being thus prepared to judge and discern of the states of each other, in reference unto their mutual duties, they have moreover the true rule of the word to judge of all spirits and spiritual effects by. And this is the ground of all that love without dissimulation, and real communion that is among the saints of God in this world. If these are omitted, there is an end of all profitable use of church society. Churches without this are but mere husks and shells of churches, carcasses without souls, for as there is no real union unto Christ without faith so there is no real union among the members of any church without love, and that acting itself in all the duties mentioned, let not this ordinance be in vain. 5 These were the sentiments of those ancient fathers who were in contempt called Puritans because they labored to have the church brought to the pure standard of God's Word; yet how are poor creatures treated now for their attempting (though very imperfectly) to repair the old wastes, the desolations of many generations? Isai. vi, 4. W e come, V. To Speak of What Ministers' Power Really Is, and How They Come by It. W e have seen much already of what power they pretend to have, but 'tis needful to open what authority Christ has really given to his ministers. And the plain account in his word is, 1. That their authority is not over the bodies, but it concerns the souls of men. Obey them, for they watch for your souls, Heb. xiii, 17. And 2. They have no power to make rules nor to govern others judgments but only to explain the rules which are made and labor to move others to regard them. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. For by faith ye stand, 2 Cor. i, 2 4 . 1 speak as to wise men. JUDGE YE what I say, 1 Cor. χ, 15. Hence, 3. The people's obligation to regard and follow any teachers depends upon their teaching right. We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, 2 Cor. iv, 2. They who teach right teach by practice as well as word. Paul says, Brethren, be followers together of me and mark them which WALK SO as ye have us for an ENSAMPLE. And he warns them against persons of a § Dr. Owen on the 130th Psalm, Edinburgh edition, 1749, pp. 325-328.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

225

contrary walk, who mind earthly things, Phil, iii, 17-19. Again he says, Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Heb. xiii, 7. Note, we are not to obey and follow them in an implicit or customary way, but each one must consider, and follow others no further than they see that the end of their conversation is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for evermore, ver. 8. Yea, 4. People are so far from being under obligation to follow teachers, who don't lead in this way that they incur guilt by such a following of them. The apostle John, speaking of the doctrine of Christ, says, If there come ANY unto you and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, nor bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed, is PARTAKER of his evil deeds, 2 John x, 11. And the great apostle of the Gentiles says, Though we or an angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you ( and than that ye have received ) let him be accursed, Gal. i, 8, 9. And now, where is the power that is derived by a local succession from the apostles? And which many hold their authority from as ministers and carry it so high as to forbid those who follow not them, even though the reason of it were a matter of conscience, because they really believed that such ministers neither preached nor practiced agreeable to the Gospel. Paul was so far from establishing such a local power that to guard against all such pretences he states the case upon the highest pitch of all creature authority, viz., apostles and angels. And leaving all Peter's successors out of the question, he brings it up to the apostles themselves, and says, Though WE preach any other Gospel than that ye have received, nay if an angel directly from Heaven should do so, let him be accursed. Our modern ministers would evade all this by telling us that they don't pervert the Gospel, and that 'tis our erroneous judgments, or perverse will, that makes us leave them, but Paul instead of assuming any such dominion over others' faith says, judge ye what I say, and he implicitly charges them to reject him if he should come to them with another Gospel. Should any object that this allowing every one a right to receive or reject ministers as they judge best, will bring ministers' authority to nothing, and so destroy such an order of men out of the church, I reply that 'tis so far from it that this is the only way to establish the gospel ministry upon its right foundation. For as Christ's kingdom

226

Isaac Backus

is not of this world, but its foundation and support is truth, and his ministers are furnished with that treasure * in their souls, so the manifestation thereof commends them to every man's conscience beyond what all others approbation can do. This leads us to view how ministers come by their authority. When Zion's king ascended on high he gave gifts to men, a special part whereof were pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.T And his command is, As E V E R Y man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God* This naturally opens the way for their being received into office in the Church as gifts from her king. Peter told the hundred and twenty disciples that of the men which had companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, one must be ordained to be a witness with the apostles of his resurrection. Accordingly they gave forth their lots, and thereby Matthias was put into that office.5 And after the apostles were endowed with extraordinary power from on high to witness for Christ * yet they did not so much as nominate the seven men who were to be put into office in their presence, but said, Brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. They did accordingly, and set the men before the apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them, Acts vi, 3, 6. And in Acts xiv, 23, which speaks of ordaining elders in every church; many learned men assert that the word which is translated ordained signifies the act of the church declaring their choice of those elders by stretching out or lifting up the handsJ And when Paul had given to Timothy a particular description of the characters of those who are to be put into the office both of bishops and deacons, he declares plainly that his design therein was that Timothiy might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Tim. iii, 15. Observe, he had no power over the church but was to act as a leader in the church and teach them what sort of men are to be chose into office and assist in placing them therein. It is * 2 Cor. iv, 7. t Eph. iv, 8-12. Î 1 Pet. iv, 10. § Acts i, 21-26. * Ver. 8. t See the margin of Cann's Bible; Dr. Watts's orthodoxy and charity, and Dr. Gill's on the place.

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

227

well known that the word elder in Scripture does not always mean persons in office either in church or state but often is used only for persons of superior gifts, age, or experience. Yea, the name when applied to officers seems to derive its original from the custom of choosing such persons into office,1 and in this very epistle the word is plainly used in a sense which does not distinguish those who are in office from others, ι Tim. v, l, 2. Upon the whole I can freely leave it with every conscience to judge whether the Scriptures carry the point a whit further than this, That leading men in the primitive church led in ordinations as well as other things. And who will dispute that point with any body? Those who hold the power to "constitute in office, and to remove from office" to be entirely in the church, yet always appoint leading men (and such as are in office when they can be conveniently had) to act in and for the church in ordinations. Much stress is laid by many on the terms commit thou in 2 Tim. ii, 2, in order to prove the power of ordination to be inherent in them who are already in office, but it has been already proved, that the apostles themselves (even though they sometimes conveyed extraordinary gifts by laying on their hands, yet) did not pretend to act in ordinations, only in consequence of the churches act; therefore they properly acted as the churches mouth in putting men into office and charging them to be faithful therein. And Timothy and all other leaders ought to be very careful when they are called to assist in ordinations to see that they commit the charge of souls only to faithful men. Paul in writing to this same person useth the same words, This charge I commit unto thee, and I give thee charge, as synonymous terms, 1 Tim. i, 18 and vi, 13. And be the right of ordination where it will yet this is certain, that the direction is to commit the charge of souls to faithful men; and none but such can truly be in the gospel line; and when any creep in under a sheep's clothing who are not truly such, when they discover by their fruits that they are false men, our Lord commands his people to beware of them, Matt, vii, 14, 15. Another text which is often advanced to prove that ministerial power is handed down by an external line from the apostles is Matt. xxviii, 18-20. But I think two things may be sufficient to evince the J "Elders among the Jews, were the most considerable persons for age, experience, and wisdom, who constituted the council of the people; among the primitive Christians, those of the first rank in the church were called elders," Dyche's dictionary.

228

Isaac Backus

absurdity of construing that commission and promise in such a way. 1. All the promises of God are in Christ Jesus and the heirs of promise are only such as have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, 2 Cor. i, 20; Heb. vi, 17, 18. How vain then must the attempt be to apply that promise to any who have not fled to the gospel refuge! 2. Our Lord connects precept and promise together in the text, 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. Therefore this promise is so far from supporting a succession of unconverted ministers that it could not support even the apostles themselves if they turned aside from the line of truth. Yea, instead of the promise, the curse would seize upon an apostle or angel if they should turn off from the Gospel-Way, as I have proved before. Should any say that those words of Paul are hypothetical expressions, i.e., supposing a case for illustration which is not granted, 'tis readily allowed that they are so; but I would have people remember that 'tis chiefly from such ways of speaking that they draw their pleas for unconverted ministers, as from 1 Cor. xiii, 1-3, etc. To show that my opinion about a line of succession is not singular I will transcribe some of Dr. Owen's thoughts thereon which were published in London, 1692, in a small piece called A Guide to Churchfellowship and Order, wherein he says pp. 47, 48, The office of the ministry for the continuation of the church state and administration of all ordinances of worship unto the end of the world is sufficiently secured, ( 1 ) By the law, constitution and appointment of our Lord Jesus Christ, erecting that office, and giving warranty for its continuance to the consummation of all things, Matt, xxviii, 20; E ph. iv, 1 3 . ( 2 ) By his continuance according unto his promise to communicate spiritual gips unto men for the ministerial edification of the church. ( 3 ) On the duty of believers, or of the church, which is to choose, call, and solemnly set apart unto the office of the ministry such as the Lord Christ by his Spirit hath made meet for it according unto the rule of his word. If all these, or any of them, do fail, I acknowledge, says he, that all ministerial authority and ability for the dispensation of gospel ordinances must fail also, and consequently the state of the church. And 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 instead of the living and life-giving institutions of Christ. They take away the living creature and set up a skin stuffed with straw.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

22Q

Thus far Dr. Owen. Compare this with the opinions of the present day. Mr. Fish says, "'Tis true indeed, Jesus did not go into the colleges or schools of learning for his first ministers. Nor was there any need of such a step while Christ himself was personally present, to educate his sons. But 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," p. 15. But now he says, "The Separates, having shut learning out of doors, have thereby deprived themselves of the best means of obtaining and preserving the knowledge of pure divine truths," p. 169. "Neither do they know whether the Bible is rightly translated, O N L Y as they have it from the learned," p. 167. And he says, our holding the whole power of ordination to be in the church is "without any direction in the whole word of God and contrary to plain gospel example, p. 145. But men, says he, "Having the word of reconciliation committed to them by authorized hands, they become ambassadors for Christ," p. 17. Here reader observe, 1. That I have proved that he charges us falsely as to our shutting out learning. 2. Here is an awful stroke against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for it has been proved a little back that the end of conversation of true leaders is Jesus Christ, the S A M E yesterday, and today, and forever. But the end of Mr. Fish's conversation is the contrary, and so is that of a great part of the ministers of our land: 8 For what less can be § About thirteen years ago Dr. [Jonathan] Mayhew of Boston plainly in print struck against the eternal and essential divinity of our Lord Jesus. Which occasioned Mr. [Ebenezer] Pemberton's publishing a sermon with an appendix upon Christ's power and divinity to which Dr. [Joseph] Sewa.ll, Mr. [Thomas] Prince, and Mr. [Thomas] Foxcroft wrote a preface wherein they express their hopes that " B y the blessing of Christ it may be of excellent service to guard many of the readers from those most dangerous suggestions against his adorable deity which have been of late unhappily published to the great grief and oifence of many among us." They don't name either the author or book, yet this was the plainest testimony that was published among us on that occasion as I ever heard of. Neither can I learn that Dr. Mayhew ever retracted that dangerous and fundamental error; yet after he died in July, 1766, he was celebrated from the pulpit and press by many ministers in town and country as one of the brightest characters among them. Dr. Chauncy, who formerly wrote so much to try to prove that New-England ministers had not forfeited their character by any of their open conduct, published a funeral sermon for him wherein he greatly extols Dr. Mayhew, and in a note, p. 28, he says, " T w o or three years ago a pamphlet appeared among us under the name of an obscure person without reputation in which the Dr. was represented as an

23°

Isaac Backus

the import of saying that Christ taught and qualified men for the ministry when he was "personally present" as he cannot or does not do now; what less can it be than to say he is not truly God by nature; but only so by office, and that having set up officers in his kingdom, he has gone to Heaven and left them to order affairs in his absence? God has often changed his dispensations, but his nature and his grace remain ever the same. He inspired men to write the Scriptures, and gave them power to confirm his word with diverse miracles which is not necessary since the Bible is acknowledged to be complete. But 'tis as great a truth now as ever that No man knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God, and that each saint has received this Spirit, that they might KNOW the things that are freely given to them of God. Yet Mr. F. declares that we don't "know whether we have the pure divine truths or not, ONLY as we have it from the learned." Whereas Paul says, my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom but in DEMONSTRATION of the Spirit, and of power that your FAITH should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, ι Cor. ii, 4, 5, 11, 12. And John says, little children ye have an unction from the holy one, and ye KNOW all things, and the annointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same annointing teacheth you of all things. And he expressly declares, that it is the spirit of Antichrist which denies this, 1 John ii, 18-27. Then let Mr. F. look to it for he has told us from Dr. Owen that the "best of human nature, if not united to the divine nature, is no better than sand to build the church upon," p. 56. Yea, and he has also given it as a clear mark of Christ's Church that it always has his enemy to the atonement made by Jesus Christ. T h e writer of that piece (says Dr. C . ) knew little of the Dr. or the true meaning of his works. He might as well have taxed any minister in the town or province upon this head." If I believed Dr. Chauncy's testimony in this, I should have a worse opinion of that order of ministers than I ever yet had, for I have great reason to believe that Dr. Mayhew's writings have done the most to corrupt people's minds and to prejudice them against the pure doctrines of grace as they were held by the fathers of this country of any one man in our land. The obscure person without reputation which Dr. D . refers to is Mr. John Cleaveland, who was expelled out of [Yale] college after he had been there about three years only for his attending the worship of God with the [Separate] church which he was a member of instead of going to hear a candidate which the association and the world had set up in opposition to the church. He wrote against two of Dr. M.'s sermons, and the president w h o expelled him [Thomas Clap] did himself so much honor on this occasion as to send Mr. Cleaveland a degree of master of arts.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

23I

holy Spirit dwelling in it. What nonsense (if no worse) then is it, to tell of Christ's servants deriving their knowledge of the truth and right to preach it only from the hands of men: His argument is that "There is nothing of inspiration in translating the Bible." Answer, there is as much of inspiration in that as there is in transcribing of it; and how many thousand times has that been done before it came to the copy that he has seen, and how does he know he has got the pure truth as it was wrote by inspiration? True Protestants all confess that the certain knowledge of the truth is attained only by the same way in the nature of it which Paul points out for the unlearned to gain it by; even that when truth is rightly delivered in words easy to be understood he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is in you of a truth. This is in the midst of the chapter, which is concluded with a precept which these ministers often remind us of, viz., Let all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. xiv, 9, 24, 25, 40. And a main indecency and disorder which is therein condemned is speaking in the church in language not easily understood. And who are more guilty of such disorders than these great pretenders to learning! And what can be a greater plague to the church than the setting up men for ministers, who never came to this knowledge of the truth? But here I am checked, for Mr. F. says, "We approbate none for the work of the ministry without inquiring after and obtaining some hopeful evidence of an inward work of grace." And he says that for Separates to suggest to the contrary "shows a want of good temper and of a tender regard to truth, for they might know better if they would," p. 166. I desire to be informed how we shall know better. Does Mr. F. believe in his conscience, that renewing grace is entailed to colleges?*' A gentleman of considerable learning told me that he was once discoursing this matter with an aged minister not far from Mr. F. and * Mr. Edwards was far from thinking so, for the same book where he would confine the ministers to such as man had taught for that purpose; yet he says of colleges, "They ought to be so constituted, that vice and idleness should have no living there. They are intolerable in societies whose main design is to train up youth in Christian knowledge and eminent piety. It seems to me to be a reproach to the land that ever it should be so with our colleges that instead of being places of the greatest advantages for true piety one can't send a child thither, without great danger of his being infected as to his morals, as it has certainly sometimes been with these societies." Thoughts on the work, 1742, pp. 349, 350. And I suppose it has been more so since than ever it was before.

232

Isaac Backus

asked him if he ever knew one who had got his degree at college, denied an approbation if he sought it? He replied that he had known one, but upon further inquiry was forced to confess that that one went into another county and got an approbation there. In fact, the right of trying ministers which Christ gave to his Church and commended her for exercising that power in detecting false men, Rev. ii, 2, is now usurped by the clergy, and after they have thus robbed God's people of their right, they charge them with want of a good temper if they will not be easy under such tyranny; and with a want of regard to truth, if they suggest that ministers don't use that power aright. I would be far from charging them all with this, for one of Mr. Fish's brethren of as good credit as he, says of many who have taken degrees at college, Alas, for the encouragement they meet with! No sooner do these light, airy, fashionable young men, who evidently deny, oppose, and banter, both publicly and privately the great soul humbling and Christ exalting doctrines of the Gospel and ridicule experimental religion as enthusiasm, and resolve Christian experiences into an over heated imagination and disordered brain, if not satanical delusions; I say no sooner do these young men come forth from the feet of Gamaliel into the world and begin to exercise their gifts but they are at once invited to preach and settle in the ministry; and there are ministers and churches enough that will ordain them notwithstanding the testimony which the serious, and such as are concerned for the doctrines and interest of Christ, bear against it. This is too much the case this day. We have frequent and flagrant instances of it; he that runs may read it, and he is wilfully blind that does not see it. And alas how dark the aspect on these churches! These things are a lamentation and shall be for a lamentation.t Let these ministers make straight paths for their own feet before they bear so hard upon us again, for leaving of them. Before I leave this head, I would insert a few passages taken from Dr. [John] Owen, who says, Dr. [Edward] Stillingfleet denies unto the people all liberty or ability to choose their own pastors, to judge what is meet for their own edification, what is heresy or a pernicious error and what is not, or anything of like nature. This is almost the same with that of the Pharisees concerning them who admired and followed the doctrine of our Savior, John vii, 49. This people which know not the law. Yet was it this people whom the apostles directed to choose out from among themselves, persons meet for an t Mr. [John] 1747. pp· 27. 28.

Porter

of

Bridgewater's

sermon at the ordination at

Freetown,

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

233

evangelical office, Acts vi. 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 associates with them in the determination of it, Acts XV. The same to whom all the apostolical epistles excepting some to particular persons were written; unto whom of all sorts it is commanded that they should examine and try the spirit of Antichrist and false teachers, 1 John ii, 3, etc. That people who in following ages adhered unto the faith and the orthodox profession of it when almost all the bishops were become Arian heretics. This principle of the reformation in vindication of the rights, liberties and privileges of Christian people to judge and choose for themselves in matters of religion, we do abide by and maintain. Yea (says Dr. Owen), I shall not be afraid to say that as the reformation was begun and carried on by this principle, so when this people shall, through an apprehension of their ignorance, weakness, and unmeetness to judge in matters of religion for themselves and their own duty be kept and debarred from it, or when through their own sloth, negligence, and viciousness, they shall be really uncapable to manage their own interest in church affairs as being fit only to be governed, if not as brute creatures, yet as mute persons, and that these things are improved by the ambition of the clergy, engrossing all things in the church to themselves as they did in former ages, if the old popedom do not return, a new one will be erected as bad as the other.* I leave others to judge how near this comes to our day, with only observing that we have seen one who calls himself a congregational minister not only claiming great power in the church for himself and brethren, and judging others hearts but also claiming infallibility in his judgment, for he concludes his long story of Mr. [James] Davenport with these words, viz., "Suffer me here to drop a word of awakening to all you that have separated from our churches, that if this confession of Mr. Davenport, together with the truths that have been and are yet to be told you, don't convince you that you have been, and still are deluded, that is deceived and turned aside from the way of truth and duty in the matter of your separating, you may, from your non conviction, KNOW FOR CERTAIN not only that you are thus deluded, but that your delusion is very strong," p. 128. It deserves particular notice that this new infallible tribunal delivers off the sentence, as the old one used to do, from a fallible rule; which rule the judge does not seem to understand very well himself, for Mr. Davenport's greatest error was his assuming the power to himself to try ministers, and then his openly "advising and urging" people to fort Dr. [John] Owen on the nature of evangelical churches, vid. Dr. I. Mather's vindication of the order of these churches, p. 27.

234

Isaac Backus

sake such as he had condemned by a "judgment formed (in several instances) rashly and upon slender grounds," and 'tis expressly "such separations" that he condemned and retracted; and the wrong which he particularly observed in exhorters was their being "Puffed up." This is the rule that our new judge gives sentence upon and in p. 164 he says, "Stand by thyself, come not near me, for I am holier than thou, Psal. lxv, 5, is certainly the language of spiritual pride; but this was the language of separating from our churches because (as they said) there were hypocrites in them which they could not commune with." But I think we may claim liberty of a review upon this judgment, for the text says nothing concerning separating good men from bad ones; others are allowed to be holy, but the proud language is, I am holier than thou. Now this being the state of the case let us look a little forward and observe that our new judge owns the Separates to be "erring brethren and obliging good neighbors;" yet some of his concluding advice to his people is, "Go not after them nor follow them. How can you with a good conscience, after I have shown you from whence they arose, their principles, spirit, and tendency? They are Separates; let them be so, let them alone," p. 191. Another article that Mr. D. confessed was his "following impulses or impressions as a rule of conduct whether they came with or without a text of Scripture and neglecting to observe the analogy of Scripture." This Mr. F. declares to be our case, p. 140, and by others all inside religion is often treated with contempt under those names, as if none followed unreasonable impressions but those who are zealous in religion; whereas all men are more or less guilty of such conduct. Therefore I will insert Bishop [Gilbert] Burnet's thoughts thereon, who says, There is a tyranny in most men's nature which makes them desire to subdue all others by the strength of their understanding; this imperious temper when it works upon subjects of religion finds somewhat to raise its spleen, that was imperious enough before; and that which is called fury and rage when it is employed in other disputes, comes to be called zeal when it is turned towards the theories that relate to another world. But when we consider what a sublime thing divine truth is, and what a poor low thing the mind of man is, we shall see cause to blunt a little the edge of our spirits if they are too sharp in such matters. Man is much governed by fancy and fancy follows the texture of the animal spirits which render many more capable of apprehending objects that are some way proportioned to them and more disposed to follow them; so that temper prepares men for

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

235

some opinions and prepossesses them against others. W i t h the greatest part of mankind

education is

so powerful that they are scarce ever able

to overcome it; and if education and temper have hit together, it will require a very extraordinary elevation to rescue a man from their force J

Let our antagonist duly consider this, and we shall hope to see him treat his brethren in another manner than he has done, concerning their leaving the ways that education inclines him to persist in. I shall finish Mr. Davenport's affair with remarking that though our author mentions his burning of books, and attempting the same concerning cloths and ornaments at New London; 0 yet he seemed hardly sensible wherein the greatest mistake lay in them transactions; which according to my weak apprehension was in venting their resentment against things without and not regarding what was within as they ought; for if we could burn all the idols, books or heretics in the world, it would avail us nothing without charity in our own souls; which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth. It is high time to come to treat a little VI. Of the Manner of Preaching. Mr. Fish says, "Writing down all that is judged expedient to deliver at that time and praying for assistance in delivering is no way inconsistent, but incumbent duty, Eccl. xii, 9, 10. Because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge, yet, he gave good heed, and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written was upright, even words of truth." Answer, Solomon wrote his proverbs and speeches in order to spread them through the world, but who ever thought that he read his prayer and sermon at the dedication of the temple, 1 Kings viii, or his other speeches to the people? When writing for the press and writing for the pulpit can be proved to be equal, then this text may serve the turn 'tis brought for, and not till then. Forty five years ago Mr. Solomon Stoddard called this reading of sermons a "late practice of some ministers"; 'twas an upstart notion then, and he gives these reasons against it, viz., 1. "It was not the manner of the prophets and apostles. Barak read the roll that was written from the mouth of Jeremiah, but Jeremiah was not wont to read his prophecies. It was the manner of the Jews to read the Scriptures in the synagogues, but after § Preface to Bishop Burnet's translation of Lactantius' history of persecutors, 1687. e Which was on March 6, and 7, 1743.

236

Isaac Backus

that it was their way to instruct and exhort men not from any written copy, Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv, 17, 20." 2. "The reading of sermons is a dull way of preaching." + And Dr. Watts says, "A paper with the most pathetic lines written upon it, has no fear nor hope, no zeal or compassion; 'tis conscious of no design nor has any solicitude for the success, and a mere reader, who coldly tells the people what his paper says, seems to be as void of all these necessary qualifications as his paper is." * Yet old Mr. John Cotton, one of the first teachers in Boston, goes beyond these divines and says, "The reading of a sermon for preaching is a sinful manner of preaching; the difference will ever hold between the word read, and preached. They are two distinct ordinances." 5 And I think these two reasons may evince the truth of his sentence, viz., 1. This reading method is a principal means of upholding ignorant and false men in a way of imposing on mankind. We have proof by various evidences that several scholars in our colleges, both formerly and lately, who either wanted a capacity or an inclination for learning, have practiced the getting others to make their lessons for them, and so by the use of notes they learn to impose upon their tutors at college, and upon the people after they come from it. Hence, 2. It has a natural tendency to make the word of God of none effect, which requireth saints to know their teachers and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake, 1 Thess. v, 12, 13. Whereas in this way, though people may sometimes know that their minister reads other men's works yet how can they ever know when they read their own? One distinguishing character of false teachers is that they have men's persons in admiration because of advantage. And so instead of knowing and esteeming ministers for their work's sake, they would have their persons in admiration for the sake of their great swelling words and sounding titles. These are murmurers and complainers, who often deliver hard speeches against the members of Christ, Jude 15, 16. I heartily concur with the sentiments of an eminent minister in London above twenty years ago, who said, "Paul's advice to Timothy is meditate on these things, give thyself wholly unto them, 1 Tim. iv, 15. You will find it in spirituals as it is in temporals, the diligent hand maketh rich. He that makes no preparation beforehand what he should say to his people tempts God to come out of his ordinary way to his t Sermon called the defects of preachers reproved, 2d ed., pp. 15, 16. Î Miscellaneous thoughts, p. 106. § Mr. Cotton s answer to Mr. Ball, p. 43, vid. the end of Stoddard's sermon.

A FISH CAUGHT

I N HIS O W N N E T

237

assistance as he that trusts wholly to his own preparations makes a god of his gifts." 9 These words were delivered in an ordination sermon from Luke xii, 42, 43, where ministers are called stewards; and as such they ought diligently to improve all the advantages that are given them to treasure up knowledge of divine truth and ever to trust in God for direction and assistance to bring forth out of their treasure things new and old as any occasion calls. The method of true ministers, both in the Jewish and Christian church always was to preach by faith, 2 Cor. iv, 13. "We having the same spirit of faith as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken. We also believe, and therefore speak." I am sensible that many will own that when a minister has faith in exercise he can preach better without notes than with them who yet say, he ought to have them because he may be shut up. Others turn off the text now cited to extraordinary times, while both of these insist upon Christ's promise, Lo, I am with you alway, as the main proof of their notion of ministerial authority. Such confused work do men make with the Bible! One while that promise shall entail Christ's presence to such teachers as men have heaped to themselves; and yet upon another turn these same men are afraid he will not be with them and so have sought out inventions to get along without him. This brings us to speak, VII. Of the Way of Ministers' Support. W e are often told that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. ix, 14, but as often as many have read this text to others it seems as though they had never yet read it to themselves, for the common practice of our land says, "They which preach the Gospel shall live of the law." Yea, and not the law of God but by the law of man; and however pious the persons might be who first made the law, I think the evidences that have been before exhibited prove that the law in itself is of such a nature as that which we read of in Psal. xciv, 20. For though some may think that those spoiling of goods and haling men and women to prison, which we have seen, is only an abuse of the law, yet a little reflection may convince them of their mistake and that the use of it carries those things in its very nature. The great design of the law is to make all the inhabitants of the town or parish pay what the rulers say is their part towards the incumbent ministers support; and the natural language of all that are attached to that way is, "If others are not made to do their part, I will not do mine," and where all " Mr. John Hill's Sermons, p. 215.

238

Isaac Backus

the people love to have it so, they may get along without open violence, but when any happen to be convinced that the way is wrong, and so will not give what is required, they are naturally led to take it by force. God said of the priests who practised so formerly that their sin was very great, 1 Sam. ii, 16, 17. And how vain is it for men to say otherwise of such practice now? Many plead in this case that promise to the church, that Kings shall be her nursing fathers and Queens her nursing mothers. But what an odd story would it be for any to tell of very kind parents who manifested such a tender regard for their children that they would rob one child of his food or cast him into a dungeon to uphold another in grandeur! Power must be exerted in families or kingdoms to restrain one person or community from injuring another, but nothing can bring any to act aright in the performance or support of divine worship but light and truth. Hence when the place and furniture for worship was to be provided in the wilderness with costly materials, though the great lawgiver could infallibly have prescribed each man's part by law if he had been pleased so to do, yet he took another method. For Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel saying, This is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying, Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord. Whosoever is of a willing heart let him bring it an offering of the Lord, gold, silver, etc., Exod. xxxv, 4-5. So when the temple was to be built, David appeared as a nursing father in Israel and set his affection to the house of his God in such a manner that of his own proper goods, he gave thereto three thousand talents of gold and seven thousand talents of refined silver. And by his instruction and example he moved other fathers and rulers to offer willingly for the house above five thousand talents of gold and ten thousand talents of silver beside great preparations of other materials, 1 Chron. xxix, 3-7. This was the method which was taken to prepare a place for worship both in the wilderness and in the promised land. And as to the performance of worship, the constant language of the divine direction was that every person of all ranks should bring his offering which God had prescribed. And though I know but little, yet in all that has been said upon these controversies I never could see any proof from the Bible of any allowance of the use of coercive power to compel any to bring their offering, even under the law, where church and state were one. How much less then can it be warrantable under the Gospel, where Christ's kingdom is not of this world? "Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

239

they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. Live OF the Gospel ( as one observes ) not of the act of civil authority not of a certain bargain made with the people containing a bond of stipulation. But this is the order of it; those whom Christ sends profit the people, and the church becomes bountiful, and the fruit the Gospel produceth maintains the preachers of it." Paul in speaking of its effects among the Philippians says, "Not because I desire a gift, but I desire fruit that may abound to your account," Phil, iv, 17. And he says to the Galatians, "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things; be not deceived, God is not mocked," Gal. vi, 6, 7. The manner as well as matter of this duty is ordained by him and he will not be mockedt but takes notice of the ways of all those who pay no regard to his command in this respect and also of those who conceit they have found a better way for its performance than that which God has prescribed, and he will deal with each of them according to their works. I am sensible that this is a darling point with many who will make a dreadful noise about consequences. And in particular they often tell us that if it was not for this support of religion by law, a great part of the people would be mere heathens. Ah! that is a dreadful thing indeed! But who are heathens? Paul's account of them is that they had some knowledge of the truth and yet did not practice agreeable to it, but held the truth in unrighteousness·, and when they knew God they glorified him not AS GOD.* Such were heathens in Paul's day, but things are so much changed since that we have a generation of Christians now who pay so little regard to God's authority that few of them would do anything to support their teachers if man's authority was not exerted in the affair. The Lord says, 7 love judgment; I hate robbery t Where men's fear towards God is taught by the precepts of men, Isai. xxix, 13, there ministers and people will be principally concerned to secure their own interest. But when creatures are taken out of the way and souls realize that all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we all have to do, a regard to him will engage ministers to watch for souls as those who must give account, and to labor to support the weak, and suffer all things rather than hinder the Gospel of Christ, Acts xx, 2 8 - 3 5 ; 1 Cor. ix, 12. And a like view will engage people to know and esteem true ministers and not watch for their halting but endeavor to stir them up to be fulfilling their ministry and also freely to communicate of their carnal things to them, 1 Thess. v, 1 2 - 1 4 ; Col. iv, 17; 2 Cor. ix, 1 1 . Indeed, instead of beating our fellow-servants each one would be concerned to approve himself to his Heavenly Master by a right improvement of all the spiritual or temporal gifts they are made stewards of, and to stir up each other thereto by the use of all Gospel means, and leave courts, constables, and prisons to be used to discipline the lawless world, 1 Cor. vi; 1 Tim. i, 9. t Rom. i, 18, 19.

240

Isaac Backus

for burnt-offering.

N o w this is a prophecy which Jesus expressly ap-

plied to the Gospel d a y s ; 5 and herein is a promise that Zion's mourners shall be comforted and strengthened to build the old wastes and repair the waste cities ( or churches ) the desolations of many generations and that Christ's ministers shall be honored and liberally supported among the Gentiles. A n d to prevent mistakes about the manner of doing it he immediately adds, I the Lord love judgments;

I hate robbery for burnt-

offering, and I will direct their work in TRUTH, Isai. lxi, 1 - 8 . T h e priests were supported of old out of the offerings of the people; even so hath the Lord

ordained

concerning his ministers now. But men have or-

dained the contrary and rob others, yea, even the widow and

fatherless,

to uphold the name of religion, and so think to cover themselves from the reproach and wrath, which is coming on the heathen.** So when destruction was declared of old as coming upon a proud and sensual people under the metaphor of a sweeping tempest, the scornful that ruled them said, When the overflowing scourge shall pass

men

through,

it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge and

under

falsehood have we hid ourselves. Therefore after speaking of the sure foundation

which believers are built upon the Lord says,

will I lay to the line, and righteousness

to the plummet,

Judgment

and the hail

shall sweep away the refuge of lies, etc. Isai. xxviii, 1 4 - 1 7 . A n d as men often make a mock of such warnings, the prophet in ver. 2 2 says, Now therefore be ye not mockers lest your bands be made strong. Mr. Fish insinuates that 'tis our lusts which move us to deny their § Isai. lxi, 8; Luke ix, 22. * Such people outdo Saul, for he forced himself and offered, but they must needs force their neighbor to offer. It is a duty incumbent upon all to exhort and stir up one another to every Gospel practice in our several stations; and many will tell us that 'tis an indifferent thing as to the manner of ministers support if the duty is but performed. So Saul in another case thought he had performed the commandment of the Lord because he had destroyed all except the best of the sheep and oxen, and they were proposed for a sacrifice to God. And when he was blamed for it he says the people spared them. Take notice of what a good design he had, to maintain divine worship and how fair his plea was, for the work he was sent upon was to destroy utterly the sinners the Amalekites, and though ox and sheep were named in his orders yet his reason would say, "They are harmless creatures and what hurt can they do now after their wicked masters are slain? Especially when they are in IsraeVs hands who intend to worship God with them?" Let our modern reasoners produce finer pleas if they can, in the present case. Yet notwithstanding Saul's excuses Samuel said to him, Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams, for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being King, 1 Sam. xiii, 1 2 and xv, 13-23. True obedience respects the manner as well as matter of the duty, and where the word is express in both, 'tis rejecting the word if we don't attend to both, and our conduct (especially if we know better) is rebellion instead of obedience, and such worship is idolatry instead of hearkening to the true God.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

Z4I

way of supporting ministers, and says, "Let the Lord of conscience judge whether 'tis not covetousness (accompanied with wilfulness and disobedience, all founded on weakness) rather than pure conscience that enduceth the Separates to forfeit their honor in breaking their own and their fathers' civil covenants to save their money," p. 164. Did mortals ever hear such a reference before! 1. If he left the affair with the Lord of conscience, why does he publish such reproachful suggestions to the world? for hereby we are stigmatized in this world while the trial is referred to that which is to come. 2. In the face of this reference to the great Judge, he has judged himself that we have "forfeited our honor, to save our money," and if that is decided, what then is left to the other Judge? unless it be what spiritual judges used to refer to the secular arm, viz., the execution of their sentence and inflicting of punishment upon such as they had condemned. 3. Here is a falsehood in the face of his bill, for he charges us with "breaking civil covenants," whereas we have no contention with him about civil covenants; the point we are upon is the support of religious worship. The offerings of the people out of which they who ministered at the altar were fed were as different from civil contracts as their own houses were from the temple. Covenants which are contrary to God's word ought not to be kept. Did Herod's covenant or oath excuse him in taking off John's head? But how are these covenants made, that we should forfeit our honor in breaking of them? Answer, the majority of a town or parish votes to a candidate a certain sum to come and be their minister; and let them offer ever so much the candidate rarely takes up with the first proposal and though 'tis often said by ministers that the "call of the people is the call of God," yet 'tis commonly the worldly sum that turns the scale. This is too evident in our land to make a jest of; and it has produced the same effects here as in the other England, where the excellent Hervey cried out with his dying breath, "Oh! why do ministers neglect the charge of so kind a Savior, fawn upon the great, and hunt after worldly preferments with so much eagerness to the disgrace of our order? These, these are the things, and not our poverty or obscurity, which render the clergy so justly contemptible to the worldlings." It is the majority of the people, be they saints or sinners, which make these covenants, and John gives this as a distinguishing mark of false prophets that they are of the world, therefore speak they of the world,

242

Isaac Backus

and the world heareth them, ι John iv, 5. And the text which our author is laboring to apply to us when he delivered this sentence is easily retorted, viz., 2 Tim. iv, 3, for it were easy to show that a great part of the congregations among us will not endure sound doctrine, and also that after their own lusts they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. His sense of heaping to themselves teachers is "that they are plenty and cheap;" and he says of Separates that "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, which gives them teachers, heaps upon heaps; besides their ordained elders who are generally taken out of the same heaps," p. 163. I have before shown that we hold with the apostles that each one ought to improve the gifts which God has given him but to pretend that we hold all to have the gift for public teachers is only to give another proof of his being a false accuser, if not a fierce despiser of those that are good, 1 Tim. iii, 3. Instead of our having heaps of teachers there is such a scarcity of them that the cries of hungry souls constrain ordained elders to be absent from their people much more than they would think to be duty if there were not so many destitute flocks, while none can pretend, but that there is a plenty of teachers on the other side, whom men have taught or made to themselves, And let every conscience judge which sort do most to gratify men's lusts or itching ears. And as to being cheap, it is no new thing for men to lavish gold out of the bagj to set up and adorn false worship rather than to forsake all for Christ. Our author insinuates that we are not governed by pure conscience; but rather by various lusts founded on weakness. But does he or his brethren take Paul's advice and directions 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 your herds be stayed.* Our fathers were not sensible at first what evils t lsai. xlvi, 6. Í Good conscience men allow (they say) but must be understood, To say as they themselves do say; or else it can't be good. In ancient ages, when the English realm And Popish zealots, placed at the helm; To 'stablish that religion; tythes were fix'd, By canon laws, with civil intermix'd; Which form'd the English constitution so, That after-ages can't the tythes forego; And hence dissenters are obliged there, To pay incumbents, whom they never hear,

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

243

these are attending the use of coercive power to support religion. But our lieut. governor [Thomas Hutchinson] says, "We find nothing in the new charter of an ecclesiastical constitution. Liberty of conscience is granted to all, except Papists." 5 And Dr. [Cotton] Mather informs us, that in a sermon to the first general assembly after Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies were united, from 2 Chron. xii, 12, it was declared concerning the civil magistrate that, "He is most properly the officer of human society, and that a Christian by non-conformity to this or that imposed way of worship does not break the terms on which he is to enjoy the benefit of human society. A man has a right unto his life, his estate, his liberty and his family although he should not come up to these and those blessed institutions of our Lord." And of prosecuting such as dissent, he says, "These violences may bring the erroneous to be hypocrites, but they will never make them to be believers; no, they naturally prejudice men's minds against the cause, which is therein pretended for, as being a weak, a wrong, an evil cause. The churches of God abroad counted that things did not go well among us until they judged us more fully come up unto the apostolical rule, To leave the otherwise minded unto God. Nor would I desire myself to suffer persecution upon a clearer cause than that of testifying against our persecution of other Christians that are not of my opinion." * I come to give my thoughts, Which some condemn, as a prelatìc game, W h o yet, b y M A J O R V O T E would play the same; And L O R D majority would claim the purse, For his incumbents; than which nothing worse. L O R D L Y diocesan, himself, can claim: So these two L O R D S do differ, but in name, One pleading English laws, for his support; The other feigning acts of our own court. Alledging law, in a perverted sense To render C H A R T E R grant, a mere pretence; And as if law and charter both intend, To crush one church, another to befriend; They'd make them mean, the same that Pharaoh said, Go serve the Lord, but let your flocks be stay'd But if one church be tax'd, to serve another No matter whether, done b y this or t'other. These lines are taken out of a letter, published in 1 7 5 3 , b y the honorable Goddard, Esq.; late of Framingham, who was formerly one of his Majesty's in this province; who closed a former tract with these lines, viz. 'Tis lordly power, not a due respect, To th' ministerial function I reject. I Mr. [Thomas] Hutchinson's history, vol. II, p. xo. * Magnalia, book 7, p. 29.

Edward council

244

Isaac Backus VIII. Of Covenant-breaking.

We are often charged with this, and Mr. Fish says, "The body of the Separates are truce breakers, for whereas they promised to walk with us in holy fellowship in all Gospel ordinances, they openly renounced communion with us when we, the Standing Churches, were daily attending these ordinances of Christ, agreeable to his institution," p. 173. Now in order to view this matter in a just light we should know what a Gospel covenant is; and Paul says, They first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God. And David says, I have sworn, and I will perform, it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. The engagement to God is perpetual and that to one another is conditional, by the will of God, which makes it to be as incumbent duty to withdraw from persons or churches who are evidently corrupt and will not be reclaimed as to walk with those who are not so. Some bring that text in the present case which says of a saint, He sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not. So he does, and he will keep God's righteous judgments let it turn out to his own hurt ever so much; even though they put him out of the synagogue or kill him therefor. God says to his ancient Church, I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offering. But they like men have transgressed the covenant. There have they dealt treacherously against me, Hos. vi, 6, 7. These words are expressly applied by our Savior to those who were as zealous for learning and order as many among us when they complained of his freedom and compassion towards sinners, Matt, ix, 13. And of his disciples plucking ears of corn on the sabbath to satisfy their hunger, Matt, xii, 1-7. And will not the same Jesus vindicate the cause of his disciples now when they go over men's lines to get food for their hungry souls? which was, as I have proved, the first cause of our separation. One of the most frightful charges which our author lays against us is "That the following disorders are owing chiefly, if not entirely, to the SEPARATIONS, viz., The Lord's-day is awfully profaned by numbers tarrying at home, not finding a freedom to attend any public worship at all; and no inquiry is made after them nor any care (that I know of) is taken of them by authority, supposing they are at their meetings, for none knows where they properly belong; others are present at one meeting in the morning, and at noon ride off in companies to other meetings at a distance, it may be to hear the Separates; and after that go and do as they please, pleading liberty of conscience," p. 72.

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

245

This is indeed a terrible story, but many a Jesuit has told as frightful a one, about the consequences of letting common people have the Bible; and with as much truth as this. For all the argument tons upon this point, That because many have abused liberty therefore we must not let people use it. And though both churchmen and dissenters have often amused people with their harangues upon liberty of conscience, yet as Dr. [John] Owen observes, "When it comes unto the issue where a man is born and in what church he is baptized in his infancy, there all choice is prevented and in the communion of that church he is to abide on the penalties of being esteemed and dealt with as a schismatic. In what national church any person is baptized, in that national church he is to continue or answer the contrary at his peril. And in the precincts of what parish his habitation falls to be, in that particular parish church he is bound to communicate in all ordinances of worship." t This is the sentence of the same author that Mr. Fish quotes the most of any one when he is showing the attempts which the gates of hell makes against Christ's church. And he must be strangely blinded who can't see that the case among these which our antagonist calls congregational churches is exactly like what Dr. Owen describes of national ones. I have already produced the testimony of the heads of one of the colleges that ministers would confine us all to for teachers, wherein they say, "That neither the major part of the members in full communion, nor any other persons in any parish or society, have any right or warrant to appoint any house or place for worship on the sabbath distinct and separate from, and in opposition to the meetinghouse, the public place appointed by the general assembly, and the parish." The general assembly are the lawgivers for the church and the parish are the executors thereof. And we have instances in all parts of the land of persons who would not separate from the churches in general if they might be allowed only the liberty of going a little further over the parish line to join where they are best edified; but that must not be suffered lest one minister interfere with another, for each one must look to his gain from his quarter. And the honor also of the parish minister is concerned.* t Dr. Owen's guide to church fellowship and order, pp. 4, 5. Î "'Tis St. Paul's advice to Titus, ii, 15, Let no man despise thee. Answer, 'Tis great pity that this text should commonly be made use of as a cover to camal preachers and be perverted in favor of their pride and ambition. They interpret whatever is done to their persons as an assault against their holy function, engaging themselves in worldly contests and pouring forth their malice and bitterness upon all those who, they suppose have affronted them. If a child of God, and especially one of an inferior rank, deals plainly with them, they swell with anger

246

Isaac Backus

A glaring proof of this has lately been exposed to the public. A number of people in one part of Ipswich withdrew from a minister who openly appeared against the revival of religion above twenty years ago, and embodied into a church and made choice of Mr. John Cleaveland for their pastor, who had been expelled out of college as related before. Yet a number of ministers who were friends to that revival assisted in his ordination, and so received that church into fellowship with the Standing churches, and they afterward were set off as a distinct society by the General Court. But as they were blessed with a wonderful work of conviction and conversion among them four years ago many from neighboring parishes who had received soul deliverance there, were desirous of joining to that church and were accordingly received; which gave so great offence that many neighboring ministers who owned it to be a good work yet have now refused communion with Mr. Cleaveland and his church, only because they receive members over parish lines. A distinct narrative of these things he published to the world, last summer. So that all the pretence of liberty of conscience in our land comes to the same issue that Dr. Owen speaks of even liberty to join with the parish church or be esteemed a schismatic. "I heartily concur with him that causeless separations from established churches walking according to the order of the Gospel ( though perhaps failing in the practice of some things of small concernment) is and tell him they are not accountable to him, he should meddle with his own business and not reflect upon the sacred order. Now people being very well acquainted with the churlish temper of a great many ministers, they are afraid to speak to them at all or to do anything which the ministers may interpret to be against the respect due unto them; as, for example, to frequent the sermons of others whereby they may be better edified or otherwise to converse with God's faithful servants. The way for ministers to avoid contempt is to perform their duty with all application and diligence and by leading a blameless life ward off the reproaches and censures of men. True it is, the wicked will speak evil of them, belie and slander them notwithstanding their unspotted life and conversation; but it is no more than smoke dissipated by the sun and their calumny will soon vanish away, for when they are known nobody will believe them any more, bul Christ's own lambs will then put an high value and esteem upon the ministers of Christ." Dr. Francke's treatise against the fear of man, pp. 91, 92, 93. (Again he says ) "Everyone ought to examine himself, whether he comes truly in the name of Christ; whether he be sent by him, and keep close to the word of God, or whether, instead of God's Word, he entertain his hearers with fine critical remarks, histories, symbols, flourishes of wit, flowers of oratory, and other such-like human inventions; yea, whether he doth in his sermons wholly pervert God's ordinance by rejecting and calumniating those who desire heartily to govern their lives by the Gospel of Christ. He that hears such a railer, doth not hear Christ, but the Devil himself, p. 94. A farthing is not despised because we value it as a farthing; for 'tis coined for no more. The same is the case when we value an idle babbler according to his worth," p. 89.

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

247

no small sin, but separation from the sinful practices and disorderly walkings and false unwarranted ways of worship in any is to fulfill the precept of not partaking in other men's sins J" "But ( as he says elsewhere) 0 an old opinion of the unlawfulness of separation from a church on the account of the mixture of wicked men in it is made a scarecrow to frighten men from attempting the reformation of the greatest evils." Again he says, "Churches are not such sacred machines as some suppose, erected and acted for the outward interest and advantage of any sort of men; but only means of the edification of believers, which they are bound to make use of in obedience unto the commands of Christ and no otherwise." * Once more he says, "A minister enabled by spiritual gifts and engaged by sense of duty to labor constantly in the use of all means appointed by Christ for the edification of the church or increase of his mystical body is required in such a church as a believer may conscientiously join himself unto. And where it is otherwise let men cry out of schism and faction whilst they please, Jesus Christ will acquit his disciples in the exercise of their liberty and accept them in the discharge of their duty." § Thus far the great Dr. Owen who immediately adds that, If it be said that if all men be thus allowed to judge of what is best for their own edification and to act according unto the judgment which they make, they will be continually parting from one church unto another until all things are filled with disturbance and confusion; I say (1) That the contrary assertion, namely, that men are not allowed to judge what is meet and best for their own edification or not to act according to the judgment they make herein, may possibly keep up some churches but is the ready way to destroy all religion. (2) That many of those by whom this liberty is denied unto professing Christians yet do indeed take it for granted that they have such a liberty and that it is their duty to make use of it, for what are all the contests between the church of Rome and the Church of England, so far as Christians that are not churchmen are concerned in them? Is it not in whether of these churches edification may be best obtained? If this be not the ball between us, I know not what it is. (3) All Christians, actually do so; they do judge for themselves unless they are brutish; they do act according unto that judgment unless they are hardened in sin, and therefore who do not so are not to be esteemed disciples of Christ. To suppose that [in] all things of spiritual and eternal concernment that men are not determined and acted, every one by his own judgment, is an imagina§ Eschol., p. 37.

" Guide to fellowship, p. 23. t Guide to fellowship, p. 72.

§ Ibid., p. 37.

248

Isaac Backus

tion of men who think but little of what they are, or do, or say, or write. Even those who shut their eyes against the light and follow in the herd, resolving not to enquire into any of these things, do it, because they judge it is best for them so to do. (4) It is commonly acknowledged by Protestants that private Christians have a judgment of discretion in things of religion. The term was invented to grant them some liberty of judgment in opposition unto the blind obedience required by the church of Rome but withal to put a restraint upon it and a distinction of some superior judgment, it may be, in the church or others. But to allow men a judgment of discretion and not to grant it their duty to act according unto that judgment is to oblige them to be fools and to act, not discreetly, at least not according unto their own discretion. (5) The same is to be spoken of gospel discipline, without which neither can the duties of church societies be observed, nor the ends of them attained. The neglect, the loss, the abuse hereof, is that which hath ruined the glory of the Christian religion in the world, and brought the whole profession of it into confusion. Hereon have the fervency and sincerity of true evangelical, mutual love been abated, yea utterly lost, for that love which Jesus Christ requireth among his disciples is such as never was in the world before amongst men nor can be in the world but on the principles of the Gospel, and faith therein. Therefore it is called his new commandment. The continuation of it amongst the generality of Christians is but vainly pretended; little or nothing of the reality of it in its due exercise is found. And this hath ensued on the neglect of evangelical discipline in churches or the turning of it into a worldly dominion. For one principal end of it is the preservation, guidance, and acting of this love. That mutual watch over one another that ought to be in all the members of the church, the principal evidence and fruit of love without dissimulation, is also lost hereby. Most men are rather ready to say in the spirit and words of Cain, Am I my brothers keeper? than to attend unto the command of the apostles, Exhort one another daily lest any be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin; or comply with the command of our Savior if thy brother offend thee, tell him of it between him and thee. By this means likewise is the purity of communion lost and those received principal members of churches who by all the rules of primitive discipline ought to be cast out of them." Dr. Owen has herein given so clear and full an answer to Mr. Fish's charges against us that I could not forbear transcribing more than I at first designed. And let it be particularly noted that either the neglect of Gospel discipline or the turning of it into a worldly dominion is ( in the view of that eminent man of God ) that which brings in confusion and ruin among Christian professors. And he is so far from Mr. Fish's mind, who makes the separations the chief cause thereof, that he says, "I do not know how far God may accept of churches in a very corrupt " Guide to fellowship, p. 74.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

249

state, and of worship much depraved, until they have new means for their reformation. Nor will I make any judgment of churches so corrupted, and in the performance of worship so depraved; but as unto them who know them to be corrupted and depraved, it is a damnable sin to join with them, or not to separate from them. Rev. xviii, 4."t I leave every rational soul to judge whether there has not been many proofs already given that the churches which Mr. F. pleads for are greatly corrupted and depraved in those very points which Dr. Owen speaks of. Our author's proceedings have often made me think of a man who had a mind to beat his neighbor and hastily takes a sword by the blade, to club the other with the hilt, when 'tis only for the other to take hold of the hilt, and he may easily run the aggressor through with his own sword. For my part I am but a poor soldier and have a natural aversion to fighting, yet since I have seen the truth, and people of God so much abused by Mr. Fish and his brethren, I must return the charge both of truce-breaking and false accusing to their own doors; for their covenant as ministers was to feed Christ's sheep and lambs, but instead of that how have the green pastures of experimental religion been trodden down, and the deep water fouled, i. e., the word of God corrupted by them? Mr. F.'s nine sermons are a proper specimen of that treatment which scattered Christ's sheep in that day, and ever since these sheep used their Christian liberty 1 by joining together to worship God according to their own understanding of divine rule; those ministers have been false accusers of them even down to this time. The ministers in Windham county in their association letter against the Separates say, p. 32, Another of these false and evil principles which some have drank in and others are stricken with, is that no other call is necessary to a person's undertaking to preach the Gospel but his being a true Christian and having an inward motion of the spirit, or a persuasion in his own mind that it is the will of G o d he should preach and perform other ministerial acts. The necessary consequence of which is that there is no standing instituted ministry or order of men peculiarly appointed to that work in the Christian church, known and distinguished from all others by the visible laws of Christ's kingdom. From this falsehood (say they) chiefly have sprung up

t Ibid., p. 52.

} Dr. Owen says of sincere believers "That in these persons there resides an indefeasible right always to gather themselves into a church state and to administer all Gospel ordinances, which all the world cannot deprive them of," Guide to fellowship, p. 52.

250

Isaac Backus

so many preachers and exhorters who are unconvincible and will hear no reason nor argument against their practice. Then they proceed to a long train of arguments to prove the Gospel ministry to be an institution of Christ. But they might with as much truth or propriety have charged the Separates in general with denying the Bible because they did not come to hear them explain or corrupt it, and so have gone on to prove it to be the word of God, for we have all along held that Gospel ministers are "an order of men peculiarly appointed to that work in the Christian church, known and distinguished from all others by the visible laws of Christ's kingdom," as strongly as they do who condemn us. 'Tis true we don't fix that order in academical degrees nor in a local succession; neither do we know men to be Christ's ministers by their dress or titles. And 'tis acknowledged that "no arguments have convinced us," as yet, that any are true ministers because they have such a spirit of discerning as to see covetousness in such as choose to suffer spoiling of goods or imprisonment rather than to pay what is demanded in an ungospel way, while at the same time they can't see it in themselves though they permit the widow and fatherless to be distrained upon rather than forego any part of what they first agreed for. Yea, who can discern covetousness in ministers abroad who appear willing to spend and be spent for the good of souls and make no demands, but only take what is freely given them, and yet can't discern it at home where they can never have enough, but are often urging for additions to the sum they first bargained for. 5 Neither are we convinced that such are following the humble Jesus who accuse others with pride and boasting, who attempt to improve their gifts without these ministers license, and aspire to such greatness as to forbid them while they set up youths for ministers who have not gifts, even after they have laid their hands on them, sufficient to teach publicly without reading line by line as children do their lessons. I have observed that Dr. Chauncy himself owns that 'tis "a real service to the cause of Christ to expose the characters of visibly wicked § Dr. [Charles] Chauncy of Boston insinuates that Mr. [George] Whitefield was moved to travel and labor as he did, "from the undue influence of too high an opinion of his own gifts and graces" and from a regard to temporal gain. "No one (says the doctor) I believe besides himself, can tell the amount of the presents he received in this town, as well as in other places, for his own proper use," Chauncy's thoughts, pp. 36, 37. If no others knew what Mr. Whitefield had freely given him, why does the Dr. meddle with his secrets? That other ministers are not content with what they bargain for, is no secret.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS O W N

NET

ministers and lessen their power to do mischief." And had I not been convinced that we have many such in our land who have been great causers of many divisions and offences contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel, who yet with good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, I could by no means have been willing to have followed them so far through their winding labyrinths. Many when they meet with the word division or separation in an ill sense they readily apply it to such as the clergy have stigmatized under that name. "But alas! (says Dr. Franche) we never inquire who is the cause of the trouble. Not they who earnestly contend for God's word but they that will not receive it are the cause of all the noise and disquiet and therefore ought to be punished, but where the wolf is judge the poor sheep always trouble the water." ° For the association to represent, because we hold to an internal call into the ministry, that we hold to "no other" is as unjust as it would be to assert, because we hold to internal religion, that therefore we hold to nothing external. And Mr. Fish is more inexcusable than they in saying we are "influenced rather by inward impressions than by the plain word of God or manifest pointings of providence. And don't hold to the necessity of common learning in ministers, but say, the less of learning the more of faith," pp. 139, 165, 177. For our sentiments have been published by various hands which express the contrary and which, amidst all our mistakes, have been in a measure confirmed by our practice; but it seems to be beneath the dignity of these ministers to take any notice of lay teachers writings even though it be to correct their mistakes ( a notable proof of their humility ! ). And the chief which he advances against us before the world is upon his word of honor.1· I must not therefore let another of his charges pass without notice. 0 Treatise of the fear of man, p. 37. t A particular description of our sentiments concerning an internal call to preach the Gospel was published fourteen years ago, and therein was observed, "That holding an internal call no way invalidates external ordination, for as when a soul is converted, though he has an internal right to all the privileges of the Church of Christ, yet he has not an external right thereto till he is openly received as a member. So a person that is called to preach has not a right to act in those things which are peculiar to an officer in the church till he is publicly set apart therein." And a challenge was then made to all men to show if they could, "That God has left it any more in the hands of any mortals to say who shall be his ministers and who not than he has to say who shall be his children, and who not." It was observed that he has given marks whereby each may be known and received into their places. Now if these principles were false, would it not have become Mr. F. much better to have pointed out wherein they are so than to have cast out so many things against us which we deny? unless he could advance stronger proof therefor than his bare word.

252

Isaac Backus

While Mr. F. is essaying to open the Separates' principles, he says, Theirfirstminister in this place (i.e., Stonington) was elected by revelation, which was after this manner. The brethren at a meeting appointed for the purpose, having an impression that if it was the Lord's will that they should have a minister, he would show it to them, and reveal the man's name or show them the very man. Upon this, one of their number in a vision or swoon had a revelation that he himself was to be their minister. But the brethren not having fellowship with him in his discovery rejected his revelation, though he declared to me he knew it to be from Heaven. At the next meeting, and under the like impression in a trance or swoon, 'twas revealed to another brother that such a man by name was to be their minister, with which they had fellowship, and him they chose, ordained, silenced, cast out of their church, and delivered up to Satan in less than a year, p. 145. As it happens I was an eye and ear witness of the visible transactions of that meeting (for though he makes it two meetings it was but one) therefore I will give the plain state of the visible facts, leaving what is secret to others. Mr. Matthew Smith of Mansfield had preached upon trial to that church a considerable time till they thought proper to appoint a meeting to seek for divine direction, and to proceed to the choice of a pastor, as they might have clearness; and there happened to be several other teachers present, one of which, when the question was asked about what should be the method of proceeding, in choosing a pastor? answered that if any see it to be their lot they should declare it. But little if any reply was made thereto; and soon after, this man fell into a strange frame and then made the declaration which Mr. F. speaks of, which struck a visible damp upon the assembly as being an unexpected thing, and none concurred therewith. And the rest of the day was spent in worship till in or near the evening, when some of the church got into a labor with one of their brethren upon some of his moral conduct which they judged not to be agreeable to rule. And at length he was brought to confess it, which gave as visible a quickening to their minds as the other declaration had a damp. And a leading brother in the church being much overcome took hold of Mr. Smith (who was expected before to be their minister) and told him he was the man to go before them,* and all concurred therewith. And he was ordained December 10,1746, and he ministered in word and ordinances to them till the spring 1749. Then he went off and left his flock; for which after various labors with him he was by the advice of a council t Here note this has not been our common method.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

253

excommunicated on July 20, 1750, as I had the account in a letter from a member of the council soon after, which letter is now before me. Three or four years afterwards Mr. Smith returned and confessed his fault to the church, and they forgave him. The man also who made that declaration has also seen clearly since how he was imposed upon then, as I have reason to think, from the account he gave me of it some years ago. This is the true state of those affairs as may be proved, and I leave the reader to make his own remarks. But O New England! New England! whither art thou fallen! Once it could be said of thee that "No man became a minister or communicant in thy churches until he had been severely examined about his regeneration as well as conversation; and if any minister did misbehave himself, he soon heard of it and became either a penitent or a deposed man." 5 Yet now those who are making some imperfect attempts to restore that ancient discipline are thus publicly stigmatized by one of thy ministers who solemnly declares he does it with a good design, even to draw their picture to the life, that they may be ashamed, p. 130. Yet as he has omitted two strokes in the coloring which have often been given out from the pulpits in this land and which have not been sufficiently detected to the public, I will take this occasion to correct them. In order to show the dreadful tendency of separations, ministers have often mentioned [Ebenezer] Wards daughter that was taken from her husband and John Smith's wife who was poisoned with ratsbane. The facts were thus: one Ward had met with the Separates in Attleboro for awhile and had preached to such as would hear him, but he never was received into their church. He had only one child who did not live comfortably with her husband, and at length Ward took a fancy that she had not got the right man and so took her away and gave her to another; now though he was not a member with them, yet some of the brethren in Attleboro went as neighbors and labored to convince him of his error; but he persisted therein and in the event was forced to leave his country. John Smith was a member of Mr. [Solomon] Paine's church in Canterbury but after awhile he declared that 'twas revealed to him that such a woman was to be his wife; and when he was questioned upon it he said he did not pretend to put away the § This is Dr. Cotton Mather's testimony as it was cited by Dr. Chauncy [in his Seasonable Thoughts], p. 142, to condemn Mr. Whitefield as uncharitable for expressing his "fear lest many, nay most, that preach in New England do not experimentally know Christ."

254

Isaac Backus

wife he then had, but providence would take her out of the way. This appeared so dark that the church called him to account for it, and the pastor ( as he told me ) openly told him in the church that this principle carried murder in its nature; but he would not hear the church and therefore was cast out. And three or four months after, he went to an apothecary at Norwich and bought some ratsbane with which 'twas supposed the woman he had a fancy for poisoned his wife; for which they were tried at Windham court; when ( as I was credibly informed ) they took off such as were Separates from the jury; and to the astonishment of many were acquitted; and afterward they were married together but lived and died miserably. This is the open state of those facts, and yet they have been cast upon the Separates from one end of the land to the other as evidences of the bad tendency of their separationi! However, this is no new thing; 'tis an old stratagem of those who have the form but deny the power of Godliness, from whom we are required to turn away. "But ( said a great reformer in Germany ) who but a mad man would charge Christ with the guilt of Judas? or blame the apostles and the godly presbyters of the church at Ephesus for that out of their own selves there did men arise speaking perverse things?" * Now reader thou art to judge for thyself. I have joined issue with Mr. Fish that "the Church of Christ in which his Spirit dwells has never been a bitter, fierce, revengeful, persecuting church, but the reverse." And he has exerted all his learning in an attempt to prove that the Standing Churches have that Spirit and that the Separates have the contrary character. And he has advanced it as a principal evidence of their not having the Spirit of Christ, that "They endeavored to draw off every true Christian and would have left a congregation behind them of nothing but hypocrites and graceless persons." This is brought to prove that they had not a kind and charitable spirit. But if he had reviewed a text that stands as a motto in his title page which calls him to measure the pattern and had observed that the rule given to measure the form and fashion of God's house by, with goings out and comings in thereof is that The whole limit thereof round about shall be MOST HOLY. Behold, THIS is the law of the house, Ezek. xliii, 10-12. And also had taken notice that the terms given to another prophet, upon which alone he should be God's mouth were, If thou take forth the precious 0

[Thomas Prince,] Christian History, vol. II, p. 283.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

255

from, the vile, Jer. xv, 19. And that the Holy Spirit expressly commands us in the New Testament to Come out and be separate from unbelievers and to turn away from those who have the form but deny the power of Godliness, 2 Cor. vi, 14-17; 2 Tim. iii, 5. If he had duly observed these rules, how could he ever have charged the acting upon them as the first evidence that those who acted so had not the spirit that indicted them; but that they had an unmerciful spirit because they would not go with him and others in a contrary way? Indeed the other text in his title page ( They are not all Israel which are of Israel) plainly points us to the way that these ministers get along in concerning these affairs. They confound the constitution of the Jewish and Christian church 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. xii, 23. But they would have the visible church contain abundance more, 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 show of what is not invisibly real is hypocrisyJ Thus while they accuse others with not distinguishing things, they turn things upside down, Isai. xxix, 16, at a sad rate. The only reason why any beside regenerate souls get into the visible church is not owing to the rule but to man's imperfection in acting upon it. Hence old Mr. [Thomas] 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, Matt. XXV, 1; 2 Tim. iii, 5; Rev. ii, 20; Tit. iii, 10." * This is the sentence of one of the fathers who composed the congregational [Cambridge] platform, and I know not of a single member in all our churches who could not heartily subscribe thereto; and a principal cause of our sept Mr. [Peter] Clark of Salem, complains of Dr. Gill as not distinguishing between the external administration and internal efficacy of the covenant. And he says, " A man may be in the covenant of grace in respect of its visible administration, and yet he may not be in the covenant of grace in regard of its spiritual dispensation and efficacy. This is the case of all close hypocrites." And that is all the place in the covenant which I can find that he has got for unregenerate children. See his answer to Gill, p. 248. Î His sum of the christian religion, pp. 2 5 , 26.

256

Isaac Backus

aration was the apostacy (as I have shown of those who still usurp that name) from these principles, even so far as to say by word and practice of the church what Christ says of the world, Let tares and wheat grow together. And because we would not join with them in this contradiction of our Lord, they have contradicted that very command ever since in their practice. Mr. Fish labors to prove that we had a bitter persecuting spirit, because many called those ministers, "Hirelings and blind guides who were greedy of filthy lucre," p. 155. 'Tis acknowledged that we talked so and thought so concerning many of them and retain such thoughts to this day; and the reader has now seen a little of our grounds for such thoughts. But we never thought so of all those who are called Standing ministers. No, but still retain a hearty regard to many ministers and members in those churches as being saints. Yet truth is not to be parted with for the greatest nor the best of men. When Peter and Barnabas were carried away with a delusive scheme of confounding the Jewish and Christian dispensation together, Paul withstood them to the face because they walked not uprightly according to the TRUTH of the Gospel, and would not give place by subjection, no not for an hour, Gal. ii, 5, 11, 14, yet our refusing subjection and openly withstanding these ministers after several years' trial is "charged as a rash and hasty thing," and Mr. F. tells much of the wrong manner of the Separates behaving then. To which I would say, I heartily concur with Mr. [Thomas] Prince that, "As for spiritual pride and rash judging, some lately wrought upon, especially in hours of temptation, have grievously exceeded, yet some hopefully renewed are freer than others from those excesses. And, says he, I never knew the most grown, humble, and prudent saint on earth wholly without them for if I had I should hold perfection in the present state. Much less can we expect the new-born convert to be so humblewise, etc. as grown Christians." 5 But though our author is forced to own that the Separates have considerable of a good temper and behavior among them now, yet after raking up many of the rashest things he could find in former times he says, "Whatever good things they have among them they have them not as Separates. The things that I have told you of above are their characteristics," p. 160. He even outdoes the Jews, for when they were afraid that a good work which Jesus had wrought would be taken as an evidence for him they said, Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner, John ix, 24. § Christian History, vol. IV, p. 405.

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

257

But now he implicitly says, give us the praise, for he says, "I know not one principle or practice among them, that is agreeable to the Gospel but what they learned in OUR churches, p. 113. On the other hand his party have imprisoned at least five of our brethren only for preaching without their license; * and several scores of persons for ministers rates; beside several thousands of pounds worth of goods which have been torn away for the same purpose. Yet not a single instance is produced of the use of any violent methods on our side; not so much as to rescue any of those persons or goods nor to revenge upon any for such injuries. Not unto us, not unto us, but to God's name alone belongs the glory that we have been thus kept. One of Mr. Fish's greatest proofs of the Separates' having a bad spirit is some rash expressions a poor Irishman used towards him at an ordination which he says others did not rebuke him for, but I could have balanced them expressions with rash actions on his side. For at a Separate ordination in May, 1750, in a county town after a stage was erected for the performing the work upon, and one of our elders had begun the worship of God he was violently pulled down and the stage torn to pieces in the presence of the high Sheriff, one or more justices of the peace and the parish minister who altogether did as little to check it as our leaders did in the other case. And I could have balanced all his accounts at that rate. But I have no liking to that method. I would speak it to the honor of God that in later years many of our rulers have acted worthily in their places to check and restrain such abuses. And since Mr. F. grants that the Separates are now "very peaceable, kind, obliging good neighbors!" 'tis a public shame to him and many of his brethren that they will not let them live so.

P A R T III Remarks upon What Mr. F. Has Wrote Concerning Baptism Various corruptions of the present day, I apprehend, had not been opened and testified against, as they ought, which caused me to enlarge so upon them; but baptism has been so often treated upon by better hands, that I had thoughts at first of passing over what Mr. Fish has said upon it, without notice. But for several reasons I have altered 0 Mr. Thomas Marsh, Elisha Paine, and Solomon Paine at Windham, and John Paine, and John Palmer at Hartford. John Paine was confined eleven months.

258

Isaac Backus

my mind and concluded to make a few remarks upon that part of his book also. And the first remark I shall make is that our author takes the method which many have done before him, and tries first to inflame people's natural passions, and then he is pretty certain to get his argument with them. For he says, "The church was always fond of her children, and can we now, without horror, indulge the thought either that Christ hath cast them off or that the church is become as cruel as the ostrich," p. 28. And having spent a whole page in such exclamations, he then tells of "fairly arguing the points." But if the first point is gained, that the Baptist's principles are horribly cruel, what room can be left for argument in the affair? For who will undertake to dispute for such principles? Satan himself pretends kindness and not cruelty in his enticements. It is strange to see how great and good men have been blinded by this strategem. Dr. [Cotton] Mather tells us that [John] Eliot published an answer to Mr. [John] Norcott on baptism and began it with these lines, viz., "The book speaks with a voice of a lamb, and I think the author is a Godly though erring brother, but he acts the cause of a roaring lion who by all crafty ways seeketh to devour the poor lambs of the flock of Christ." t Now the lion is praised for his stately goings, but who would dare to come near, or encounter with him, unless he had David's faith? Instead of that, each one is for keeping their distance and endeavoring to secure themselves and their children against the terrible beast. Even so great a champion as Mr. [Jonathan] Mitchell found his courage fail in this matter. For when Mr. Henry Dunster, President of Cambridge college, embraced the Baptist principles in 1653 and "thought himself under some obligation to bear his testimony in some sermons against the administration of baptism to any infant whatsoever," * Mr. Mitchell, after he had been to talk with him, found that it caused him to scruple infant baptism, which he says, "Made me fearful to go needlessly to Mr. D. for methought I found a venom and poison in his insinuations and discourses against paedobaptism." 5 And to secure himself against so great a danger he says, "I resolved also on Mr. [Thomas] Hooker's principle, That I would have an argument able to remove a mountain before I would recede from or appear against a truth or practice received among the faithful." 0 But how did t Eliot's life, p. 57. t Mitchell's life, p. 67.

§ Ibid., p. 69. 0

Mitchell's life, p. 70.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

259

he know that he was not resolving against the truth and not for it? W e have his reasons therefore under his own hand. W h e n he had been to Mr. Dunster's December

24, 1653, he says, 1

After I came from him, I had a strange experience: I found hurrying and pressing suggestions against paedobaptism and injected scruples and thoughts whether the other way might not be right and infant baptism an invention of men, and whether I might with good conscience baptize children and the like. And these thoughts were darted in with some impression and left a strange confusion and sickliness upon my spirit. Yet methought it was not hard to discern that they were from the EVIL ONE. First, because they were rather injected, hurrying suggestions than any deliberate thoughts or bringing any light with them. Secondly, because they were unreasonable, interrupting me in my study for the sabbath and putting my spirit into confusion, so as I had much ado to do ought in my sermon. It was not now a time to study that matter, but when in the former part of the week I had given myself to that study, the more I studied it the more clear and rational light I saw for paedobaptism, but now these suggestions hurried me into scruples. Though this may have passed for good reasoning with many, yet should a Baptist minister own that he had very much scrupled, whether his w a y was right or not but had concluded the scruples were from the evil one because they were attended with confusion and darkness rather than deliberation in his mind; and did not come b y his own reasonings but by means of talking with a great and good t man which happened not to be in the right time in the week but too near the sabbath and that therefore he was resolved that he would have an argument able to remove a mountain before he would recede from a practice which had been received as truth among his faithful fathers, also that he was fearful of going near the gentleman w h o had been instrumental of shaking his confidence concerning that old practice — if a Baptist should talk so, there would be enough ready to tell him that it was his striving against conviction that caused such confusion and darkness in his mind, and w e should hear more about the Baptists being wilful in their w a y than w e have done yet. The Lord gave this reason to Israel w h y they should not oppress a stranger, viz., For ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. And I find the truth of that word in the present case, for I have gone through the same hurrying and darkness t Ibid., p p . 68, 69.

Î For Mr. Mitchell esteemed and honored Mr. Dunster as such to his dying day,

Ρ- 79·

26ο

Isaac Backus

upon this point which Mr. Mitchell describes and thought once that I had got clear of it in the same way, and also felt the like fear of disputing with others upon it that he did. Neither was it any creature that stopped me at last from going on in that way, no, but in my retired hours this question was put to my conscience (I believe) by Him who made me, "Where is it and in what relation to the visible church do baptized infants stand who are not regenerated?" This I was not able to answer, for it was a settled point with me before ( as it was with Mr. Mitchell) that none but new-born souls ought to come to the Lord's Supper, and yet baptism is the first ordinance in a Christian profession; and his notion of a middle way between the church and the world, I could not justify. So that I found the mountain to be on the other side of the question, and if Mr. Hooker, or any others, could have helped me to an argument able to remove it, I should have gladly used it rather than to be turned about again in this affair; but though I fought diligently, by all means within my reach, for twelve months or more, yet I never could find such an argument. Solomon says, The heart knoweth its own bitterness. And none but they who have experienced the like can tell what I then endured; and instead of help from my brethren, they helped to increase the burden. For one would say it was my listening to the Baptists that caused all this difficulty, while another would be as confident that it was the fear of men that kept me from coming out in believers' baptism. Often did I think of Job's words, Were your soul in my souls stead I could heap words upon you. I see now that the chief thing that held my mind so long in suspense was not distinguishing as I ought between men and the rule itself. For when I looked into the word, I could read believers' baptism plainly and nothing plainly of bringing infants thereto; but when I turned to look among men, so many good ones would be brought up on one side and bad ones on the other, and I saw so much of a wrong temper in my Baptist brethren who had come out lately, that I said in my heart, "I am afraid there is some secret mischief in that principle." And I never could obtain deliverance in the matter till I was brought to cease from man so as to leave good men and bad men out of the question and come to this single point: Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? And there I obtained as clear establishment about baptism as any other point in religion. And what I have endured has taught me the vast importance of the divine caution which we have against judging the counsels of others hearts. What they say and do we have a warrant to judge upon and to labor to convince them

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

261

where w e think they are in the wrong, but to charge them with being biased b y corruption if they don't presently yield to our arguments; as it is a violation of the law of God, so no tongue can express all the mischiefs which it has made among God's people in all ages. And this admitting men for part of our rule is the grand source of all the abominations in the earth.5 For wherever this enemy creeps in among any denominations it moves ministers and people to slander those w h o differ from them and to have men's persons in admiration on their own side because of advantage. Was it not this enemy which unawares moved Mr. Mitchell to say "he found venom and poison in the president's insinuations." W h e n his church so "vehement and violent against Mr. Dunster as to procure his removal both from the college and from the town, he could see the evil there and told his brethren 'That more of light and less heat would b e better,' for he esteemed his tutor to be a "worthy and Godly man," p. 68. Had Mr. Dunster fallen into any scandal afterward is it not as likely w e should have often heard of him as w e have of other scandalous Baptists? But since it was otherwise, ministers have been so cautious of speaking of these things that I suppose thousands who have used his version of the psalms in their worship never heard nor thought that the principal man, who composed them, openly renounced infant baptism soon after, though they have often heard the madmen of Munster call as a reproach upon those who have no more concern with them than their accusers have with the builders of Babel. Mr. Fish proceeds with the like caution when he has occasion to mention the president who succeeded Mr. Dunster, in order to show what regard the ancient church in Plymouth had for learning he brings in "The great pains they took to obtain the learned and eminent Mr. Charles Chauncy (afterwards President of Cambridge college) of whose settlement with them they were disappointed," p. 82. But he never gives the least hint that the only reason given for his not settling there (in the account he takes this out o f ) is, that he held baptism "ought only to be by dipping or plunging the whole body under water" § The first part of the Pope's creed is the same with Protestants, and the first step he takes off from truth is admitting the authority of apostolical tradition, and the next article is in these words, viz., "I do admit the Holy Scriptures in the same sense that the Holy Mother Church doth; whose business it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of them; and I will interpret them according to the unanimous consent of the fathers," Gordon's geography in his description of the religion of Italy, p. 177. And upon these two pillars, supported by civil power, stands the whole fabric of superstitions, which would as certainly fall if they were removed as ever Dagon's temple did in Samsons day.

262

Isaac Backus

which appeared so necessary to Mr. Chauncy that "he did not see light" to settle in a church where another practiced sprinkling though he had liberty to act according to his own mind.* This account of what was acted but eight years after Boston was settled would not answer for one who was laboring to prove that the holding dipping to be necessary in baptism, was a new notion of some ignorant, rigid people. If this be a fair use of learning which he talks so much of, what can be unfair? This reminds me of another of Mr. F.'s exclamations. After he has spoken so much of the Separates and Baptists he says, "What then is like to become of the cause that brought our pious forefathers into this land?" p. 182. Answer, the cause they came here for was a reformation according to the word of God, and the first churches, both of Plymouth and Boston expressly covenanted before God to embrace further light from his word as it should be opened to them; and Governor [Edward] Winslow tells us that Mr. [John] Robinson pastor of the Plymouth people, "charged them before God and his blessed angels" to act according to their covenant "for he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet, to break forth out of his holy Word." t What an injury then is done to their character, as well as to our own souls, if we limit things to what they had attained, as if they did not mean to act as they said? Many ministers in our country will tell people that a strong confidence that their souls are in a safe state is hurtful, and that they must think that possibly they are not right in order to examine themselves. But in this case, all art must be used to prevent any scruples concerning infant baptism before they examine it so that they may not look into the Bible, to see whether this principle is right or not, but only to find something to prove it to be right and to fortify them against the horrible errors of the Baptists. And if any are resolved still to go on in that way, I leave them with Him who is able to convince them of the evil of such conduct, but if any are desirous to hear further of this matter, I would give them a few more of my thoughts upon our author's manner of handling the Scriptures in this controversy. He allows the Baptists a place among the Churches of Christ and that they have "doubtless a number of Godly persons among them," but says, "We must think they are in a grievous error as to the matter in dispute between them and us," p. 96. And he directly repairs to the * Appendix to Robbins' sermon, pp. 5, 6. t [Thomas Prince,] New-England chronology, pp. 89, 90.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

263

promise in Acts ii, 39, where he would have us take notice that " 'tis not said that the promise shall be to your children, but the promise is to your children;" so it is, and as many as heard the call and gladly received the promise were baptized and the same day were added to the Church even such as should be saved. And there is not a word of the baptizing any but such, in the whole context. Mr. Fish says this would put believers' children upon "a level with the heathen who also shall be interested in the promise upon their believing," p. 97. And will he pretend that any are interested in the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost beside true believers? He says this is the promise made to Abraham. Let it be so. Paul tells us that Christ was made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. The blessing comes through Christ and is received only by faith. A few verses forward Paul says, The Scripture hath concluded ALL under sin that the promise might be given to them that believe, and concludes the chapter with saying, IF ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed and heirs ACCORDING to THE PROMISE, Gal. iii, 13, 14, 22, 29. The promise is of the gift of righteousness, and abundance of grace, which is only received by faith; how vain then are all the pretences that any are heirs of promise but believers? The complaint against setting all men upon a level in their natural state is as old as Christianity itself, for the very work of the messenger who came before Christ's face was to level all outward distinction in the world; and nothing was more offensive to the Jews than the freedom which our Lord discovered towards publicans and sinners; and the Jews conceit that they had a better claim to the promise than such persons was the grand obstacle in the way of their believing in Jesus, and so was the bar that shut them out of the kingdom of Heaven. And what less than this are those doing who conceit that natural birth, or any thing done by creatures, gives them or theirs any better claim to that kingdom than other sinners? Paul was taught the pernicious effects of that conceit and therefore engaged against it with all his might, and proved to the Romans that both Jews and Gentiles were aU under sin; to the Ephesians that We ALL were by nature the children of wrath, EVEN as others; and to the Galatians (as was just observed) that all were concluded under sin that the promise might be given to them that believe. And the very occasion of his laboring as he did with the Galatians was because of some who desired to make a fair show in the flesh by intro-

264

Isaac Backus

ducing the national plan under the Christian name. But though Peter and Barnabas were carried away at first with this scheme, yet he withstood them to the face and showed them that this was building again the things which once they destroyed·, which things he expressly points out to be the difference between Jews by Nature and sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. ii, 15. What then shall we think of Mr. Fish, who declares that the promise "remains in full force to your children upon your becoming Christians as it did while Jews?" And again that the Gospel charter "secures the blessings of the covenant to children in the same breath that it does to the parents," pp. 31, 100. If this is not building the middle wall of partition between the children of professors and others, I desire to know what is. That wall which Christ has broken down, Eph. ii, 14, and his apostles destroyed it, yet men have got to building it again. And we are told, that 'tis for very good ends too; one of which is to keep children under "the faithful authoritative watch and discipline of the church," p. 99. These are fine words, but what is there in it in our day more than empty words? They tell us of some actings of this nature in former times, but now they are only great swelling words. But should they attempt to bring them into action now, Mr. Fish owns in the same page that "The jurisdiction of the church reaches no further than to her members." And he elsewhere disowns the name of a halfway covenant, p. 92, therefore they must be dealt with as complete members; and if they will come into action upon this plan, then people will see where they are, and no longer be amused with the name of congregational churches; for this is as truly a national plan as ever was in England or Judea: and then he must have his own question returned, "What is like to become of the cause that brought our pious forefathers into this land?" In order to show the dreadful effects of our principles Mr. F. says we not only deprive our children of the churches' watch, but implicitly bid them to go and serve other gods. This he says is the consequence, "If I am not out in my reasoning," p. 99. A caveat well put in, for it would make many suspect him to be out of his reason, as well as out in his reasoning, to suppose that the not treating persons as Christ's servants till they gave evidence of their being such, implied a bidding them serve other gods. Again ( says he ) by denying their children the covenant and seal, they do eventually deprive them of the Bible, of a preached Gospel, and all appointed means of grace," and cites Rom. iii, 1 , 2, to prove it, and says, "Upon the whole, may it not be said of

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

265

their church that it is like a flock without lambs, a vineyard without seed, an orchard without a nursery? etc., p. 100. I would answer these queries by putting others. Does learning consist in words or in ideas? And does not every husbandman know that lambs will become sheep, and a nursery, appletrees without any other change but natural growth? and do persons become Christ's sheep in such a way? He said to a ruler of the Jews, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. And have we masters in New England that don't know these things? As to the Bible and other means for conversion, who will say that children may not attend those means as well without sprinkling as with? And Paul assures us that the chief advantage of the circumcized children lay therein; and none but such might enjoy those means in the national church. The apostles first commission to preach was limited to the house of Israel, but since the middle wall of partition is broken down, the Gospel is preached freely to every creature. As to our author's notion of securing these privileges to children by an outward seal, we have proof enough in our land, that it is not putting water on children's heads that will either secure their adherence to sound doctrine or secure divine blessings to their unbelieving souls. Many in order to make out some singular advantage to baptized infants will reach forward to another world and say that if they die in infancy they have good hope for them, but for others they have none, unless it be from the uncovenanted mercy of God. I wish they would explain what they mean; if they mean his sovereign mercy, I confess all my hopes for myself, as well as children, are derived from thence. To suppose that the work done upon the child conveys grace is naked popery, and to pretend to tell of a difference in their future state as the certain consequence of any outward performance of creatures is not two pence better. 1 Some in our parts have lately said they could not pray for unbaptized infants, and yet at the same time pretend to be servants of him who came to seek and save that which was lost. I don't charge Mr. F. with this, only take this occasion to testify t We have a book entitled, The Baptism of Infants a Reasonable Service, Founded upon Scripture, and Undoubted Apostolic Tradition, which was first printed in London and has been lately reprinted in Boston which many of our ministers have been fond of.6 The author of that piece gives it as his mind that all who die in infancy will have a state of probation in another world and that those who are baptized will have a better state for trial than others. Here is a sacrament among Protestants founded partly on tradition and a state is told of in the other world between Hell and a fixed state of happiness in Heaven where infants are to have advantage by what ministers do here. Ol tell it not in Italy, publish it not in the streets of Romei

266

Isaac Backus

against such abominations. Others who are not so corrupt say we must do our duty to our children and leave the event with God; but the difficulty is to prove this to be duty. All must allow that infant baptism is not expressed in Scripture, though many think it is implied therein; but we have found a very great difference between the Jewish and Christian constitution of the church and in particular as to hearing the oracles of God. What Godly people have mainly fixed upon as the advantage of bringing children to this ordinance is the obligation which 'tis supposed both parents and children are laid under thereby. Mr. F. says, "Are not the reins of family government and discipline thrown too much upon the neck of children (there being no covenant bonds to hold them)?" And "is not family prayer sadly neglected among the Baptists? and are they not commonly defective in their religious observation of the Lordsday?" p. 101. Answer. It is to be lamented that these evils too much prevail in all parts of the land among all denominations, but I have reason to think there is a considerable reformation on these accounts, among the Baptists lately. O may there be much more! A few considerations on family prayer, which I thought duty to publish two years ago, were at their desire printed at Newport and have been kindly received in that colony; for which I am bound to give thanks to God. And I hope my fathers and brethren, will yet be more engaged by an agreeable walk to cut off occasion from them who desire occasion, and give evidence to all, that believers' baptism has no natural tendency to make people neglect the duties of private or public religion. The joining of these evils with the very name of a Baptist, has long been an engine to guard people's minds against looking into their true sentiments; whereas there is no more natural relation between these evils, and our principle about baptism, than there is between true learning and a haughty persecuting behavior which have often been put together on the other hand.5 § The sentiments of our Baptist brethren in England, who have had long experience in these things, as they were published in a letter of advice to their brethren from an assembly of fifteen churches met at Burton in Gloucestershire, Aug. 16, 1765, I will give a little extract from. Take care of stretching your family worship to an unreasonable length or performing it unseasonably; let it not be deferred too late in the morning lest your hearts should be engaged in the hurries of business and entangled in the cares of the world; nor put off till the last thing in the evening lest you should be overcome with drowsiness and thus yawn out a prayer instead of groaning out one. Be strict in observing the weekly day of rest, and not contented with attend-

A

FISH

CAUGHT

IN

HIS

OWN

NET

267

Upon a close view I am fully convinced that our fathers were greatly mistaken in this matter, and the effects plainly evidence it; for, 1. How often can we hear these children of the church making remarks on the loose walk of professors, but if they are turned to their own walk, they are ready to reply, I am no professor; plainly supposing that their obligation to regard divine rule depends on their own act, for they naturally imagine that they have as good a right to act for themselves now as their parents had to act for them in infancy. Paul, when speaking to heathens, reminded them that we are the offspring of God and therefore are under indispensable obligations to seek him and act as dependent creatures on him in whom we live, and move, and have our being, Acts xvii, 27, 29. And he urges on Christians the importance of giving more earnest heed to the things revealed in the Gospel from the consideration of the greatness of the things in themselves, the evidence they come with, the importance of them to us, and the account we must give for them or for our neglect of them, Heb. ii, 1-3. These are striking considerations indeed, but to fix the obligation upon an act that is never expressed in the whole Bible, has rather a tendency to guard against conviction than to cause a true sense of duty; especially if we observe, 2. That when people have a few outside things they are apt to think that they are either safe or in a fair way for it, which is exactly the foundation error of the Pharisees who were blind because they did not FIRST cleanse that which is within that the outside might be clean also, Matt, xxiii, 26. Many have seen the danger of this who at the same time did not see how their principles would lead to it. Mr. [Samuel] Willard of Boston, after a long discourse upon renewing covenant in the year 1680, wherein were included parents and their children, yet says, "To confide in these outward enjoyments as if they were real assurances of God's complacency is not faith but presumption. And yet," says he, "what more common than for the children of men thus to delude themselves with such opinions? To trust in church privileges, as it is the most dangerous, so it is the most common mischief and misery of a people in visible covenant. God calls it, to trust in lying words, 1er. Ixxiv. And it was a ground of the Jews' ruin," pp. 63, 64. What then are men doing who would labor to get ing upon public worship, let it b e the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. Keep your children and servants much under your eye; insist upon their remembering something of w h a t they have heard; put them upon reading the Scriptures; w h a t is above their capacities explain to them and close the day with recommending them to G o d .

268

Isaac Backus

persons into the church before they have any proper evidence that they have first trusted in Christ! Mr. F. appears a little more cautious of asserting things against the Baptists than against the Separates. He says, "Let me be corrected if I charge them wrongfully. Is not a learned, able ministry, too lightly set by, and very rarely to be found, among those churches?" p. 101. Answer, several [Baptists] who have formerly sent their sons to college have been disappointed, as the [Standing] clergy have found means to draw them over to their party; which has discouraged others from sending their sons. And the Baptists in general have been so much abused by those who boast of their learning that 'tis not strange if many were prejudiced against such men; yet they have had some that the world calls learned men from the beginning; and lately have begun a college of their own [later Brown University] which bids fair to increase; 9 but I hope they may never imagine to confine Christ or his Church to that, or any other, human school for ministers. In order to show how poorly furnished our churches are with teachers, Mr. F. tells a story of his conversing with one of them who held that those words, Drink ye all of it, proved that they must eat and drink up all the elements that are set apart for the Lord's Supper, and represents it as the common practice among our churches, p. ι ο ί . In answer to this I can tell him truly that I have been acquainted with a great part of the Baptist [churches] in New England these eighteen years, from Connecticut River to Piscataqua, and I never heard of such a practice among any of them, till I heard it from his book. Therefore I leave him to instruct or correct his acquaintance, but I would have him get more learning before he attempts again to reproach those he don't know. Having given such an account of the Baptists, he concludes that many good things are lost, and no good thing gained by going over to them, unless theirs is the only Scriptural mode. Upon this he says, "Let us impartially examine the Scripture," p. 102. And he goes on to examine the text that speaks of our Lord's going out of the water, so impartially, that he says, "This text affords not the least shadow of proof for plunging," p. 105. This conclusion he draws from Matt. iv, 25, and Luke ii, 4, where the word apo is translated from; from whence he concludes that the other text means no more than from " The charter for it was granted in February 1764 by the general court of Rhode Island colony, and Mr. James Manning of Warren, is now President thereof.

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

269

the water. Now let us not jest with Scripture, but we'll suppose a critic, like our author, had been at New London when he came there to get his book printed, and had asked, whence it came? and he had replied, From Stonington. Then, says the critic, you have not been into the town. Yes, says he, I came from my own house in the further part of the town. What lodgings then (says the other) have you by your house? for I perceive you did not come out of it but only from it? If this be the learning which Mr. F. speaks so much of, he is welcome to it all. Yet after he has spent eight pages in this impartial examination (wherein he says, "We choose the mode of sprinkling or washing as most decent," p. 110) he concludes that he has "made it appear, beyond contradiction that plunging in baptism is in no ways essential," and says they are "fairly silenced even by those very texts (as they stand in the original) upon which they rely," p. 111. I confess it might seem ill manners to proceed in a dispute after a person is fairly silenced, yet I remember they used to allow the Indians to ask questions after they had been preaching to them. I shall therefore take that liberty. And first, I would ask this teacher how he came to act as he says we learned enemies who make havoc of the church, do? whose language according to his own account, p. 176, is "You don't rightly understand your Bible; 'tis thus and so in the original; the meaning of this and that text is not as you take it but just the reverse or very different." He asks whether we must not run back to the Standing churches for help in such a case? I believe not, but I will tell him what I have once done. When the ministers of Norwich and one from Preston joined and made some additions to Mr. Dickinson's Dialogue and got it reprinted, I sent one of them to Dr. Gill, who had answered the Dialogue before; but when he observed that they have added in p. 5, that "St. Irenaeus, who lived about 114 years after Christ, says in his epistle ad Rom., lib. 5, 'The church received a tradition from the apostles to administer baptism to little children or infants,'" the Doctor ordered an advertisement to be inserted at the end of one of his books, wherein, after mentioning this passage, he "charges it as a forgery, there being no such passage in all the works of Irenaeus; and Dr. Gill defies the above gentleman, and the whole literary world to produce or point out any such passage in Irenaeus, or any book or chapter of his, of such a title, in which this pretended passage is said

270

Isaac Backus

to be." And with this, he sent me another book wherein he declares to the world that all the Greek Lexicons which he ever saw make the primary sense of the word baptize to be dip; and to wash by consequence. But that it never means to pour or sprinkle, and if there are any lexicons which give a different sense of the word he desires they may be pointed out. A second question I would ask is, how our author and his brethren came to depart in this case from the general rule of interpreting obscure places by those which are plain? It is well known that the meaning of words is most plain, where they are used in their literal sense, and commonly, but part of their meaning is referred to, when used in a figurative way. As for instance, the metaphor of a thief and of an unjust judge is referred to by our Lord to show the suddenness of his coming and the prevalence of importunity. But what blasphemer will dare to apply the whole meaning of those words either to the Father or to the Son? Yet in the case before us all arts are used to darken texts which speak of baptism in the literal sense, and then we are turned to places where the word is used in a figurative way in order to decide its true meaning. The overwhelming sorrow of Christ and his disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost are called baptisms; and Mr. F. would point us only to the way or manner of its coming and not to their being filled or overwhelmed therein, and then says, "There was nothing in either of those baptisms that so much as looked like dipping," p. 107. What! nothing like it\ when in a plain prophecy of Christ 'tis said, The waters are come in unto my soul; I am come into deep waters where the floods OVERFLOW me, Psal. lxix, 1, 2. Thus he denies what is in the Bible, but at other times would have us read what never was there, for in the same page he refers us to Mr. Dickinson's Dialogue, who in speaking of Israel's being baptized to Moses, leaves out all the circumstances of their going into and coming out of the sea and having the waters on each hand, and the cloud over them. I say he leaves all these out and then tells us of "rain from the cloud" which the Bible speaks nothing of. Thus these men who are so much confined to what they have written in their teaching can read to the people what God never wrote in his word! My third question is this, Can they find one instance that God ever instituted an ordinance without showing the manner how it should be performed? Will they say that Christ appointed the matter of this ordinance of the Supper to be bread and wine, but left the

A F I S H C A U G H T IN HIS O W N N E T

27I

church to decree rites and ceremonies concerning the manner of its performance? The initiation ordinance of the Jewish church was a bloody sign, and the learned tell us that it took its name from the manner of its performance, as the word circumcision signifies "to cut all round." t Now if any had taken a fancy then that the substance of the ordinance was its being a bloody sign and that the mode was no great matter; and thereupon had attempted to administer it by pricking instead of cutting, or by cutting across instead of cutting all round, would that have been circumcision? I presume none will say it would. Neither (I believe) will they pretend that cutting any other part of the body would have done beside the foreskin. And who will venture to contradict the Bible and say, Jesus was less faithful than Moses in appointing the orders of his house? Heb. iii, 5, 6. And let me ask those who hold that if water is used in the sacred name 'tis baptism, though it be done by sprinkling or pouring, whether they think Paul understood what he said when he calls baptism a burial? Rom. vi, 4, 5. Indeed Mr. Dickinson says, "It is most evident that this text has no reference at all to any particular mode of administering that ordinance but the plain manifest scope of the words is to show us our obligation by baptism unto a conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ by dying unto sin and rising again unto newness of life." Answer, 'tis readily granted that this is his scope, but do they suppose that learned Paul had such a scope with him as to use words without any reference to their true meaning? Common people know that when they bury a man they never expect to see him return to his old way of living again, and when they plant corn they expect its next appearance will be by a new growth. And how striking from hence is the argument to engage baptized believers to walk in the newness of life? But now, forsooth, Paul must be thought to apply the words buried and planted to baptism when sprinkled and washed, would have done as well or better! Such advances have men made in learning since Paul's day! Before we leave this point I would ask these learned gentlemen how they came to know which part of the body they should apply water to? Circumcision was in a secret part, and they often tell us that baptism comes in its room. If washing be baptism, Jesus washed his disciples feet, but I don't read that he washed their face. How then did they come to know that sprinkling the face was baptism? Howt Cruden's Concordance at the word circumcision.

272

Isaac Backus

ever I must stand no longer here, for Mr. F. says to be consistent we much "unchurch all the Christian world except ourselves, yet, says he, as our religion does not oblige us, so we are not disposed to treat them with like severity," p. 96. Here then if we will take his word for it, he and his brethren have much more charity than the poor rigid Baptists. But as this has long been an engine to keep people in darkness, I shall, as help may be offered, freely and diligently give my thoughts upon it. 1. What do men mean by unchurching others? Paul would have every man fully persuaded in his own mind, and act accordingly so as not to condemn himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he shows that he which doubteth whether a thing be right or not, and yet does it, is damned and condemned therefor, Rom. xiv, 5, 22, 23. Yet modern charity will condemn all who dare to think and act contrary to the established religion. Every soul that ventures to see with its own eyes, so far as they discover and act upon truth, they like Noah do therein condemn all the world who act contrary thereto; which renews the old complaint, Thou reproachest us also. And what then? Mr. F. condemns us as much as we do him. No, says he, we are not obliged nor disposed to treat them with like severity. But if we read on, we shall find he has told the world that he has proved beyond contradiction that we are wrong, and has fairly silenced us, and therefore has warned all not to hear us any more, and what Separate or Baptist in New England has done more or so much as this towards unchurching any other sect whatsoever? Will he admit any into his community without he thinks they are baptized, or without they will conform to the orders of his church? I believe not. And if we have not the same liberty, where is liberty of conscience gone? If he thinks our consciences are erroneous, we are as fully persuaded his is so, and we are laboring to convince each other. And does not he unchurch us, as much as we do him? Indeed he gives it in his preface as a great reason of his writing, that twothirds of his people have left him. But that only proves we have been more successful than he has. And does that excite his envy? All unscriptural methods to gain a party ought to be exposed and condemned; that is what each side have taken their turns to labor upon. And has not one as good a right to do so as another? Those who creep into houses and resist the truth, God says, Their folly shall be manifest unto all men. So that they who are upon the truth have vastly the advantage of those who resist it and need not fear a being un-

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

ZJ3

churched by them. And is not our author somewhat inconsistent with himself while he is telling what we must do to be consistent? for he tells abundance of what weak and ignorant teachers we have, and yet anon they are so crafty that he durst not venture his people to go near them lest they should be deceived by them. Therefore, 2. Does not the core of all this difficulty lie in this, that common people claim as good a right to judge and act for themselves in matters of religion, as civil rulers or the learned clergy? It has a show both of wisdom and humility to appoint those who know more than we do to judge and act for us; and it has more than a show of them often to do so in temporal things; but in religion it is a most dangerous snare. Fathers have a right to see and act for their children in many cases, but in this matter Jesus says, call NO man your father upon the earth, Matt, xxiii, 9. And Paul spends a whole chapter in labors to expose and guard against this very snare, Col. ii. He speaks highly of the order of that church and of the steadfastness of their faith in Christ and exhorts them to walk in him AS they received him. And all saints know that when they received Christ they had no creature to see for them, but each soul acted as singly towards God as if there had not been another person in the world. Well says the apostle, So walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, AS YE have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are C O M P L E T E in him which is HEAD of all principality and power. Now if each saint is complete in him which is the Head of all wisdom and power, then they have no need of philosophers to see for them, nor of princes to give them power to act for God, but they freely confess with their mouths what they believe in their hearts, and so their hearts are comforted, being knit together in love, and are built up together as they have been taught. And as those saints had received the substance of what was shadowed forth in circumcision, and had declared in their baptism that they were dead to the body of sin and to the worship of the worldly sanctuary, the apostle says, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances after the commandments and doctrines of men. Which things indeed have a show of wisdom and humility. Now as this warning was openly given, it would not do for men to

274

Isaac Backus

act against it in plain terms; yet those who were vainly puffed up by their fleshly minds, conceited that the ordinances which Jesus had instituted after he had blotted out the old hand writing, were too few and plain and the worship too spiritual to consist with that great maxim, That Christian privileges are greater than Jewish privileges were; therefore their philosophy was set to work upon the deceitful line of making Jewish ordinances shadows of Christian ordinances, instead of owning them to be shadows of spiritual and inward realities; and so making Abraham's household which first constituted that church, a shadow of Christians' natural offspring instead of viewing it to be a shadow of the household of God which constitutes the Gospel-Church Eph. ii, 19, 20. And having by this art got the relics of that old covenant which Jesus had blotted out and nailed to his cross, it hath made room for the exertion of all their learning to write upon it and contend about it ever since. Mr. Dickinson says, "The patent sealed by baptism is (so to speak) the very same parchment that was given to Abraham; there is nothing altered but the seal only, Dialogue, p. 17. And Mr. F. plainly holds things in the same line, and therein he and his brethren appear to be in a fair way to bring that upon themselves which they would charge upon us. For on the same parchment it was written that none but the sons of Aaron should minister in the sanctuary, and it has already been proved that when they came out of Babylon those children of the priests who could not find the register of their genealogy down from Aaron were as polluted put from the priesthood. And the Christian church has been through a more dreadful captivity since the apostle's days than that of the Jews in Babylon; therefore, according to this rule, all ministers who can't show their registers of an uninterrupted succession from the apostles must as polluted, be put out of their places, and then I believe in my heart there would not be one minister left upon the face of the earth. It will not do here to fly to don't knows and suppositions, because we have renounced the doctrine of ignorance being the mother of devotion. What poor work then are our ministers like to make of it, for when they come to trace their line back the Lord-Bishops claim a higher title and an older right to this parchment than they and are now making attempts to overrun them. And though episcopacy has got as many or more orders of office than were among the priests and Levites, yet instead of a high priest, they have a secular prince as their head.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

275

And they formerly separated from the Pope, who was set up to answer to the high priest in the old patent. And when we come to him, he has such a voluntary humility that we must worship angels in order to get them to go to Jesus for him. And what an awful succession is here left between private members and Jesus their glorious head? Therefore, says Paul, Let no man judge you, let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and not holding the head from which all the body has nourishment, Col. ii, 16-19. Peter and other apostles to whom the keys were given to open the mysteries that were contained under those ancient types assure us that Aaron was a type of Jesus Christ and his children a type of Christ's children, who are born of the spirit; and Peter says to such, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. ii, 5. And now we will turn our opponents' own arguments back to where they belong. No strangers or bastards were allowed to come into God's sanctuary; where then is any room allowed for unregenerate persons, be they great or small, in this spiritual house? God says of the new covenant, when the old one vanished away, They shall all know me from the least to the greatest, Heb. viii, 1 1 . Again, these ministers often tell of David's error in putting the ark into a new cart which was drawn by oxen instead of laying it on the priests' shoulders, but in this light what will become of their invented schemes, supported and drawn by earthly powers, instead of resting the cause of truth where Paul did in the church, which is the pillar and ground of it, or where Peter did on the shoulders of this holy priesthood? Saints are often called priests, but ministers as distinguished from other Christians are never once, as I can find, called priests in all the New Testament. Men's carts, both new ones and old ones, are shaking at this day, which is a token that they will all be removed, as things that are made that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Even Christ's supreme power to govern all and to call whom he pleaseth out of the world unto himself, and the subordinate power which he hath given to them to confess him in the world and openly to join in his worship, and to call and constitute in office such men as he has qualified therefor, and to remove from office such as act contrary to his divine rules without dependence on any other power. This I believe is the kingdom which cannot be moved and is certainly the foundation which the fathers of this country

276

Isaac Backus

built upon; * and those who have now got upon another footing may paint the fathers' sepulchres as much as they please, yet their foundation will be overstrewn with a flood and the wood, hay and stubble of such as are on the sure foundation will all be burnt up but themselves shall be saved, yet so, as by fire. This leads me, 3. To observe that though 'tis an incredible thing with many that good men should err so far as to change that which an ordinance took its name from or that those who practice so, can have the divine presence, yet we have plain proof of both in the divine oracles. It was God's express command that three times in the year all the males in his ancient church should appear before him; the last of which times was at the feast of tabernacles which took its name from the mode which he ordered it to be kept in, viz., that they should dwell in booths or tabernacles all the time of the feast. But soon after Israel had got settled in Canaan they altered that mode and it was not recovered again for about a thousand years, namely from Joshua's time till after their habitations had lain desolate seventy years, Neh. viii, 17. Solomon dedicated the temple at this feast, though as they had dropped the manner of keeping of it, which it took its name from, so it is not there called by that name but is called the feast in the seventh month, 1 Kings viii, 2. Yet how remarkable were the tokens which they enjoyed of God's presence at that feast! These things, if rightly viewed, would sweep off abundance of stuff that is brought up in our day to frighten people from seeing the truth or from acting upon it when 'tis seen. Dare any pretend that they have equal evidence of the divine presence in sprinkling for baptism with what Israel had at that feast? or that any have practiced it who equalled David for devot Were it worthwhile we might compare notes with these ministers as to an external succession, for Mr. Hansard Knollys and Mr. John Miles were educated at the same universities and ordained by the same bishops, that other ministers were who came to this country, and Dr. Mather calls them "Godly Anabaptists," and says, "Both these have a respectful character in the churches of this wilderness," Magnolia, book m, p. 7. Mr. Miles was pastor of the first Baptist church in the Massachusetts province, and lived near that which is called Miles's Bridge in Swansea. Now the man who gave the charge in the first Separate ordination at Mansfield [Thomas Denison] had been an ordained elder among the Baptists; and I suppose there has never been one ordination among us since without an ordained elder to assist in it. So that our opponent will have hard work to prove that our line ever was broken according to his own notion of it, while we have many plain instances of it on his side. Mr. Fitch, the first minister of Norwich (who was as much accounted of in his day as any minister in that county which Mr. Fish belongs to) was ordained by the church forty years after our fathers came first to Plymouth.

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

Iff

Hon or Solomon for wisdom? yet the poor captives who returned from Babylon were not deterred by such great characters from returning to an exact conformity to divine rule. 4. As the Baptists are often represented as the most rigid of all sects I will briefly touch upon some plain evidences to the contrary. The reader may remember how shockingly Mr. [Philemon] Robbins of Branford was treated by the consociation for his preaching among the Baptists. And though the Separates set out and for some years practiced free communion with the Baptists, and the bars were broken down, so that they were admitted to free and successful labors in many Baptist societies, and they went on comfortably together, till by this freedom many were brought into such an acquaintance with the Baptist principles, as to embrace and practice them, yet that made a great difficulty, and several were censured by churches and councils for leaving infant baptism. Upon which many attempts were made for accommodation till at length a Baptist elder [Stephen Babcock] refused to act in an ordination with an elder of the other denomination [Solomon Paine], because he thought that elder had in several instances injured the Baptists and their principles. This caused hard contention between the two elders, and they joined and called all these churches together, to hear the affair, which was the largest meeting we ever had since the beginning of the separation. The meeting was at Stonington on May 29, 1754, where the messengers of about thirty-five churches came together and labored in conference upon these affairs three days; and in the close of the meeting, several of the most noted leaders on the side of the pedobaptists openly declared that though they could yet commune with saints who did not see light for infant baptism, yet they did withdraw the hand of fellowship from all such as professed to see that there was no warrant for bringing infants to that ordinance. And thus the breach appeared before the world to be on that side. And there has lately been a plain instance of like nature among those called Standing Churches. Mr. Hezekiah Smith, who was educated at New Jersey college [later Princeton] came into New England four years ago with a proposal of only traveling and laboring a while and then of returning back again, and under this view he was readily received into many pulpits. But a destitute society in Haverhill, by their pressing importunity, prevailed with him to alter his purpose and stay with them; and when those ministers who had received him

Isaac Backus understood that, they turned against him with all their might, and one of them has held forth to the world in print that when he received him it was under an expectation that Mr. S. would keep his principles concerning baptism "private to himself," and neither openly hold them up nor practice them among us. And he reflects very hard upon Mr. S. for disappointing that expectation.5 But we may boldly appeal to his conscience that he would not call it charity nor a catholic temper for another sect to allow him only to think for himself but not to speak his thoughts; or if he spake them, yet not to practice upon them lest it should offend others. And let who will deny others the liberty which they take themselves or judge and set at naught their brethren for taking such liberty, yet the day is hastening when we must all stand before the judgment seat of HIM who has eyes like a flame of fire.

T H E CONCLUSION A few lessons of instruction must close the whole ι. May we all learn the importance of Solomons advice to Buy the truth and sell it not. The end of buying and selling is mutual gain, and he who forsakes all for the truth as it is in Jesus makes great gain to his own soul and will prove a blessing to others, but they who make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, the whole world can't make up their loss. 2. Let us never imagine to promote the cause of truth by any false methods. Indeed God will overrule everything for his own glory, and in that sense we can do nothing against the truth, but for it; yet let us talk what we may of defending truth, or promoting its cause, if at the same time we advance false arguments or discover a wrong temper and behavior, we thereby contract guilt to ourselves and injure our fellow men." § See Mr. [Jonathan] Parsons' sermons on Acts xvi, 33, p. 12. * To give a plain illustration of my meaning I will mention an instance which equally cuts both ways. In our former disputes concerning baptism, I heard one advance it as a motive to embrace the Baptist principles that thereby Providence had opened a door for a release from a burden of taxes. And the same day I heard another of equal note say, The Baptist principles might be right, and he did not know but he should conform to them if he lived among them, but it would not do to make an overturn about it among us. I was then at a loss in the affair, but this made my soul cry, Alas, where are wel that interest should be advanced as an argu-

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

279

3. Let none indulge the imagination of being neuters in this case, for all Heaven is engaged for truth and all Hell against it; and this world is divided between them so that HE who is the truth and the life says, He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad, Matt, xii, 30. Therefore though many have been at ease from their youth and glory in their steadiness in the way they were trained up in; and others, because they have no changes, therefore fear not God, Psal. lv, 19, but laugh at the infirmities or calamities of professors, yet they will soon find the reality of what truth declares, even that their judgment and damnation lingereth not. To be steadfast in the truth is a weighty matter but to change from error to truth is of equal importance. 4. Learn what is the real cause of all the disorders in the world. As they were first introduced by hearkening to a creature instead of the Creator so the cause and nature of all our present disorders are the worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, who is overall, God blessed forever. And what higher worship can be offered to any being than to fix our dependence upon him for light to direct and for power to act? yet how much have we of such worship in a nation where many fancy that both pagan and antichristian idoltary have long been destroyed? This work is carried on now as it was formerly in the dark; every man in the chambers of his imagery, Ezek. viii, 12. God is good, and every soul that knows not the true good has some false image of good set up in his mind, which governs his conduct and behavior; t yet these images are often covered so artfully that they say, The Lord seeth us not. Peace, order, zeal for the good old way, and abundance of such fine names are often wrote upon the outside of this covering, and the great deceiver plays a double game thereby; for by this means he keeps them which are under this cover, easy in a conceit that they have religion; and by their evil conduct, he persuades others that they are as well without it as with it. Still laboring to keep all their attention fixed some way or other upon the creature lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them, 2 Cor. iv, 4. ment for a principle as truth, and honor as an argument against it! Each party can readily see corruption on the other side, yet alas! how little faithful charity is exercised to distinguish between truth, and the corruptions and infirmities of those who profess it? t Mr. Edwards has clearly demonstrated this point in his Treatise of the will, part 2, sect. 9.

28ο

Isaac Backus

And whenever the power of God is remarkably displayed to turn men from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, a loud noise is soon raised about disorders, delusions and imprudencies, and all arts are used to blind peoples' minds, and to settle them back into carnal security again. And no stratagem of the enemy has been more successful than to mix and confound error with truth in Christians' experience, conversation, and conduct. And when their corruptions are discovered, sinners and hypocrites catch at them, for God says, They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity, Hos. iv, 8. And the destroyer of souls would persuade them that there is nothing in religion. Or if there is some reality therein, yet that common people can't discern the difference and therefore must be directed by such as know better than they. In order to accomplish this end many who would be thought to know much have often pretended to discern distinctions where others can see no difference, while things which are really distinct in their nature are confounded together. This wickedness has been as wretchedly practiced by some, under the pretence of spiritual teaching, as it has by others under the name of great learning. It is a fact not to be disputed that some men know more and see further than others do, both in natural, and in spiritual things, but when real or pretended knowledge is used to keep others in ignorance and to excite a high opinion of themselves instead of laboring to enlighten and benefit others, that is a certain token of such persons being ensnared by, if they are not under the full power of, the wisdom which is from beneath. For when there was much murmuring among the common people concerning HIM who spake as no mere man ever did, some saying He is a good man, others saying, Nay, but he deceiveth the people. He was so far from checking their attempt to form a judgment of such matters that he gave them an infallible rule to judge upon, viz., He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory, but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness in him, John vii, 18. But as those who have a right to judge, yet many times don't judge right, therefore he lays down two important lessons in the affair. One is not to act as unconcerned spectators, but as persons really engaged to practice what they know. If any man will DO his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. The other lesson is not to judge in a superficial manner by the appearance and show which is

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

281

made, but to judge righteous judgment, to search carefully into the truth and reality of things. Thus the Son of God plainly held forth the right which common people ever have to judge both of the doctrine and conduct of teachers, and the meek he will guide in judgment while those who receive not the love of truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness are constantly exposed to be given over to strong delusions. This being the order of Christ's kingdom, hence see what a disorder it makes when common Christians are denied the free liberty of examining their teachers and of acting according to their judgments in the affair; and also that 'tis a great disorder to condemn and reproach any teachers, only because they are not owned by rulers or learned ministers, for by this very rule our glorious Lord was condemned as a deceiver and his followers stigmatized as ignorant, cursed people by men who were as famous in the world's esteem, for learning, devotion, and order, as any in our day, ver. 47-49. Nor is the disorder less on the other hand when any under a pretence of special teachings and divine influence crowd their improvements upon those who are not edified thereby, and plead their right so to do because they see further than others who they say can't discern where they are, though (it may be) serious Christians do see them at the same time conduct in a fleshpleasing way and even not providing things honest in the sight of men. Some such spots and blemishes have caused the greatest disorders that I have ever known among any of our churches; and a principal reason of some such persons being left to go on so far as they have in such a way was a fear in humble souls of speaking evil (as many have done) of things they know not. And we ought always to be cautious in that respect, for 'tis like shooting in the dark where we may be as likely to wound a friend as an enemy. What we know to be right w e ought to own and to disown what w e know to be wrong, and leave other things till they are opened to us. But here the case is plain, for Christ never gave authority to any to crowd upon others, and we are commanded to cease to hear instructions that causeth to err from the words of knowledge, Prov. xix, 27. And also to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. It is an important part of Gospel order to have every member encouraged in the improvement of the gifts which are given them, but for any to pretend they have got so far out of sight of the least saint,

282

Isaac Backus

either by human or divine teachings, that the saint can't understand them, when they properly improve their gifts, is as absurd as to tell of a candle shining so bright as not to give light unto all that are in the house, Matt, v, 15. The divine direction is "Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above but is earthly, sensual, devilish, for where envying and strife is there is confusion, and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is FIRST PURE, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. APPENDIX Soon after Mr. Fish's book was put into my hands I received a sermon which a gentleman sent me from the westward entitled, The Holiness of Infants Explained and Improved; or a Vindication of the Divine Right of Christian Infants to the Privileges of the Church; and Particularly to Baptism, the Initiating Seal of the Second Covenant, in a Sermon Preached at Woodstock, Second Society, in the Colony of Connecticut to a Numerous Auditory, December 10, 2765. By Isaac Foster, V.D.M. pastor of a church in Stafford, wherein my name is mentioned, and a few strokes are given upon my letter to Mr. Lord. I shall therefore add a brief reply thereto in this place. His text is 1 Cor. vii, 14. Though there is nothing said of baptism in the text or context and all the argument turns only upon the term sanctified and holy, which words are used in three senses in Scripture, as 1. For internal and spiritual purity, 2. For the external consecration and setting apart of persons or things to divine worship. In this sense the whole nation of Israel were holy, as they were set apart from all other nations to be God's Church; and so the place and furniture for worship among them were holy, being devoted to that use in distinction from all their common enjoyments. 3. These words are sometimes used for the lawful and free use of creature comforts which God grants to his saints while they are going on in a life of devotedness to him. Thus in a plain prophecy of Gospel privileges and blessings it is said, In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, holiness

A F I S H C A U G H T I N HIS O W N N E T

283

unto the Lord; Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts, Zech, xiv, 20, 21. Which words I suppose intend the same thing that Paul expressed in this very epistle (after he had declared that those things were lawful to Christians which were unclean to the Jews ) Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God, 1 Cor. x, 3 1 . So he says in 1 Tim. iv, 4, 5, Every creature of God is good, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, i.e., His word gives Christians a warrant to take them, and by prayer they receive a blessing in the use of them. Now in my letter to Mr. Lord I gave it as my mind that this third sense of the words sanctified and holy was the true intent of them in the text before us and that the Corinthians writing to the apostle upon this affair, ver. 1, was doubtless occasioned by their reading in Ezra x, 3, that the Jews were obliged to put away all the wives, and such as was born of them, which they had taken of other nations that were not of their religion. Which might naturally cause an inquiry whether they must do so now or not: And the answer is in the negative, for the unbelieving mate is sanctified and their children holy. And Mr. Foster entirely concurs with my sense of the occasion of the words and also as to the meaning of the word sanctified. But he would have the word holy taken in the second sense which was given above, and the only reason that he gives for differing from me in that respect, p. 8, is "That the unbelieving party is not said to be sanctified in relation to God but only in relation to the believing yoke-fellow." But he says children are holy "not in relation to any other but God only." Upon which I would observe that 'tis very evident in the text that the children being holy is the effect of the parents being sanctified, so that here we are presented with a number of absurdities. As 1. an effect which riseth above its cause. 2. With a case of conscience, which was occasioned by a text in Ezra, that obliged the Jews to put away their wives, and such as were born of them as equally unclean; and yet the answer to it is declared to mean something higher in the child than in the parents it sprang from. For Mr. Foster says the unbelieving parents being "destitute of the sanctifying graces of the holy Spirit of God, are unfit for communion with him," p. 5. Yet in the same page after saying, "The children of believers are as others, born in sin, and by nature children of wrath," he goes on to say, "They are visibly sanctified, being set apart for God," and declares, "It is such a sane-

284

Isaac Backus

tification or holiness as is intended when the church and people of Israel are called holy, Psal. 1, 5. Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice." Here old sinners are declared to be unfit for communion with God while 'tis asserted that young ones who are born in sin are set apart for him! We have a self contradiction, for in p. 4, Mr. Foster referring to Ezra x, 3, says, " 'Tis just that those actions that are done against the law, should be accounted not only unlawful, but null. But it was otherwise with those to whom the apostle wrote, for they were lawful man and wife; their marriage not being prohibited, they might not be parted and their children not unclean but holy." Yet in p. 7, when he opposing Dr. Gill he says, "The question propounded by the Corinthians was not whether a believing husband and unbelieving wife, were lawful man and wife together? Nobody doubted that." However I will not waste paper nor abuse the reader with remarks upon all the stuff which his sermon abounds with, but would just observe that the New Testament certainly gives the same sense of these terms, sanctified and holy, elsewhere as we do here, and those who give the other sense of them are forced, all of them, to borrow it from the national church in the Old Testament. And Mr. Foster says, "I freely own that I know no other difference betwixt a national church and a congregational church but one is great and the other little," p. 20. If all would come out so plain, we should hope to see the controversy soon brought to an issue, for the first constitution of the national church, in Abraham's household, is very express; the covenant included every man-child that was born in his house and bought with his money of the stranger. These were all in that covenant and therefore were to have the token of it administered upon them. Circumcision did not bring them into covenant; natural birth or purchase brought them in, and being in, if there was one soul of them that continued without the token of the covenant, God said, That soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant, Gen. xvii, 13, 14, 27. And when the passover was instituted in that church the Lord said, every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, THEN shall he eat thereof, Exod, xii, 44· No words could be more plain than these are to describe the exact limits of the national church, yet Mr. Dickinson asserts that the patent sealed by baptism is "The very same parchment that was given

A FISH C A U G H T IN HIS OWN N E T

285

to Abraham." And Mr. Fish and Foster concur in the same sense. But if so, then out of their own mouths they are condemned, for instead of excluding half the subjects, as they tell us of, they exclude more than a hundred to one. Abraham before this had 118 servants born in his own house who were fit for soldiers, Gen. xiv, 14. And in the selfsame day that this covenant was made with him, he circumcized his son and ALL the MEN of his house. Here was but one of his own seed to such a great household (but now their plea is only for little children). And if we view the antitype, we may see as plain a description of the Gospel-Church. Paul shows to the Ephesians that Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition between them and the Jews and came and preached peace to both, whereby their enmity was slain; and through him they both had access by one spirit unto the Father, and were fellow-citizens with the saints and of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD; and were built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. ii, 14-20. Now if Mr. Foster knows of no other difference between these two churches but only what respects their number, I would desire him to go to school with Nicodemus and learn the difference betwixt being born of the flesh and a being born of the spirit. In my letter, I had observed that the oracles of God were committed to the Jews and many means were used for conversion of members within the church, whereas now the Gospel is freely preached to all nations, and the lively stones, which are the materials of this spiritual house, which is the antitype of Solomons temple, are prepared without before they are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Upon which Mr. Foster gives several cants and says he knows not what I mean unless it is, "That there is now no means used for the conversion of members within the church," p. 21. But if the observing this difference, that the means for conversion were confined within the Jewish church, which are now freely used with others who are without the Christian church, can convey no other meaning in it than that there are no means used for conversion within this church, then I despair of ever conveying any just ideas to mankind! However, when we see how this man leaves his own meaning, we shall not wonder at this treatment of others, for upon my saying that Paul takes much pains to keep Abrahams natural and spiritual seed distinct, he says, "Abraham never had a spiritual

286

Isaac Backus

seed nor any other man, the man Jesus Christ excepted," p. 24. And leaves it so. Now whether he thinks Onesimus whom Paul had begotten in his bonds, was his natural or spiritual son I know not; neither shall I detain my reader any further than to correct two stories which this writer has published. In warning the people of Woodstock of their danger, Mr. Foster says, "By going after those who are now causing divisions and separations among you, and conniving at their wicked doctrines and practices, you will be in danger of falling into such errors, and embracing such opinions as will render your salvation altogether hopeless," p. 28. Then after allowing that there were some sober Baptists in the land twenty years ago, he says, "As to our present Separate-Baptists, 'tis well known that in opinion and practice, they are notoriously bad and seem daily growing worse. Witness Dr. Davis' book, which so far as I can understand is generally liked among them. This man was as famous a Baptist preacher as any in the country a few years ago, and what he is now come to, his book will show, in which he blasphemously attributes all conviction of sin to the Devil," p. 29. This I perceive was delivered from the pulpit, which makes me think of Dr. Francke's saying that he who hears such a railer does not hear Christ but the Devil himself; for what could that accuser say more false than this is! The pastor of the Baptist church in Stafford informed me some years ago of one Davis, a physician, who was cast out of that church for broaching antimonian errors, and that he published a small pamphlet upon them afterward. But I never saw the man nor his book, and 'tis so far from being "generally liked among" our churches that very few have ever seen his book, and Mr. Foster may be boldly challenged to produce an instance if he can of one member in the Baptist church in Woodstock, or any church which they hold fellowship with, who like or will countenance the horrid principle he speaks of. The other story concerns Woodstock in particular. Mr. Foster says, "I am informed that not long since, there was a hopeful prospect of the revival of serious Godliness among you; that a number of persons in this place appeared seriously and suitably concerned about the great things of God and religion, and were inquiring the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward; but no sooner did these men, like a destroying flood, come in among you, but they flung all into confusion, as you see this day, and in a moment dashed all your hopes of a revival of Godliness amongst you," pp. 33, 34.

A FISH

CAUGHT

IN HIS

OWN

NET

287

Now the plain state of their case, as I have it from good authorities, is briefly thus. Vanity and extravagance, especially among young people in that place, had greatly prevailed till a young man [Biel Ledoyt], who had been a ringleader in frolicking, happened to hear a Baptist elder preach in December 1763. Which was blest as a means of his awakening and he continued under conviction till the next March and then was brought out of darkness into marvelous light; whereupon four of his old companions came one evening to try to get him back to his former way; but instead of that, two of them were seized under conviction; and they were moved to set up religious meetings instead of their former frolicks; which meetings in a few weeks increased to several hundreds; and these meetings which were carried on by prayer, singing, reading, and mutual exhortation, were made a happy means of the awakening and hopeful conversion of a considerable number. And though they gladly improved occasional opportunities of hearing Baptist elders, yet they still attended the parish meeting till the minister there, upon a fast which was appointed for the purpose, got some neighboring ministers to labor to regulate them, who plainly warned them against the first instruments of their awakening as being the deceivers which should come in the last times. And they evidently set up the same standard that we have seen so much before, of measuring themselves by themselves, so as to read all off for delusion which interfered with the order and honor of the old ministers and churches as they stood. But for young converts to hear the instruments and nature of that work which turned them from vanity to love Christ treated at such a rate, it only served to convince them that the ministers who treated things at that rate were wrong, and so finally caused a separation from them, and a Baptist church was gathered in that place. The former part of this account I had from the mouth of the young man who was first awakened there, and in the presence of one of the two young men who were convinced by him, and the rest I have had attested by many substantial evidences. I leave the reader to make his own remarks, and shall only observe that this author has intermixed with these slanders some quotations of the most bitter sentences against the Baptists that he could find in the ancient fathers; it makes me think of a saying of one of the old Martyrs, Alas! (says he) such is the wickedness of these our last days, that nothing moves us! Neither the pure doctrine, the Godliness of life, nor good example

288

Isaac Backus

of the ancient fathers. If in anything they erred, that will their charitable children embrace, publish and maintain with sword, faggot and fire. But in vain they strive against the stream, for though in despite of the truth, by force of the ears of crafty persuasion, they may bring themselves into the haven of Hell, yet can they not make all men believe that the banks move, while the ship saileth, nor ever shall be able to turn the direct course of the stream of God's truth.t Î Sufferers mirrour, vol. I, p. 103.

PAMPHLET

4

THE SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD BOSTON,

I773

who wrote the tract On Traditionary Zeal which Backus answered in this pamphlet, but Backus identifies its author as an Anglican minister living in or near Providence, Rhode Island. Apparently no copy of this tract has survived. It aroused Backus' ire by blackening the doctrines of Calvinism in order to turn people against them. Calvinism was coming under attack from many sides at this time, but the most important reason for its unpopularity was that its doctrines ran counter to the self-confident, egalitarian optimism of the times. According to the Arminians and rationalists of the day, Calvin's doctrine of innate depravity made God "the author of evil," and thus affronted "common sense." According to many common men, Calvin's doctrine of a predestined elect also made God "a respecter of persons" and a bulwark of aristocracy and class stratification. To increasing numbers of Americans, Calvin's denial of freedom of the will reduced man to a pawn in the hands of fate. The assumption that men, women, and children who died without being saved by God's arbitrary and unmerited grace were doomed to eternal torments in Hell made God more cruel a tyrant than George III. Calvinism, carried to its logical and consistent conclusion by many of the "hyper-Calvinists" pupils of Jonathan Edwards, contradicted the whole concept of a just, merciful, and benevolent God. Jefferson's unmitigated contempt for the Calvinist portrait of the Father of mankind was not untypical of the popular mood. It is not wholly unlikely that the Anglican minister who wrote the tract was consciously seeking to undermine the confidence of the people in the Calvinist clergy of New England who so obviously supported the patriot cause against the crown. I T IS NOT KNOWN

Backus' purpose in answering this anti-Calvinist tract was twofold: first, to prove that Calviniste did not teach what its detractors said it did, and second, to portray Calvinism as a more honest, sensible, and meaningful conception of man's relationship to God than that espoused by the deists or by the hyper-Calvinists. As noted in the general Introduction, Backus insisted that Calvinism was a doctrine of optimism and hope for sinful men and not one of pessimism and despair. Given the inherent selfishness and depravity of man, which revelation and human experience confirmed beyond cavil, how could anyone fail to praise and glorify God for agreeing to save some men, perhaps many men in America, from well-deserved punishment, and instead let them share with Him the eternal bliss of Paradise? The Great Awakening indicated that God had a special destiny for America and Americans; probably the New World would be the site for the commencement of the millennium.

EDITORS INTRODUCTION

2Q1

As for the apparent inconsistencies in Calvin's (or the Scripture's) teaching, these Backus relegated to the "unsearchable" mysteries of divinity which finite minds were presumptuous to measure by their puny powers of reasoning: "Those who are determined to believe nothing but what they can comprehend are determined to be idolators; for 'tis certain that anything which can be comprehended by a finite mind cannot be the infinite Jehovah." W e know that God is just, hence He will punish only sinners. W e know, if we are honest, that we are all sinners. Hence to protest that our damnation would be unfair is simply to prove what the Bible says, we are all "rebels against heaven." As for why we are rebels and sinners and cannot act rightly, that is a fruitless question. And as to whether we can will to be good and thereby compel God to save us by our own exertions, this is too ridiculous to be argued. God gave us the natural ability to do good, but since Adam's fall we have lacked the moral ability or will power to do it. Yet we know clearly from God's commandments that we ought to. John Locke had demonstrated in his brilliant treatise on the human understanding that the mind operates from the strongest motive or preference, and unconverted man's strongest motives are always self-interest, not God's will. "From whence it appears evident that there is no inconsistency in holding God's decrees to be immutable, and yet that men act as voluntarily as if it were not so." Those who read these lines carefully will find that Backus is a good deal more conservative than the radical New Lights were assumed to be by those in the Standing Order who portrayed them as fanatics, enthusiasts, and Münsterites. Backus clearly declared the advocates of freedom of the will to be the real anarchists and rebels of that day. For all his rebellion against the oppression of religious taxation, the corruption of the Standing Order, and the snobbery of the upper classes, Backus' view of human nature required him to be extremely distrustful of granting too much freedom to men. In this tract he portrays the "freewillers" as the demagogues and dangerous radicals and he associates the Separate-Baptists with the forces of law and order. This defense of Calvinism is therefore essential for understanding Backus' opposition to Shays's Rebellion and his support of the federal constitution.

THE SOVEREIGN/DECREES OF GOD,/SET IN A SCRIPTURAL LIGHT,/AND/Vindicated against the Blasphemy contained in a late/Paper, entitled,/On Traditionary Zeal./In a LETTER to a FRIEND./ S H A L L HE THAT CONTENDETH W I T H THE ALMIGHTY,/INSTRUCT

HIM?/

HE

THAT REPROVETH G O D , LET H I M ANSWER I T ! / J O B X L . 2 . / BOSTON ¡/Printed

by J . KNEELAND, in Milk-Street, for Union-Street./MDCCLXXIII.

PHILIP/FREEMAN,

in

Beloved Friend, Although we should endeavor to avoid all needless contention, yet the faith once delivered to the saints is sometimes treated in such a manner as to make it our incumbent duty earnestly and publicly to contend for it. Such a case I think is presented before us by means of a printed paper lately spread in Providence and towns adjacent which you have requested me to make some remarks upon.1 It begins in this manner. On Traditionary Zeal. Some good Christian pastors will not scruple to tell you that they could find no joy in their own state, no strength or comfort in their labors of love towards their flocks, but because they know and are assured from St. Paul that God never had, nor ever will have, mercy upon all men; but that an unknown multitude of them are, through all ages of the world, inevitably decreed to the eternal fire and damnation of Hell; and that an unknown number of others are elected to a certain, irresistible salvation. Wonder not, my friends, if the inquisition has its pious defenders, for inquisition cruelty, and every barbarity that must have an end, is mere mercy if compared with this reprobation doctrine. And to be in love with it, to draw comfort from it, and to wish it Godspeed is a love that absolutely forbids the loving our neighbor as ourselves and makes the Scripture-wish, that all men might be saved, no less than a rebellion against God.

This writer's evident design is against the doctrine of particular election and efficacious grace in our salvation, and against those who preach it. And he takes the same method that the heathen persecutors did with the primitive Christians, viz., to cover them with skins of wild beasts in order that they might be devoured by dogs, or if not, yet that they might be hated and avoided by all men. He asserts that some Christian pastors tell their people such a story as he has here related. If he can find any man upon earth that teaches so, he is welcome to correct him as much as he deserves, but till he exhibits his proof he ought to be accounted a blasphemer of God's sovereignty and a false accuser of Christ's ministers, Yea, out of his own mouth he is condemned, for as short as his paper is he has not been able to keep to one consistent story, but the same preachers that he accuses of rejoicing that God never will have mercy upon all men,

294

Isaac Backus

when he comes to give us their own language it is, "O, the sweetness of God's election!" And neither the Devil nor any of his children will ever be able to make a rejoicing in God's everlasting love to a chosen number to be the same thing as it would be to rejoice in the destruction of the rest. Our Lord says, Every one that doth evil hateth the light, but he that doth truth cometh to the light; and let the reader judge which of these characters suits the conduct of the writer before us. He casts out these horrid accusations against some good Christian pastors without naming any one while his evident aim is against all that profess a sweetness in sovereign election; at the same time (like the savages) he tries to keep himself and his principles hid. Though it fares with him as it did with the old enemies of the sure foundation which God has laid in Ζion, whose bed was shorter than that a man could stretch himself upon it, and the covering narrower than that he could wrap himself in it, Isai. xxviii. For though by the title of his piece he would have people esteem him as a bold champion against tradition and a friend to Paul and the sacred writings, yet he does not so much as attempt to prove that sovereign decrees and irresistible grace are not fully taught by them. No, instead of confusing us or defending himself by the sacred oracles, he, like those who prophesied out of the deceit in their own hearts, first makes his address to men's passions and exerts all his art to bring up the horrid ideas of an inevitable decreeing of multitudes to hellfire, of cruelty vastly worse than the inquisition, of God's sacrificing of myriads of his creatures to the Devil, etc., and having done his utmost thus to raise a tempest in the souls of men, he winds up by asserting that "The only possible way of avoiding every prevailing error and of finding every saving truth is to listen, solemnly, attentively to listen, agreeable to the written word, to the still small voice within you" This is just like the old serpent who, with malicious reflections upon God's government and lying pretences of friendship to man, drew him into rebellion against God's revealed will and to gratify his own heart's lusts. Yet from that day to this, when the tempter thinks it will serve his turn, he is very ready to catch at some Scripture words, to entice people into violations of the truth which is therein taught. Let the pretended advocate for truth now before us mean what he will by the voice within, yet when he or any others are brought solemnly and attentively to listen either to reason, conscience, or the

T H E SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD

295

Spirit of God they will teach them that the way to avoid error and to find the truth in any case is not first to inflame our passions before our judgments are well informed. No, for a gift will blind the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous; therefore we must have our eye single or else our whole body will be full of darkness. Hence appears the necessity of the Holy Spirit to renew us in the spirit of our minds and to guide our souls into all truth. The grand contest ever since sin entered into the world has been between the will of the Creator and the will of the creature. But as it is too shocking for human nature to have it openly appear in that light, God's enemies in all ages have made lies their refuge and under falsehood have hid themselves. And in the controversy before us we may take notice of the following refuges of lies which the enemies of sovereign grace try to hide themselves in: 1. As the sacred writers often appealed to men's reason and conscience and exhorted the saints to regard the teachings of the Holy Spirit in their souls above all human authority on earth, deceivers of various denominations have caught at and perverted that sacred custom as a plea for setting up a standard in themselves to decide every case so as not to admit anything for truth that does not agree with their inward test. But it is well known in our nation that in order for us to enjoy our just rights and liberties rulers as well as subjects must be governed by known laws and established rules, and that for judges to assume a discretionary power to dispense with old laws or to make new ones as occasion served would introduce arbitrary government, or rather a cruel tyranny. And were not people deluded with the religious names and great swelling words of deceivers, all their attempts to set up a voice within which speaks in any respects contrary to God's written word would appear as arbitrary and tyrannical as any such proceedings of earthly judges can be. Those holy men whom God employed to write his Word had their authority so to do confirmed by divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, and woe to that man who presumes either to add to or take from those holy oracles. 2. The advocates for their own free will in opposition to sovereign grace have determined that the doctrine of fixed decrees in the divine mind concerning the future state of men is inconsistent with the liberty of their own wills and with the proper influence of precepts and promises, rewards and punishments. And, having quoted a number of precepts with considerations to enforce them (of which the Bible

2q6

Isaac Backus

is full) they boast that they have gained their argument when in truth they have never touched the point in debate. We know and as firmly hold as any free wilier on earth that all men are under moral government where precepts and promises, exhortations, warnings, etc. have their proper place and ought to influence us in all our conduct. And I believe from the bottom of my heart that God never did nor ever will punish any but the guilty, and that he will finally reward every man according to his works. But in the present controversy the true state of the question is this, viz., Whether the whole plan of God's government and the final issue of every action through the universe has not been known and fixed in his counsels from the beginning so that nothing can be put to it nor anything taken from it? Eccl. iii, 14. Or whether many events are not held in suspense and uncertainty in his infinite mind till they are decided by the free will power of men? We hold the first, they the last side of this question. But instead of attending to the true state of the controversy and instead of referring the decision of it to the divine oracles, tradition and corruption has carried them into the way which this writer pursues of representing our doctrine to be that God decrees some men to misery in the same manner that he does others to happiness. Yea, this slanderer, in imitation of those who have gone before him, sets reprobation foremost and would have people believe that we hold God's first design to be the damnation of multitudes and then secondly the irresistible salvation of a numberi Hoping no doubt by these horrid colorings to guard people sufficiently against all the Gospel weapons which are appointed to pull down the strongholds that are raised against the knowledge of God and to cast down the imaginations which keep men's thoughts too high to yield their all to a meek and lowly Jesus, 2 Cor. x, 4, 5. Many in latter ages have carried their imaginations so high on this subject as, 3. To assume a dignity to themselves that they will not allow to the eternal God, for they claim a self-determining power in their own wills while they deny it to the Most High and insist upon it that his choice of some men to salvation rather than others is from either a foresight or aftersight of good dispositions and good doings in them more than others, so making that to be the cause of his choice which he declares is the effect of it and representing that God is influenced in his work by motives without himself at the same time that they hold to a power to determine all their own actions within themselves. Can any imagination ever be entertained more absurd or more contrary to Holy Writ

THE SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD

297

than these are! See Matt, xi, 25-28; Rom. viii, 29, 30; Eph. i, 4, 5; 1 Pet. i, 2; 1 John iv, 19. The people we are now speaking of commonly deny the doctrine of man's universal depravity, but if to claim a sovereignty to their own will while they deny it to God does not prove them to be rebels against Heaven, I know not what can do it. Nebuchadnezzar made trial how it would do to ascribe all his achievements to himself, but after he had grazed among the beasts of the field till seven times had passed over him he declares that, "All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing (before the Most High) and he doth according to HIS WILL in the army of Heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand or say unto him, what dost thou?" Dan. iv, 35. Thus it appears that the hearts of kings are in the hand of the Lord so that as rivers of water he turneth them whithersoever he will; i.e., to act voluntarily as he designs to have them. From whence it appears evident that there is no inconsistency in holding God's decrees to be immutable and yet that men act as voluntarily as if it were not so. And the great reasoners on the other side cannot avoid this consequence if they would once own that the will of man is always determined in its choice by motive or by what they at present prefer and think to be best, for that person must be stupid indeed who cannot see that HE in whom we live, move, and have our being can at any time set things in such a view before our minds as to make us think it best to choose one way of acting rather than another. Though Balaam was so madly set after the wages of unrighteousness that he would not be turned even by the reproof of a dumb ass, yet when the Lord opened his eyes to see the angel with a drawn sword before him he at once chose to fall to the earth or to turn back rather than run upon it, Num. xxii, 31, etc. In order therefore to keep up their conceit that fixed decrees interfere with men's liberty some of their great doctors have, 4. Tried to shelter themselves in such a miserable refuge as to pretend that they have a power in their wills to act with motive or against motive just as the will pleases. But I suppose it is as great a piece of nonsense in itself to hold that a rational soul can act voluntarily in any case without or against motive, as it would be to say there can be a rational action without any influence of reason in it! Thus professing themselves to be wise they become fools, for as Mr. Locke truly observes, even delirious persons are influenced by reason only they

298

Isaac Backus

reason from wrong premises. As when such a man imagines that he is all made of glass he is moved to act with the caution that would be necessary if the case were so. And the like may be said of other imaginations. And persons must be idiots and not reason at all or else reason and motive will always influence their choice and conduct. Evil imaginations and thoughts always move men to act wickedly, Gen. vi, 5 and viii, 21. But when any are brought to know the truth it makes them free, free from sin, so as to become servants of righteousness, John viii, 3 1 ; Rom. vi, 18. Hence it appears evident that they and not we would exclude the usefulness of means, for if the liberty of man lay in acting against motive or with motive just as they pleased, where could there be any proper use for means? For the very design of Gospel means, is to turn souls from evil, to follow that which is good; and if their liberty consisted in not being moved and governed by means and motives, there would be no sense in using of them; but like smoke and vapor men must be left to act just that way the wind happens to blow. In short, the main objections I ever heard against sovereign election and certain salvation by free grace alone appear to me to spring from this root, viz., Man who was flattered with the notion of being as gods still conceits that he has a power in himself to do as he pleases let that pleasure be to comply with or to disappoint God's designs; and therefore if they are not disposed at present to engage in his service that he must wait their leisure, and be ready, whenever they set about the work in good earnest to grant them the assistance of his grace and, if they improve it well unto the end, then to receive them to his glory. But for my part I have no more notion of worshipping a deity that can possibly be mistaken or disappointed in any one event than I have of worshipping Baal, who could not defend either his altar or grove when his votaries were asleep, Judges vi, 3 1 . Those who are determined to believe nothing but what they can comprehend are determined to be idolators, for 'tis certain that anything which can be comprehended by a finite mind cannot be the infinite Jehovah whose wisdom, knowledge, and judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out; of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; to whom be glory forever, amen, Rom. xi, 33-36. Thus to believe, adore, and obey is not, as many would have it a sacrificing of reason to tradition and blind devotion but the contrary. As, for instance, should any man conceit that he could not know whether or not there was light in the sun or warmth in the fire with-

T H E SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD

299

out looking through the one and running into the other and should try the experiment till he became blind and burnt, he could not from thence convince me that I had lost both my sight and feeling because I still professed to enjoy great comfort in the cautious improvement of those blessings. Now the perfections of the deity are compared both to the sun and the fire to teach us the importance of receiving his grace freely, of acting towards him uprightly, and serving of him with reverence and Godly fear, Psal. Ixxxiv, 1 1 ; Heb. xii, 28, 29. Some serious persons are afraid to give in to the doctrine of immutable decrees lest they should make God the author of sin, but Mr. Norton,2 one of the fathers of this country, justly replied to this objection that sin is a defect and God is the author of all efficiency but not of any defect at all. An illegitimate child is the creature of God, but its illegitimacy is wholly from its parents. It was their lusts which caused the defect or want of its being lawfully begotten. Yet the child is God's creature, and if he please he makes it a subject of his grace. The heat of the sun that attacks the secret virtues of the earth, is not the cause of the stink of the dunghill. And though carnal reasoners try to persuade people that to hold every event to be certain in the divine councils takes away the guilt of evil actions, and the virtue of good ones, yet the word of truth abundantly shows the contrary. It shows that Joseph's brethren were as verily guilty in their actings against him as if they could have frustrated God's design, and yet that he over-ruled their wrath and cruelty towards their brother, for his own praise * and to make Joseph much more of a public and extensive blessing than they could have made him in Canaan if they had tried their uttermost for it. At the same time the sacred story clearly shows that they acted quite voluntarily, both in their wretched abuses to their brother, and in humbly prostrating themselves before him afterward. They acted by motive; when they first saw Joseph coming to them, they felt so that they thought they would slay him: But upon another view murder appeared so shocking that they thought it best to gratify themselves another way, which moved them to choose that way. On the other hand, when Joseph was tempted by his wicked mistress, though men were absent, yet God to whom he was under infinite obligation, was present to his thoughts, and that proved a sufficient motive to make him choose any suffering rather than to sin against such a glorious being. The inquiry and pursuit of all men is after good, and the believer * Psal. kxvi, 10.

300

Isaac Backus

finds it only in God, who is good and is always doing good, and this causes his soul to be in earnest to learn his statutes, Psal. iv, 6, 7 and cxix, 68. Others do not like to retain the true God in their knowledge; neither his nature nor his government appear good to their carnal minds. Therefore they worship and serve the creature instead of the Creator, setting up gain, honor, or pleasure as their chief good. Yet to appear nakedly irreligious is too shocking to multitudes who at the same time are very far from desiring to set the Lord always before them, so as to be influenced by him in all their conduct. Therefore they choose their idol shepherds that will prophesy smooth things to them rather than faithful watchmen who represent the true character of the Holy One of Israel before them, Isai. xxx, 8-11; Zech. xi, 17. A darling topic with the carnal reasoners of our world is this, they say that either men are able to obey and serve God or else, if they cannot do it, they are not to blame for neglecting of it until God is pleased to convert them. But the truth is, the natural man cannot serve God because he does love and serve an idol. And the soul before it is slain by the law, cannot be married to Christ because it is wedded to its own doings, Matt, vi, 24; Rom. vii. Yet this inability is so far from being any just excuse that the more unable they are to love God or to believe in Christ the greater is their condemnation, John iii, 16-19. And it is a most wicked device in the writer of the paper now in hand to use the word inevitable concerning the reprobate and irresistible concerning the elect in such a manner as to exclude the idea of their own choice; whereas the vessels of wrath say, We WILL walk after our own devices, and EVERYONE that doth evil HATETH THE LIGHT, Jer. xviii, 12; John iii, 20. And vessels of mercy pursue the same ways till God works in them to will and to do of his good pleasure, Phil, ii, 13; Tit. iii, 3-5. Therefore though the final event is as certain to the one as the other, yet the manner of its accomplishment is vastly different. The vessels of wrath, after their hard and impenitent heart, treasure up wrath ΤΟ THEMSELVES, while God endureth with much long suffering with them. But he makes known the riches of his glory in effectually calling the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory, Rom. ii, 5 and ix, 22-24. And renewed souls are so far from assuming to themselves a power to be God's counselors or venturing to act upon secret things which belong to him that where he has told them of his designs concerning any future event they have not made the design of the great Ruler but the laws he has given to his subjects the rule of

THE SOVEREIGN DECREES OF GOD

30I

their conduct; and the difference between subjects and rebels is discovered by this. As, for instance, God let David know that he designed to remove Saul and to make him king in his stead. Yet David refused to smite Saul when he had opportunity but left it with God to remove him in his own way, 1 Sam. xxiv, 12, 13. Whereas when the Jews heard Caiphas' prophecy concerning the death of Jesus from that day forth, they took counsel together for to put him to death, John xi, 49, 53. And God's accomplishing his infallible decrees in that great event, while the Jews were inexcusably guilty in their actings about it, are strongly asserted by the inspired apostle. Him, being delivered by the DETERM I N A T E COUNSEL and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by WICKED HANDS have crucified and slain, Acts ii, 23. They acted most wickedly in conspiring against our Savior who was perfectly holy and harmless, and constantly went about doing good. Yet God's purposes and promises were thereby exactly accomplished in bestowing infinite and eternal mercies upon guilty and miserable men. Pharaoh used great subtlety and cruelty in order to keep Israel in bondage and set up his will at the highest rate against releasing of them. Yet God in his providence caused things to appear so to him and his subjects that they voluntarily furnished Israel with silver and gold, and Egypt was glad when they departed, Psal. cv, 37, 38, and that on the selfsame day which God had told Abraham of above four hundred years before, Exod. xii, 41. These and many other instances of men's voluntary actions the Lord declared with a perfect exactness before they came to pass, because he knew that with a brazen obstinacy and wilful treachery they would rather give this glory to their idol than to him, Isai. xlviii, 3-8. But the firm faith of the saints in every age in the certain accomplishment of God's promises has made them the more watchful and active in the rational choice and use of the best means that he furnished them with for attaining the desired end. Jacob wrestled and prevailed with God yet that did not make him neglect means but he wisely improved the best that he had in his power to calm his angry brother, and it had the desired effect. Paul believed God that the lives of all those who were with him in ship should be saved, yet when the men who were skilled in managing the ship were about to leave it he said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship ye CANNOT be saved, Acts xxvii, 25, 31. Here was a certainty of the event, and yet it is expressed conditionally, while both were true. It was true that all

302

Isaac Backus

should be saved, and it was as true that the mariners must be instrumental of it. Thus my dear friend, I have endeavored in as plain and brief a manner as I could, in the little time I had for it, opened and vindicated the great Scripture doctrine of God's sovereign decrees against a malicious attempt which has been made to villify the same. It may well seem surprising to those who are acquainted with the seventeenth article of the Church of England to hear that a minister who has solemnly engaged to maintain the truth therein expressed, should have a great hand in spreading this blasphemous paper which is diametrically contrary thereto, as has evidently been the case.3 But I leave him and all others in the hand of a righteous and gracious God, and rest, Yours, etc.

PAMPHLET

5

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BOSTON,

I773

FOR

MOST OF THE TRACTS that Backus devoted wholly to church-state issues, An Appeal to the Public was written in his official capacity as "Agent for the Baptists in New England." This title was bestowed upon him by the Warren Baptist Association which had been formed in 1767 for the purpose of uniting the scattered Separate-Baptist churches and persuading the Standing Order to make more effective the laws granting tax exemption to their denomination. Backus was appointed to the Association's Grievance Committee to collect complaints of Baptist persecution and to seek a remedy for them either in the courts or by petitioning the legislature. In 1771 the Committee carried a complaint to the King himself and had the satisfaction of his disallowing a law of the Massachusetts General Assembly which seemed to them oppressive. The Grievance Committee became a thorn in the side of the Standing Order, forcing the legislature to make several modifications in the laws regarding the Baptists; it probably was the cause of the legislature's decision to exempt Baptist ministers from civil taxes after 1770. Nevertheless, the local authorities in towns and parishes continued to execute the ecclesiastical laws in what appeared to the Baptists to be a discriminatory and harsh manner. The more the Baptist movement spread the more conflicts arose and the more prejudice and misunderstanding increased. Finally Backus and the Grievance Committee decided that it was no longer worthwhile for the Baptists to try to comply with the tax exemption system which had been devised for them. The system was one of mere toleration, and considerable public prejudice was exhibited against any "certificate man" who sought exemption from religious taxes. Many a schoolyard fight led to bloody noses over taunts flung at the children of "certificate men." LIKE

On May 5, 1773, the Grievance Committee voted to ask all the Baptist churches of Massachusetts to consider adopting a policy of non-compliance or civil disobedience regarding religious taxes and to instruct their delegates to the annual meeting of the Warren Association in September to vote for adoption of this policy by the denomination. The Committee pointed out that even if some Baptists were imprisoned or had their goods distrained from failure to turn in certificates or pay their religious taxes, the cost would be far less than continued harassment. They felt certain that the resultant imprisonment of Baptists and the auctioning of their goods would soon become so "odious" to their neighbors that the Standing Order would agree to abandon the certificate system entirely. In September 1773 the Warren Association voted to leave each church free to adopt this policy

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

305

or not. Since the delegates were overwhelmingly in favor of the plan, Backus felt that victory would soon be theirs. At this meeting the Association also voted to pay for the publication and distribution of the arguments Backus had presented on behalf of this program of civil disobedience. An Appeal to the Public may therefore be described as the Declaration of Independence for the Separate-Baptists against the tyranny of the Standing Order. It did not result in the victory Backus had predicted, but it may have helped to alter the ecclesiastical system rather drastically when Massachusetts came to write its first constitution in 1780. The tract itself is of great importance not only for its detailed examination and examples of the inequities of the certificate system, but also for its agonized expression of the dilemma of the Baptists amidst the rising tide of revolutionary sentiment. This dilemma is particularly evident in the short essay on political theory which Backus prefixed to the tract. But it occurs again and again within the pamphlet. The prefatory essay seems almost to plead for passive submission to government rather than to justify civil disobedience. But the crux of the matter is Backus' pietistic method of defining "true government." Backus was not yet ready to accept the Lockean theory of natural rights and social contract. He apparently considered it irreconcilable with the Calvinistic view of human depravity. Locke believed that man was essentially good, rational, and free in a state of nature but that conflicting rights necessitated yielding some aspects of individual liberty for the general good. Calvinistic pietism and Puritan social philosophy, which Backus had imbibed from childhood, said that man was essentially bad, irrational, and a slave (to Satan), hence government was formed to control man's selfish impulses, and it was from government that man received such rights and freedoms as he enjoyed in society. Only God's grace could free him from slavery to Satan. "Far from being necessary for any man to give up part of his real liberty in order to submit to government . . . all nations have found it necessary to submit to some government in order to enjoy any liberty and security at all." The advocates of natural rights, whom Backus evidently considered deists or infidels, held that "the general notion of liberty is for each one to act or conduct as he pleases." In a footnote on page 328, Backus denied that the oppressed Baptists in Ashfield petitioned for redress on the basis of natural rights; they had, he said, no desire to be "restored to a state of nature" but based their pleas on "CHAHTER privilege" which was a right given them by the King. This argument does not entirely square with Backus' insistence on P a g e 338 that "equal liberty of conscience" is "the dearest of all rights" and is based upon a higher law than any government can give. But apparently for him liberty of conscience was not a natural right but a supernatural one.

3o6

Isaac Backus

The Baptists were torn in 1 7 7 3 in many ways both by their special predicament in New England and by the transitional state of their own development. Their first difficulty was to evolve a social theory reconciling the conflicting aspects of Calvin and of Locke; their second difficulty was their desire to be patriots and also to honor their debt to the King; and third they faced a conflict between their inherited New England belief that a strict corporate system was essential to control man's selfishness and their new evangelical conception that a voluntaristic system was essential because it left salvation to the personal responsibility of each individual. In this tract Backus exhibited all of these conflicts and tried desperately to reconcile them. Backus' evangelical resolution of this dichotomy was ultimately that of most Americans — that the general welfare would emerge naturally from individual freedom under a republican constitution and the guiding hand of Providence. But it is easy to see why he here eschewed Locke (who, after all, had never advocated disestablishment of the Church of England) and quoted instead the pre-Lockean, theocentric, and typological arguments of Roger Williams: man was created free but lost his freedom when he disobeyed God's government in Eden. God then instituted civil government as a divine ordinance in order that men might live in civil peace while they sought reconciliation with the divine law. "True government" is that which follows God's will, and God's will clearly separates civil affairs from spiritual affairs. In civil affairs the magistrate is to be a terror to evil doers and is to insure the good of the whole commonwealth. In spiritual affairs the magistrate is to leave each individual free to make his own reconciliation with God. Thus without resorting to the Lockean theory of natural rights or social compact, Backus was able to argue that men have the right to govern themselves in civil affairs and even to rebel against an unjust civil government, while at the same time he could argue that religious liberty is part of a higher law, God's revealed law, which commands obedience to "true government." The term "true government" however is ambiguous. For while the King and Parliament had been clearly untrue to the civil rights of Englishmen by their claims of taxation over the colonies in all cases whatsoever, at the same time the General Court of Massachusetts had been untrue to the religious rights of dissenters by denying them liberty of conscience. Liberty of conscience was itself an ambiguous "right" for it was both a "charter right" given by the King and a divine right commanded by God's higher law. The beauty of Backus' tract was that he could fall behind either bulwark as it suited the immediate need of the Baptists: he could be a patriot and at the same time abuse the patriots for tyranny; he could praise the King and at the same time admit that the King was tyrannical. But like all such arguments, its very flexibility was its greatest weakness. For it also left

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

307

the Baptists open to attack from both sides. These were tortuous times for many Americans, and the Baptists were being directly courted by both sides. As Backus later admitted, the King made definite advances toward the Baptists in order to maintain their allegiance. The Baptists held the door open to these until the very last moment as a means of threatening their spiritual oppressors. Yet as soon as the King adopted force and American blood was shed at Lexington and Concord, Backus and the Baptists rallied to the patriot side with genuine conviction that their cause was just. They did not abandon their belief that the Standing Order was oppressive and that they must continue to fight for their rights at home while they also fought against the invaders from the home country. From 1775 to 1783, Backus later wrote, "the contest concerning each kept a pretty even pace." Once having thrown in their lot with the patriots, however, the Baptists generally adopted the natural rights philosophy of Locke while their resentment against the ruling elite in Boston (especially the Unitarians) just as rapidly made them advocates of decentralized local government. The Revolution thus completed for these pietists what the Awakening had begun — namely, the shift from a corporate Christian state to an individualistic Christian state. Backus' belief that allegiance to God's laws and to the Edwardsean doctrine of "benevolence toward Being in general" would provide a spiritual cement for the body politic in an individualistic economic and religious system was based more on faith than on history. But like all pietists, he expected the rapidly approaching millennium to end the dilemma.

AN/APPEAL/TO THE/PUBLIC/FOR/RELIGIOUS the Oppressions of the present Day./

LIBERTY,/Against

Brethren, ye have been called unto Liberty; only use/not Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh, but by love/serve one another. GAL.V.13./ BOSTON .-/Printed

by

JOHN B O Y L E

in Marlborough-Street./MDCCLXXIH.

INTRODUCTION Inasmuch as there appears to us a real need of such an appeal, we 1 would previously offer a few thoughts concerning the general nature of liberty and government and then show wherein it appears to us that our religious rights are encroached upon in this land. It is supposed by multitudes that in submitting to government we give up some part of our liberty because they imagine that there is something in their nature incompatible with each other. But the word of truth plainly shows, that man first lost his freedom by breaking over the rules of government and that those who now speak great swelling words about liberty, while they despise government, are themselves servants of corruption. What a dangerous error, yea, what a root of all evil then must it be, for men to imagine that there is anything in the nature of true government that interferes with true and full liberty! A grand cause of this evil is ignorance of what we are and where we are, for did we view things in their true light, it would appear to be as absurd and dangerous for us to aspire after anything beyond our capacity or out of the rule of our duty as it would for the frog to swell till he bursts himself in trying to get as big as the ox or for a beast or fowl to dive into the fishes element till they drown themselves. Godliness with contentment is great gain. But they that will take a contrary course fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and hurtful lusts which DROWN men in destruction and perdition, ι Tim. vi, 6, 9. The true liberty of man is to know, obey, and enjoy his Creator and to do all the good unto, and enjoy all the happiness with and in, his fellow creatures that he is capable of. In order to which the law of love was written in his heart which carries in its nature union and benevolence to Being in general and to each being in particular according to its relation and connection to and with the Supreme Being and ourselves. Each rational soul, as he is a part of the whole system of rational beings, so it was and is both his duty and his liberty to regard the good of the whole in all his actions. To love ourselves and truly

βίο

Isaac Backus

to seek our own welfare, is both liberty and our indispensable duty. But the conceit that man could advance either his honor or happiness by disobedience instead of obedience was first injected by the father of lies, and all such conceits ever since are as false as he is. Before man imagined that submission to government and acting strictly by rule was confinement and that breaking over those bounds would enlarge his knowledge and happiness, how clear were his ideas! (even so as to give proper names to every creature) and how great was his honor and pleasure. But no sooner did he transgress than instead of enjoying the boldness of innocency and the liberties of paradise he sneaks away to hide himself, and instead of clear and just ideas he adopted that master of all absurdities (which his children follow to this day ) of thinking to hide from OMNISCIENCY, and of trying to deceive HIM who knows everything! Instead of good and happiness he felt evil, guilt and misery, and in the room of concord was wrangling both against his Creator and his fellow creatures even so that she who was before loved as his own flesh he now accuses to the great Judge. By which it appears that the notion of man's gaining any dignity or liberty by refusing an entire submission to government was so delusive that instead of its advancing him to be as Gods, it sunk him down into a way of acting like the beasts and like the Devil! the beasts are actuated by their senses and inclinations, and the Devil pursues his designs by deceit and violence. With malicious reflections upon God and flattering pretences to man he drew him down to gratify his eyes and his taste with forbidden fruit: And he had no sooner revolted from the authority of Heaven than the beauty and order of his family was broken. He turns accuser against the wife of his bosom, his first son murders the next, and then lies to his Maker to conceal it, and that lying murderer's posterity were the first who broke over the order of marriage which God had instituted. And things proceeded from bad to worse till all flesh had corrupted his way, and the earth was filled with violence so that they could no longer be borne with, but by a just vengeance were all swept away, only one family. Yet all this did not remove the dreadful distemper from man's nature, for the great Ruler of the universe directly after the flood gave this as one reason why he would not bring such another while the earth remains, namely, For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." * So that if he was to drown them as often as they deserved it, β

Gen. iv, 1 9 and vi, 1 3 , 1 5 and viii, 2 1 .

A N APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

3II

one deluge must follow another continually. Observe well where the distemper lies; evil imaginations have usurped the place of reason and a well informed judgment and hold them in such bondage that instead of being governed by those noble faculties, they are put to the horrid drudgery of seeking out inventions for the gratification of fleshly lusts which war against the soul, and to guard against having these worst of all enemies detected and subdued. Enemies which are so far from being God's creatures that, strictly speaking, they have no being at all in themselves, only are the privation of his creatures well-being. Therefore sin, with its offspring death, will, as to those who are saved, be swallowed up in victory. Sin is an enemy both to God and man which was begotten by Satan, and was conceived and brought forth by man, for lust when it is conceived bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.* Now how often have we been told that he is not a freeman but a slave whose person and goods are not at his own but anothers disposal? And to have foreigners come and riot at our expense and in the fruit of our labors, has often been represented to be worse than death. And should the higher powers appear to deal with temporal oppressors according to their deserts, it would seem strange indeed if those who have suffered intolerably by them, should employ all their art and power to conceal them and so to prevent their being brought to justice! But how is our world filled with such madness concerning spiritual tyrants! How far have pride and infidelity, covetousness and luxury, yea, deceit and cruelty, those foreigners which came from Hell, carried their influence, and spread their baneful mischiefs in our world! Yet who is willing to own that he has been deceived and enslaved by them? Who is willing honestly to bring them forth to justice! All acknowledge that these enemies are among us, and many complain aloud of the mischiefs that they do, yet even those who lift their heads so high as to laugh at the atonement of Jesus and the powerful influences of the Spirit and slight public and private devotion are at the same time very unwilling to own that they harbor pride, infidelity, or any other of those dreadful tyrants. And nothing but the divine law referred to above, brought home with convincing light and power, can make them truly sensible of the soul-slavery that they are in. And 'tis only the power of the Gospel that can set them free from sin so as to become the servants of righteousness, can deliver them from these enemies so t Eccl. vii, 29; 1 Pet. ii, 1 1 ; James i, 14, 15.

312

Isaac Backus

as to serve God in holiness all their days. And those who do not thus know the truth and have not been made free thereby,* yet have never been able in any country to subsist long without some sort of government. Neither could any of them ever make out to establish any proper government without calling in the help of the Deity. However absurd their notions have been, yet they have found human sight and power to be so short and weak, and able to do so little toward watching over the conduct and guarding the rights of individuals, that they have been forced to appeal to Heaven by oaths, and to invoke assistance from thence to avenge the cause of the injured upon the guilty. Hence it is so far from being necessary for any man to give up any part of his real liberty in order to submit to government that all nations have found it necessary to submit to some government in order to enjoy any liberty and security at all. We are not insensible that the general notion of liberty is for each one to act or conduct as he pleases but that government obliges us to act toward others by law and rule which, in the imagination of many, interferes with such liberty. Though when we come to the light of truth what can possibly prevent its being the highest pleasure for every rational person to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself, but corruption and delusion which, as was before noted, are foreigners and not originally belonging to man. Therefore the divine argument to prove that those who promise liberty while they despise government are servants of corruption is this: For of whom a MAN is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage, ζ Pet. ii, 18, 19. He is so far from being free to act the man that he is a bond-slave to the worst of tyrants. And not a little of this tyranny is carried on by such an abuse of language as to call it liberty for men to yield themselves up to be so foolish, disobedient and deceived as to serve divers lusts and pleasures, Tit. iii, 3. Having offered these few thoughts upon the general nature of government and liberty, it is needful to observe that God has appointed two kinds of government in the world which are distinct in their nature and ought never to be confounded together, one of which is called civil the other ecclesiastical government. And though we shall not attempt a full explanation of them yet some essential points of difference between them are necessary to be mentioned in order truly to open our grievances. Í Rom. vi, 1 8 ; Luke

i, 74, 7 5 ; John viii, 3 2 .

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

313

SECTION I Some essential points of difference between civil and ecclesiastical government X. T h e forming of the constitution and appointment of the particular orders and offices of civil government is l e f t to h u m a n discretion, and our submission thereto is required under the n a m e of their b e i n g the ordinances

of men for the Lord's sake, 1 Pet. ii, 13, 14. W h e r e a s in

ecclesiastical affairs w e are most solemnly w a r n e d not to b e subject ordinances

after the doctrines

and commandments

to

of men, Col. ii, 20,

22. A n d it is evident that H e w h o is the only w o r t h y object of worship has always claimed it as his sole prerogative to determine b y express laws w h a t his worship shall be, w h o shall minister in it, and h o w they shall b e supported. H o w express w e r e his appointments concerning these things b y Moses? A n d so w i s e and g o o d a ruler as Solomon, w a s not entrusted w i t h any legislative p o w e r u p o n either of these articles b u t h a d the exact dimensions of the temple, the pattern of every vessel, w i t h the treasuries courses

of the Priests and Levites,

of the dedicate

and

things,

all g i v e n to him in writing

Spirit through the hand of his father, D a v i d , 1 Chron.

weight and the by

the

xxviii, 1 1 - 1 9 .

A n d so strict w e r e God's faithful servants about these matters that Daniel, w h o in a h i g h office in the Persian court b e h a v e d so w e l l that his most envious and crafty foes could find no occasion against him nor fault in him concerning

the kingdom

till they fell upon the

d e v i c e of m o v i n g the king to m a k e a decree about worship that should interfere w i t h Daniel's obedience to his G o d , yet w h e n that w a s done h e w o u l d not p a y so m u c h regard to it as to shut his w i n d o w s ,

Dan.

vi, 4 - 1 1 . A n d w h e n the Son of G o d , w h o is the great L a w - g i v e r and K i n g of his C h u r c h , came and blotted out the h a n d w r i t i n g of the typical ordinances and established a better covenant or constitution of his C h u r c h u p o n better promises, w e are assured that he w a s faithful Moses.

in all his house,

and

counted

worthy

of more

glory

than

W h a t v a c a n c y has h e then left for fallible m e n to supply, b y

m a k i n g n e w l a w s to regulate and support his worship? especially if we

consider,

2. T h a t as the putting any m e n into civil office is of men, of the people of the world, so officers h a v e truly no more authority than the p e o p l e give them. A n d h o w came the p e o p l e of the w o r l d b y any

314

Isaac Backus

ecclesiastical power? They arm the magistrate with the sword that he may be a minister of God to them for good and might execute wrath upon evil doers. And for this cause they pay them tribute; upon which the apostle proceeds to name those divine commandments which are comprehended in love to our neighbor, and which work no ill to him. Surely the inspired writer had not forgotten the first and great command of love to God; but as this chapter treats the most fully of the nature and end of civil government of any in the New Testament, does it not clearly show that the crimes which fall within the magistrates' jurisdiction to punish are only such as work ill to our neighbor? Rom. xiii, 1 - 1 0 , while church government respects our behavior toward God as well as man. 3. All acts of executive power in the civil state are to be performed in the name of the king or state they belong to, while all our religious acts are to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus and so are to be performed heartily as to the Lord and not unto men. And it is but lip service and vain worship if our fear toward him is taught by the precepts of men, Col. iii, 17, 23; Isai. xxix, 13; Matt, xv, 9. It is often pleaded that magistrates ought to do their duty in religious as well as civil affairs. That is readily granted but what is their duty therein? Surely it is to bow to the name of Jesus and to serve him with holy reverence. And if they do the contrary they may expect to perish from the way, Phil, ii, 10; Psal. ii, 10-12. But where is the officer that will dare to come in the name of the Lord to demand, and forcibly to take, a tax which was imposed by the civil state! And can any man in the light of truth maintain his character as a minister of Christ if he is not contented with all that Christ's name and influence will procure for him but will have recourse to the kings of the earth to force money from the people to support him under the name of an ambassador of the God of Heaven. Does not such conduct look more like the way of those who made merchandise of slaves and souls of men than it does like the servants who were content to be as their Master, who said, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me? Rev. xviii, 9, 13; Luke x, 3-16. 4. In all civil governments some are appointed to judge for others and have power to compel others to submit to their judgment, but our Lord has most plainly forbidden us either to assume or submit to any such thing in religion, Matt, xxiii, 1-9; Luke xxii, 25-27. He declares that the cause of his coming into the world was to bear

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

315

witness unto the truth, and says he, Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice. This is the nature of his Kingdom which he says Is not of this world, and gives that as the reason why his servants should not fight or defend him with the sword, John xviii, 36, 37. And it appears to us that the true difference and exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government is this, That the church is armed with light and truth to pull down the strongholds of iniquity and to 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 the civil rights of all persons and societies and to punish those who violate the same. And where these two kinds of government, and the weapons which belong to them are well distinguished and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other. But where they have been confounded together no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued of which the Holy Ghost gave early and plain warnings. He gave notice to the church that the main of those antichristian confusions and abominations would be drawn by philosophy and deceit from the handwriting of ordinances that Christ had blotted out. And to avoid the same, he directs the saints to walk in Christ Jesus as they received him, rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith as they have been taught, viewing that they are complete in him which is the head over ALL PRINCIPALITY and POWER. Therefore he charges them not to be beguiled into a voluntary humility by such fleshly minds as do not hold this Head but would subject them to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of man, Col. ii. Now 'tis well known that this glorious Head made no use of secular force in the first setting up of the Gospel-Church, when it might seem to be peculiarly needful if ever. And it is also very evident that ever since men came into the way of using force in such affairs their main arguments to support it have been drawn from the old Jewish constitution and ordinances. And what work has it made about the head as well as members of the church? First they moved Constantine, a secular prince, to draw his sword against heretics; but, as all earthly states are changeable, the same sword that Constantine drew against heretics, Julian turned against the orthodox. However, as the high priest's sentence in the Jewish

3i6

Isaac Backus

state decided matters both for prince and people, the same deceitful philosophy that had gone so far never left plotting till they had set up an ecclesiastical head over kingdoms as well as churches who, with Peter's keys, was to open and shut, bind and loose, both in spiritual and temporal affairs. But after many generations had groaned under this hellish tyranny a time came when England renounced that head and set up the king as their head in ecclesiastical as well as civil concernments. And though the free use of the Scriptures, which was then introduced by a divine blessing, produced a great reformation, yet still the high places were not taken away and the lord bishops made such work in them as drove our fathers from thence into America. The first colony that came to this part of it carried the reformation so far as not to make use of the civil power to force the people to support religious ministers (for which they have had many a lash from the tongues and pens of those who were fond of that way) but the second colony, who had not taken up the cross so as to separate from the national church before they came away, now determined to pick out all that they thought was of universal and moral equity in Moses' laws and so to frame a Christian commonwealth here.5 And as the Jews were ordered not to set up any rulers over them who were not their brethren, so this colony resolved to have no rulers nor voters for rulers but brethren in their churches. And as the Jews were required to inflict corporal punishments even unto death upon non-conformers to their worship, this commonwealth did the like to such as refused to conform to their way and they strove very hard to have the church govern the world till they lost their charter. Since which they have yielded to have the world govern the church as we shall proceed to show.

SECTION II A brief view of how civil and ecclesiastical affairs are blended together among us to the depriving of many of God's people of that liberty of conscience which he has given them We are not insensible that an open appearance against any part of the conduct of men in power is commonly attended with difficulty and danger. And could we have found any way wherein with clearness we could have avoided the present attempt we would gladly § Massachusetts history, vol. Ill, p. 1 6 1 .

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

317

have taken it. But our blessed Lord and only Redeemer has commanded us to stand fast in the liberty wherewith he has made us free. And things appear so to us at present that we cannot see how we can fully obey this command without refusing any active compliance with some laws about religious affairs that are laid upon us. And as those who are interested against us often accuse us of complaining unreasonably, we are brought under a necessity of laying open particular facts which otherwise we would gladly have concealed. And all must be sensible that there is a vast difference between exposing the faults, either of individuals or communities when the cause of truth and equity would suffer without it and the doing of it without any such occasion. W e view it to be our incumbent duty to render unto Caesar the things that are his but also that it is of as much importance not to render unto him anything that belongs only to God, who is to be obeyed rather than any man. And as it is evident to us that God always claimed it as his sole prerogative to determine by his own laws what his worship shall be, who shall minister in it, and how they shall be supported, so it is evident that this prerogative has been, and still is, encroached upon in our land. For, 1. Our legislature claim a power to compel every town and parish within their jurisdiction to set up and maintain a pedobaptist worship among them although it is well known, that infant baptism is never expressed in the Bible, only is upheld by men's reasonings that are chiefly drawn from Abraham's covenant which the Holy Ghost calls The covenant of circumcision, Acts vii. 8. And as circumcision was one of the handwriting of ordinances which Christ has blotted out where did any state ever get any right to compel their subjects to set up a worship upon this covenant? 2. Our ascended Lord gives gifts unto men in a sovereign way as seems good unto him, and he requires Every man, as he has received the gift, even so to minister the same. And he reproved his apostles when they forbid one who was improving his gift because he followed not them, 1 Pet. iv, 10, 11; Luke ix, 49. But the Massachusetts legislature, while they claim a power to compel each parish to settle a minister, have also determined that he must be one who has either an academical degree, or a testimonial in his favor from a majority of the ministers in the county where the parish lies. So that let Christ give a man ever so great gifts yet hereby these ministers derive a noble power from the state to forbid the improvement of the same,

3i8

Isaac Backus

if he follows not their schemes.* And if the apostles assumed too much in this respect to themselves, even when their Lord was with them, can it be any breach of charity to conclude that ministers are not out of danger of doing the like now? especially if we consider how interest operates in the affair! For, 3. Though the Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel shall live of the Gospel or by the free communications to them which his Gospel will produce, 1 Cor. ix, 13, 14; Gal. vi, 6, 7, yet the ministers of our land have chosen to live by the law. And as a reason therefor, one of their most noted writers, instead of producing any truth of God, recites the tradition of a man who said, "Ministers of the Gospel would have a poor time of it, if they must rely on a free contribution of the people for their maintenance." And he says, The laws of the province having had the royal approbation to ratify them, they are the king's laws. By these laws it is enacted that there shall be a public worship of God in every plantation, that the person elected by the majority of the inhabitants to be so shall be looked upon as the minister of the place, that the salary for him, which they shall agree upon shall be levied by a rate upon all the inhabitants. In consequence of this the minister thus chosen by the people is (not only Christ's but also) in reality, the king's minister, and the salary raised for him is raised in the king's name and is the king's allowance unto him. t

Now who can hear Christ declare that his kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him? For though their laws call them "orthodox ministers," yet the grand test of their orthodoxy is the major vote of the people be they saints or sinners, believers or unbelievers. This appears plain in the foregoing quotation. And another of their learned writers lately says, "It is the congregation in its parochial congregational capacity that the law considers, and this as such does not enough partake of an ecclesiastical nature to be subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction." * * It has been the custom of ministers who are settled in this way for these thirty years past to apply the gainsaying of Core to those who have dissented from them, as if they were as certainly in the right way as Moses and Aaron were. And sixteen ministers in the county of Windham in a public letter to their people in 1744 style theirs, "The instituted churches," and those who had withdrawn from them "uninstituted worship." And then they go on to assert that Deut. xiii, proves that the people "May not go after it any more than after a false god," pp. 42, 43. t Dr. Cotton Mather's Ratio Discipline or faithful account of the discipline professed and practiced in the churches of New-England, 1726, p. 20. t Dr. Stiles on the christian union, p. 85.

A N A P P E A L TO THE PUBLIC

3I9

Hence their ministers and churches must become subject to the court and to the majority of the parish in order to have their salary raised in the kings

name.

But how are either of them in the mean-

time subject to the authority of Christ in his Church? How can any man reconcile such proceedings to the following commands of our Master which is in Heaven? Matt,

xxiii, 9, 10. What matter

of grief and lamentation is it that men otherwise so knowing and justly esteemed should by the traditions of men, be carried into such a crooked

way as this is! For though there is a show of equity in

allowing every society to choose its own minister, yet let them be ever so unanimous for one who is of a different mode from the court, their choice is not allowed. Indeed as to doctrine ministers who preach differently, yea, directly contrary to each other about Christ and his salvation yet are supported by these laws which at the same time limit the people to one circumstantial mode.2 It is true that the learned author just now quoted says, "If the most of the inhabitants in a plantation are Episcopalians, they will have a minister of their own persuasion, and the dissenters

in the

place, if there be any, must pay their proportion of the tax for the support of this legal minister."

§

But then his next words show that

they did not intend ever to have such a case here, for he says, In a few of the towns a few of the people, in hope of being released from the tax for the legal minister, sometimes profess themselves Episcopalians. But when they plead this for their exemption, their neighbors tell them They know in their conscience they do not as they would be done unto. And if a governor go by his arbitrary power to supersede the execution of the law, and require the justices and constables to leave the Episcopalians out of the tax, they wonder he is not aware that he is all this while, forbidding that the king should have his dues paid unto him, and forbidding the king's ministers to receive what the king has given him." 8 § According to this rule, whoever gets the upper hand may tax the rest to their worship; but when will men learn the madness of such conduct! Sir Henry Vane, who was governor of the Massachusetts in 1636, but whom Governor Winthrop obliged the next year to leave the colony, he at a time when he had great influence in the British Parliament wrote to Governor Winthrop thus: The exercise and troubles which God is pleased to lay upon these kingdoms and the inhabitants in them, teaches us patience and forbearance one with another in some measure though there be difference in our opinions, which makes me hope that from the experience here it may also be derived to yourselves, lest while the congregational way among you is in freedom and is backed with power it teaches its oppugners here to extirpate it and root it out from its OWN PRINCIPLES a n d P R A C T I C E .

Sir, I am your affectionate friend and servant in Christ, June 10, 1645. Massachusetts history, vol. Ill, p. 137. " Ratio Discipline, pp. 20, 21.

H. V A N E .

320

Isaac Backus

How essentially and how greatly does this constitution differ, and from the institutions established in God's word, both in their nature and effects? l. In their nature. Here you find that every religious minister in that constitution is called the king's minister because he is settled by direction of the king's laws and the tax for such a minister's support is raised in the king's name and is called the king's dues, whereas no man in the Jewish church might approach to minister at the holy altar but such as were called of God as was Aaron. And the means of their support were such things as God required his people to offer and consecrate to Him, and when they withheld the same he says, ye have robbed ME, even this whole nation. And it is represented as his peculiar work to reward obedience, and to punish disobedience in such affairs.1· It is evident from sacred record that good men in every station used their influence by word and example to stir up their fellow servants to do their dtuy toward God in these respects. And good rulers, in conjunction with church officers, took care to have what was offered to him secured and distributed according to God's commandments.* But what is there in all this that can give the least countenance to the late method of men's making laws to determine who shall be Christ's ministers and to raise money for them in their own name\ Christ said to the Jews, I am come into my Fathers name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe which receive honor out of another and seek not the honor that cometh from GOD O N L Y ? John ν, 43, 44. Even a heathen monarch when he was moved to make a decree in favor of God's ministers and worship at Jerusalem was to restrain their enemies from injuring or interrupting of them and to order that a portion of the kings goods should be given unto the elders of the Jews for the building of the House of God and for the burnt-offerings of the God of Heaven, Ezra vi, 6-9. Nothing appears of his levying any new tax for worship, only that he gave the articles there specified out of his own goods, yet some professed Christians have imposed new taxes upon people on purpose to compel them to support their way of worship and have blended it with other rates and then called it all a civil tax. But as the act itself is deceitful so 'tis t Exod. xxiii, 1 5 , 16; Deut. xvi, 16, 1 7 and chap, xxvi; Mai. iii, 7 - 1 2 ; Hag. i, 6 - 1 1 and 1 7 - 1 9 ; Luke xii, 2 1 . Î 1 Chron. 29; 2 Chron. 3 1 ; Nehem. xiii, 1 0 - 1 3 .

AN

APPEAL

TO

THE

PUBLIC

321

likely that the worship supported by such means is hypocrisy. For, 2. The effects of the constitution of our country are such that as it makes the majority of the people the test of orthodoxy so it emboldens them to usurp God's judgment seat, and (according to Dr. Mather's own account which we have often seen verified) they daringly give out their sentence that for a few to profess a persuasion different from the majority, it must be from bad motives, and that, they know in their conscience that they do not act by the universal law of equity if they plead to be exempted from paying the money which the majority demand of them! And though in OUB CHARTER the king grants to all Protestants equal liberty of conscience, yet for above thirty years after it was received the Congregationalists made no laws to favor the consciences of any men in this affair of taxes but their own sect. And it is here called arbitrary power, and even a forbidding that the king should have his dues, if a governor showed so much regard to the Charter as to oppose their extorting money from people of the king's denomination for their Congregational ministers. And perhaps the learned author now referred to never delivered a plainer truth, than when he said, "The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried some of them more, some of them less, all of them something of Rome with them, especially in that spirit of imposition and persecution which too much cleaved to them." These evils cleaved so close to the first fathers of the Massachusetts as to move them to imprison, whip, and banish men only for denying infant baptism and refusing to join in worship that was supported by violent methods. Yet they were so much blinded as to declare that there was this vast difference between these proceedings and the coercive measures which were taken against themselves in England, viz., W e compel men to "God's institutions," they in England compelled to "men's inventions." And they asserted that the Baptists were guilty of "manifest contestations against the order and government of our churches, established ( we know ) by God's law." § Though they professed at the same time that "It is not lawful to censure any, no not for error in fundamental points of doctrine or worship, till the conscience of the offender be first convinced (out of the Word of God) of the dangerous error of his way, and then if he still persist, it is not out of conscience, but against his conscience (as the apostle saith, Tit. iii, 1 1 ) , and so he is not persecuted for cause of conscience but punished for § Massachusetts history, vol. Ill, pp. 404, 406.

322

Isaac Backus

sinning against his conscience." 9 In reply to which Mr. Williams says, "The truth is, the carnal sword is commonly the judge of the conviction or obstinacy of all supposed heretics. Hence the faithful witnesses of Christ, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, had not a word to say in the disputations at Oxford: Hence the non-conformists were cried out as obstinate men, abundantly convinced by the writings of Whitgift and others; and so in the conference before King James at Hampton court, etc." t But says he, Every lawful magistrate, whether succeeding or elected, is not only the minister of God but the minister or servant of the people also (what people or nation soever they be all the world over), and that minister or magistrate goes beyond his commission who intermeddles with that which cannot be given him in the commission from the people.* If the civil magistrate must keep the church pure, then all the people of the cities, nations, and kingdoms of the world must do the same much more, for primarily and fundamentally they are the civil magistrate. Now the world saith John lieth in wickedness and consequently according to its disposition endures not the light of Christ, nor his golden candlestick the true church, nor easily chooseth a true Christian to be her ofBcer or magistrate. The practicing civil force upon the consciences of men is so far from preserving religion pure that it is a mighty bulwark or barricado to keep out all true religion, yea, and all godly magistrates for ever coming into the world·5

How weighty are these arguments against confounding church and state together? Yet this author's appearing against such confusion was the chief cause for which he was banished out of the Massachusetts colony. And though few if any will now venture openly to justify those proceedings, and many will exclaim against them at a high rate, yet a fair examination may plainly show that those fathers had more appearance of a warrant for doing as they did than their children now have for the actings which we complain of. For those fathers were persuaded, that the judicial laws of Moses which required Israel to punish blasphemers and apostates to idolatry with death, were of moral force and binding upon all princes and states; ° especially on such as these " Mr. John Cotton's piece which he called The bloody tenet washed, printed 1647, p. 126. Mr. Roger Williams in his reply observes that Tit. iii, 1 1 , and other texts which speak of church discipline are perverted to support state-oppression and violence, p. 1 3 1 . t Williams' reply to Cotton, 1653, p. 192. Î P. 96. §P. 1 1 2 . 4 Bloody tenet washed, p. 55.

A N A P P E A L TO THE PUBLIC

323

plantations were.* And how much more countenance did this give for the use of force to make men conform to what they believed to be the right way than men can now have for compelling any to support a way which at the same time they are allowed to dissent from? For the Jews also were required to pull down houses and to have persons away out of their camps or cities if the priests pronounced them unclean, and they were not permitted to set up any king over them who was not a brother in their church. Did not these things afford arguments much more plausible for their attempt to compel the world to submit to the church than any can have for the modern way, of trying to subject the church in her religious affairs to rulers and the major vote of inhabitants, a great part of whom are not brethren in any church at all! Though the state of Israel was obliged thus to inflict death or banishment upon nonconformers to their worship, yet we have not been able to find that they were ever allowed to use any force to collect the priests' or prophets' maintenance. So far from it that those who made any such attempts were sons of Belial and persons that abhorred judgment and perverted A L L EQUITY, 1 Sam. ii, 12-16; Mie. iii, 5, 9. Many try to vindicate their way by that promise that kings shall become nursing fathers and queens nursing mothers to God's people. But as the character carries in its very nature an impartial care and tenderness for all their children, we appeal to every conscience whether it does not condemn the way of setting up one party to the injury of another. Our Lord tells us plainly that few find the narrow way while many go in the broad way. Yet the scheme we complain of has given the many such power over the few that if the few are fully convinced that the teacher set up by the many is one that causeth people to err and is so far from bringing the pure Gospel doctrine that they should break the divine command and become partakers of his evil deeds if they did not cease to hear him or to receive him into their houses as a Gospel-Minister,* yet only for refusing to put into such a minister's mouth, the many are prepared with such instruments of war against them as to seize their goods or cast their bodies into prison where they may starve and die for all that the constitution has provided for them. In cases of common debts the law has provided several ways of relief, as it has not in the case before us, for here the assessors plead that they are obliged to tax all according to law, and the colt Massachusetts History, vol. Ill, p. 161. t Prov. xix, 27; 2 John χ, xi.

324

Isaac Backus

lector has the same plea for gathering of it. And the minister says, I agreed with the society for such a sum, and it is not my business to release any. So that we have had instances of serious Christians who must have died in prison for ministers' rates if Christianity and humanity had not moved people to provide them that relief which neither those ministers nor the law that upholds them have done. Another argument which these ministers often mention is the apostolic direction to us to pray for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty. But do they pray and act according to that direction? One while they cry up the great advantage of having religion established by law, and some have caused near as loud a clamor about it as the craftsmen did at Ephesus. But when it comes to be calmly represented that religion is a voluntary obedience unto God which therefore force cannot promote, how soon do they shift the scene and tell us that religious liberty is fully allowed to us only the state have in their wisdom thought fit to tax all the inhabitants to support an order of men for the good of civil society. A little while ago it was for religion, and many have declared that without it we should soon have no religion left among us, but now 'tis to maintain civility. Though, by the way, it is well known that no men in the land have done more to promote uncivil treatment of dissenters from themselves than some of these pretended ministers of civility have done. In 1644 the court at Boston passed an act to punish men with banishment if they opposed infant baptism or departed from any of their congregations when it was going to be administered.5 And after they had acted upon this law one of their chief magistrates observed, that such methods tended to make hypocrites. To which a noted minister replied, that if it did so, yet such were better than profane persons because, said he, "Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man, but the profane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man." 0 By which it seems that in that day they were zealous to have the outward man, if no more, given to God. But now that conduct is condemned as persecution by their children who profess to allow us full liberty of conscience because they do not hinder our giving our inward man to God, only claim a power to seize our outward man to get money for themselves. And though many of us have expended ten or twenty times as much in § Mr. Clark's Narrative, p. 35. 0 Massachusetts history, vol. Ill, p. 405.

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

325

setting up and supporting that worship which we believe to be right as it would have cost us to have continued in the fashionable way, yet we are often accused of being covetous for dissenting from that way and refusing to pay more money out of our little incomes to uphold men from whom we receive no benefit but rather abuse. How far is this from leading a peaceable life either of Godliness or honesty! SECTION III A brief account of what the Baptists have suffered under this constitution and of their reasons for refusing any active compliance with it

Many are ready to say, the Baptists are exempted from ministerial taxes, therefore why do they complain? Answer: We would be far from forgetting or undervaluing of our privileges but are willing thankfully to acknowledge that our honored rulers do protect our societies so as not to allow them to be interrupted in their worship. And as the taking cognizance of marriage belongs to them, we take it as a favor that they grant our ministers power to administer it so that we may have marriage solemnized among ourselves.4 Many other liberties we also enjoy under the government that is set over us for which we desire to be thankful both to the Author and to the instruments of them. Yet if our opponents could once put themselves into our place, we doubt not but they would think it was high time to seek for more full liberty than we have hitherto enjoyed. A short view of but a little part of what we have met with may be sufficient to evince this. Our charter, as before observed, gives us equal religious liberty with other Christians. Yet the pedobaptists, being the greatest party, they soon made a perpetual law to support their own way but did nothing of that nature to exempt our denomination from it for thirty-six years. And since that time what they have done in that respect has only been by temporary acts which have been so often changed that many times their own officers have hardly known what the law was that was in force. And as an exact conformity to the letter of their laws is much insisted upon in their executive courts while those acts have never been enforced with penalties upon their own people, they have often broken them, and we have had but little chance to get them punished for so doing. For in all their acts till the last they have imposed a name upon us, that signifies re-baptizers, which we cannot understand-

326

Isaac Backus

ingly own. In many acts the words "belonging thereto" were inserted so ambiguously as to leave it disputable whether a being church members or only a belonging to the congregation or worshipping assembly were intended. And in the case of Haverhill, where their certificate was otherways complete and the case had been determined in the Baptists' favor in that which both parties had agreed should be the final trial, yet another hearing was obtained in which the want of them ambiguous words in the certificate was made the main plea by which an action was turned against us of near three hundred dollars. All their latter acts have required a list or lists of our societies to be given in annually by a certain day signed by three principal members and the minister if there be any, and because one of our churches of above fifty members (and which is now a church in good credit) happened one year to have such a difficulty with their minister as prevented the giving in of said list, they were taxed to pedobaptist ministers; and though some of the society were advised to apply to their county court for relief, yet instead of obtaining any, the court took away twenty dollars more from them. Another church gave in their list by the direction of a noted lawyer, yet they were all taxed to the pedobaptist worship, and one of the principal members of the Baptist church which the law directed to sign the list was strained upon; and both the inferior and superior courts turned the case against him because he was a party concerned.5 Here note the inhabitants of our mother country are not more of a party concerned in imposing taxes upon us without our consent than they have been in this land who have made and executed laws to tax us to uphold their worship. This party influence has appeared in a much larger number of instances than we are willing to trouble the public with at this time, but one instance more will set our case in such a striking light that we must ask for a very serious attention to it. W e mean that of Ashfield, formerly called Huntstown, in the county of Hampshire. One of the conditions on which the plantation was granted by our legislature was their settling a learned orthodox minister and building a meeting-house. Now in the year 1761 full two-thirds of the inhabitants called and settled a minister who they believed was taught of God and truly orthodox. But not being of the same mode with the court ( for they were Baptists ) other people were prompted on, before this society could get up a meeting-house, to settle another minister, and to tax the first minister with all his people to support their way.

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

327

This burden the Baptists bore for a number of years till in 1768 they presented a petition to our General Court for relief, who ordered that they should serve the town and proprietors of Ashfield with a copy of the petition that they might show cause, if any they had, at the next session of the court why it should not be granted and that a further collection of taxes from the petitioners should be suspended in the meantime. Yet in the same session of the court a law was made which cut the Baptists in that place off from any exemption from ministerial taxes at all. In consequence of which several hundred acres of their lands were sold at public auction for but a small part of their real value, of which ten acres belonged to the Baptist minister. And after five or six journeys of above an hundred miles to seek relief, and long waiting without success their messenger was at last plainly told by a number of representatives, "That they had a right to make that law and to keep the Baptists under it as long as they saw fit." Hereupon notice was given in some Boston papers of a design among our churches of joining to seek redress from another quarter [i. e., the King]. Accordingly at an association or general meeting of our churches at Bellingham, in September 1770, these things were considered, and it was unanimously agreed upon to apply to His Majesty for help if it could not speedily be obtained here. And a committee and agents were chosen for that purpose.® When news hereof was spread, our committee were urged by leading men both in church and state to apply again to our General Court, which therefore they did in October following. In the meantime a piece dated from Cambridge, where the court was then sitting, was published in all the Boston newspapers, wherein it was represented that "All possible care had been taken to prevent our suffering the least disadvantage from our religious sentiments," and we were challenged to show the contrary if we could. Upon this the pious and learned Mr. John Davis, who from Pennsylvania had not long before been ordained pastor of the Second Baptist Church in Boston and who was clerk of our committee, called them together to consider of this matter. And though they were far from desiring to enter into a newspaper controversy, yet they advised him to make some reply to that challenge. He did so, and on December 27th published a brief and plain view of the case of Ashfield. But instead of any fair and manly treatment upon it, he in the [Boston] Evening Post of January 7, 1771, was not only insulted with the names of, "A little upstart gentleman, enthusiastical bigot, and this stripling

328

Isaac Backus

high-flier," but had it also insinuated that he was employed "by the enemies of America to defame and blacken the colonies, and this town in particular." And they had the impudence to pretend to the world that all this was wrote by a C A T H O L I C BAPTIST. And they inflamed the populace so against Mr. Davis that his most judicious friends were afraid of his being mobbed. But can it be in the power of others to blacken any people so much as by this treatment of a worthy stranger (now at rest) they have blackened themselves! Instead of honestly coming to the light (which our Lord gives as the criterion to know him that doth truth, John iii, 21) how do they hover in the works of darkness. The first article in our committee's petition to the legislature being for Ashfield, they were ordered to notify the proprietors thereof. They did so, and in the spring session of the assembly they came with a long address against us in which they begin with saying more generally of the Baptists in that part of the province, "The proprietors conceive it to be a duty they owe to God and their country, not to be dispensed with, to lay open the characters and real springs of action of some of these people." Then they go on to say, "The rule the petitioners have set up and on which alone they seem to ground their claim of exemption is falsely applied, and therefore all arguments bottomed on it must be inconclusive. Natural rights t as the respondents humbly conceive, are in this province wholly superseded in this case by civil obligation, and in matters of taxation individuals cannot with the least propriety plead them." Having thus denied us any claim from natural rights, they resume what they call an indispensable duty, viz., an attempt to lay before our honored legislature the Baptists' character, and the springs of the actions of most of them to be "Pride, vanity, prejudice, impurity and uncharitableness." Very dreadful indeed if it could be proved! But that is referred to a hereafter. And they say, "At present we shall content ourselves with assuring your excellency and honors that the foregoing account is not exaggerated." From this they proceed to observe that as it belongs to rulers to "protect and support all regular religious societies of Protestants," so t Here note the plea of our petition was for what w e are "Entitled to as men, as Christians, and subjects of a free government. Some of the laws of this province, w e think deprive us of a CHARTER privilege." These are what w e grounded all our claims upon. Yet they insinuate that our claim was in this affair to be "restored to a state of nature" like those who are under no civil government at all. Notwithstanding we expressly speak of our being subjects of a free government and pleaded charter privileges. Remember what is said of those who Turn aside to their crooked waysl

AN

APPEAL

TO

THE

PUBLIC

329

they say, "Whenever any religion or profession wears an ill aspect to the state it is become a proper object of attention to the legislature. And this is the religion of the people whom we have been describing." How much does this resemble the language of him who said, It is not for the kings profit to suffer themlt Or theirs who cried, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesars friendl 5 After thus representing that the religion of the Baptists that way wears an ill aspect to the state, they go on to speak of the conditions upon which Ashfield was granted and then try to prove that Mr. Ebenezer Smith, pastor of the Baptist church there "is not a minister in law" because he has neither an academical degree, nor a testimonial in his favor from the majority of the ministers of that county. And to give an idea of the smallness of his ability for teaching they say, "Taking occasion in one of his discourses upon that passage of Scripture in which mention is made of the thick bosses of God's buckler, instead of buckler he gave his hearers the word butler. Being interrogated by one occasionally present as to his meaning, he explained himself so as clearly showed he meant to connect the other part of the sentence with the word butler, in the commonly received sense of the word." The clearest light we have gained in the matter is this. After Mr. Smith had been preaching in a neighboring town some years ago, a minister who was present asked him what a butler was? He readily replied, Pharaoh's cup-bearer. After a little more talk, said minister asserted, That Mr. Smith used the word butler instead of buckler in his sermon.® He did not remember that he had, but if he did so, how injurious is the above representation? Is it not the evil which we read of in Isai. xxix, 20, 21? Having made this reflection upon Mr. Smith, they say, "He has none of the qualifications of a minister according to the laws of Christ or of this province unless those of simplicity and orthodoxy." We wish his accusers were so well qualified, 2 Cor. i, 12 and iv, 2. In April 1771, the address we have made a few remarks upon was t Esther iii, 8. § John xix, 12. * The minister who thus treated Mr. Smith is nearly related to a ruler who has had a principal hand in all their troubles in Ashfield, and likely they were confederates in forming this address against them. And it is generally believed that it was the same minister who published a piece against the Baptists of Ashfield, in the Boston News-Letter of Feb. 7, 1 7 7 1 , to which Mr. Smith returned an answer in the same paper of March 21, following wherein from public records and other ways he detected said writer in a number of gross violations of truth.

330

Isaac Backus

referred to a committee of both houses of our General Court who reported that "Your committee find that in the sale of those lands there was no unfairness, but everything was quite fair, quite neighborly, and quite legal." t And as to our plea for exemption from ministerial taxes they say, "There is an essential difference between persons being taxed where they are not represented, therefore against their wills, and being taxed when represented." So they advised the court to dismiss our petition as unreasonable, and though the honorable house of representatives did not accept that advice but voted to repeal the Ashfield law, yet the council refused to concur with them therein. So that if his gracious Majesty in council had not disannulled said law for us, our brethren of Ashfield must, for ought that appeared to the contrary, have been entirely stripped of the inheritances which they had purchased and subdued at the peril of their lives, because of the sword of the wilderness. It may be remembered that the pedobaptist proprietors of Ashfield represented that the Baptists there were not worthy of the protection of our legislature. The following narrative may help to explain what they meant by it. The news of what our king had done for them arrived and was published in Boston the latter end of October 1771, at which their oppressors discovered great uneasiness; and on the eighth of November came two officers with numerous attendants to the house of Mr. Smith, father of the Baptist minister in Ashfield (and very much of a father to that society ) with a warrant from the chief judge of that county to seize his person and to search his house and shop for bad money. And it was said they had a like warrant for the minister, but he happened to be then absent on a journey. His father was made a prisoner before he was out of his bed in the morning, and though he promised the use of his keys and desired that no lock might be broken, yet while he was at prayer with his family, for which he obtained leave of one officer, the other broke open his shop and did considerable damage there. And after searching both that and his house as much as they pleased, they carried him before the aforesaid judge and others where it plainly appeared that the complaint was entered against Mr. Smith from a report that he had put off a counterfeit dollar which t Twenty acres of said land with a good orchard upon it a man bid off in April 1770 for thirty-five shillings which he sued for the next August, and laid his damages at eight pounds. But upon trial the court found that the sale was not legal and therefore turned the case against him. With what face then, said Mr. Davis, could the writer of that report say as he doesl

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

331

report was then proved to be a false one. Yet the old gentleman was not released but was kept a prisoner through a cold night in circumstances that greatly injured his health, and next day was brought on further examination when even his frequent retirement for secret devotion, which he had practiced for above forty years, was caught hold of to raise a suspicion of his being guilty. And he was bound over with two sureties to the next superior court in that county. Hereupon the following men who had been called as witnesses against him gave him their testimony in writing, declaring that they were ready to make oath to it in the following terms, viz., Ash field, November 11, 1771. We the subscribers, who have been summoned to prove an indictment against Chileab Smith of his coining and putting off bad money, do testify and say That we did not, nor cannot understandingly attest to one tittle of the indictment nor of any circumstance tending to prove the same. And we never saw nor heard anything in him that gave the least ground to mistrust that he kept a shop of secrecy or did anything there that he was afraid should be known, and do believe the reports to the contrary are entirely false. As neither did we in our judgments hear any of the said indictment in any measure proved by any of the rest of the evidence, as witness our hands, E B E N E Z E R SPRAGUE, N A T H A N I E L HARVEY, JONATHAN NATHAN

SPRAGUE,

CHAPIN,

MOSES S M I T H , 2 D . CHILEAB SMITH, NEHEMIAH

JUN.

SPRAGUE.

Also Leonard Pike, to whom the report was that Mr. Smith had put off a bad dollar, gave from under his hand that said report had no truth in it. These are eight of the ten witnesses that were summoned against Mr. Smith, and though much pains was taken to procure evidence against him at the superior court, yet he was entirely acquitted. And the law was open for him to come back for damages for a malicious prosecution, but they had contrived to have the complaint against him entered by a bankrupt so that no recompense might be obtained by him. Are these the goodly fruits of having a particular mode of worship established by law and their ministers supported by force! Though w e are often accused of complaining without reason, yet no longer ago than the twenty-sixth of last January, three men of good credit belonging to a numerous and regular Baptist society in Chelms-

332

Isaac Backus

ford were seized for ministerial rates (notwithstanding they had given in a list according to law) and though one of them was above four score years old, another very infirm in body, while the third had no man at home able to take care of the outdoor affairs of his numerous family, yet they in that cold season were all carried prisoners to Concord gaol. These accounts we have received from good authority and have taken great pains to have them stated as exactly and truly as possible. And if any can point out the least mistake in what has been now related, we shall be glad to correct it. At the same time we are far from charging all the evils we complain of upon the whole Congregational denomination without distinction, for we believe there are many among them in various stations, who are sorely grieved at these oppressions. We are willing also to make all the allowance that is reasonable for the influence of old customs, education and other prejudices in those who have injured their neighbors in these affairs, but is it not high time now to awake, and seek for a more thorough reformation! We agree with the committee of our honored legislature in saying there is an essential difference between persons being taxed where they are represented and being taxed where they are not so. Therefore the whole matter very much turns upon this point, viz., Whether our civil legislature are in truth our representatives in religious affairs or not? As God has always claimed it as his prerogative to appoint who shall be his ministers and how they shall be supported, so under the Gospel the people's communications to Christ's ministers and members are called sacrifices with which God is well pleased, Phil, iv, 18; Heb. xiii, 16-18. And what government on earth ever had, or ever can have, any power to make or execute any laws to appoint and enforce sacrifices to Godi In civil states the power of the whole collective body is vested in a few hands that they may with better advantage defend themselves against injuries from abroad and correct abuses at home, for which end a few have a right to judge for the whole society. But in religion each one has an equal right to judge for himself, for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done ( not what any earthly representative hath done for him ), 2 Cor. v, 10. And we freely confess that we can find no more warrant from divine truth for any people on earth to constitute any men their representatives to make

AN A P P E A L TO T H E P U B L I C

333

laws, to impose religious taxes than they have to appoint Peter or the Virgin Mary to represent them before the throne above. We are therefore brought to a stop about paying so much regard to such laws as to give in annual certificates to the other denomination [i. e., the Congregational or Standing Churches] as we have formerly done. 1. Because the very nature of such a practice implies an acknowledgement that the civil power has a right to set one religious sect up above another, else why need we give certificates to them any more than they to us? It is a tacit allowance that they have a right to make laws about such things which we believe in our consciences they have not. For, 2.. By the foregoing address to our legislature and their committee's report thereon it is evident that they claim a right to tax us from civil obligation as being the representatives of the people. But how came a civil community by any ecclesiastical power? How came the kingdoms of this world to have a right to govern in Christ's kingdom which is not of this worldl 3. That constitution not only emboldens people to judge the liberty of other men's consciences and has carried them so far as to tell our General Assembly that they conceived it to be a duty they owed to God and their country not to be dispensed with, to lay before them the springs of their neighbors' actions,* but it also requires something of the same nature from us. Their laws require us annually to certify to them what our belief is concerning the conscience of every person that assembles with us, as the condition of their being exempted from taxes to other's worship. And only because our brethren in Bellingham left that clause about the conscience out of their certificate last year a number of their society who live at Mendon were taxed, and lately suffered the spoiling of their goods to uphold pedobaptist worship. 4. The scheme we oppose evidently tends to destroy the purity and life of religion, for the inspired apostle assures us that the church is espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ and is obliged to be subject to him in everything as a true wife to her husband. Now the most chaste domestic obedience does not at all interfere with any lawful objection to civil authority. But for a woman to admit the highest ruler in a nation into her husband's place would be adultery or whoredom. And how often are men's inventions about worship so called in the sacred t How are men deluded to think they do God service when they violate his wordl 1 Cor. iv, 5. Would not the same principle carry them to kill Christ's disciples under the same pretence? John xvi, 2.

334

Isaac Backus

oracles? § And does it not greatly concern us all earnestly to search out and put away such evils as we would desire to escape the awful judgments that such wickedness has brought on other nations! Especially if we consider that not only the purity but also the very life and being of religion among us is concerned therein, for 'tis evident that Christ has given as plain laws to determine what the duty of people is to his ministers as he has the duty of ministers to his people, and most certainly he is as able to enforce the one as the other. The common plea of our opponents is that people will not do their duty if rulers do not enforce it. But does not the whole book of God clearly show that ministers as often fail of doing their duty as the people do? And where is the care of rulers to punish ministers for their unfaithfulness? They often talk about equality in these affairs, but where does it appearl As Christ is THE HEAD of all principality and power, so the not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having NOURISHMENT MINISTERED and KNIT TOGETHER, increoseth with the increase OF GOD, but bringing in an earthly power between Christ and his people has been the grand source of anti-christian abominations and of settling men down in a form of Godliness while they deny the power thereof. Has not this earthly scheme prevailed so far in our land as to cause many ministers, instead of taking heed to the ministry received from the Lord and instead of watching for souls as those who must give an account,e rather to act as if they were not accountable to any higher power than that of the men who support them? And on the other hand, how do many people behave as if they were more afraid of the collector's warrant and of an earthly prison than of Him who sends his ministers to preach his Gospel and says, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, but declares that it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom than for those who receive them not?t Yea, as if they were more afraid of an earthly power than of our I Psal. evi, 39. We delight not in hard names, but every vice ought to be called by its proper name, and the custom in this adulterous age of calling those natural children which God calls children of whoredom has doubtless had a pernicious effect upon many to embolden them to go on in their filthy ways. God charged his ancient church with playing the harlot because she said, I will go after my lovers that gave me my bread and my water; for she did not know that I GAVE HER CORN, etc., Hosea ii, 5, 8. By which it appears that to fix our dependence upon any other beside the Divine Being and to pursue any method beside his directions to obtain the necessaries and comforts of life is whoredom. And does not the chief sin of the mother of harlots lie in her fixing this dependence upon the kings of the earth? Rev. xviii, 3-13. * Col. iv, 17; Heb. xiii, 17. t John xiii, 20; Luke x, 10-12.

AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

335

great King and Judge who can this night require the soul of him that layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God, and will sentence all either to Heaven or Hell according as they have treated him well or ill in his ministers and members.* 5. The custom which they want us to countenance is very hurtful to civil society, for by the law of Christ every man is not only allowed but also required to judge for himself concerning the circumstantials as well as the essentials of religion and to act according to the full persuasion of his own mind, and he contracts guilt to his soul if he does the contrary, Rom. xiv, 5, 23. What a temptation then does it lay for men to contract such guilt when temporal advantages are annexed to one persuasion and disadvantages laid upon another? i. e., in plain terms, how does it tend to hypocrisy and lying? than which, what can be worse to human society! Not only so, but coercive measures about religion also tend to provoke emulation, wrath, and contention, and who can describe all the mischiefs of this nature that such measures have produced in our land! But where each person and each society [i. e., religious congregation] are equally protected from being injured by others, all enjoying equal liberty to attend and support the worship which they believe is right, having no more striving for mastery or superiority than little children (which we must all come to or not enter into the kingdom of Heaven) how happy are its effects in civil society? In the town of Boston they enjoy something of these blessings, and why may not the country have the same liberty? 7 The ministers who have had the chief hand in stirring up rulers to treat us as they have done yet have sometimes been forced to commend the liberty we plead for. When they wanted to get footing in the town of Providence they wrote to Governor Jencks and other rulers there in the following words, viz. Honorable gentlemen, How pleasing to almighty God and our glorious Redeemer and how conducible to the public tranquility and safety an hearty union and good affection of all pious Protestants whatsoever particular denomination on account of some differences in opinion would be, by the divine blessing, yourselves as well as we, are not insensible. And with what peace and love societies of different modes of worship have generally entertained one another in your government we cannot think of it without admiration. And we suppose under God, 'tis owing to the choice liberty granted to Protestants of all persuasions in the royal charter graciously given you and to the wise and prudent conduct of gentlemen that have been improved as governors and Í Luke xii, 20, ai; Matt, xxv, 31, etc.

336

Isaac Backus

justices in your colony.

( A n d after more of this nature, they close w i t h

saying) W e hope and pray that ancient matters

(that had acrimony un-

happily in them) m a y b e buried in oblivion and that grace and peace and holiness and glory m a y dwell in every part of N e w England, and that the several provinces and colonies in it m a y love one another with a pure heart fervently. W e take leave to subscribe ourselves, your friends and servants, PETER THATCHER, D a t e d October 2 7 , 1 7 2 1 .

JOHN DANFORTH, JOSEPH BELCHER, Committee of the Association, δ

The town of Providence wrote them an answer the next February in which they say, "We take notice how you praise the love and peace that dissenters of all ranks entertain one another with in this government. W e answer, this happiness principally consists in their not allowing societies [religious congregations] any superiority one over another but each society support their own ministry of their own free will and not by constraint or force upon any man's person or estate. But the contrary that takes any man's estate by force to maintain their own or any other ministry, it serves for nothing but to provoke to wrath, envy, and strife, and this wisdom cometh not from above, but is earthly, sensual, and devilish. And since you wrote this letter the constable of Attleboro [Massachusetts] has been taking away the estates of our dear friends and pious dissenters to maintain their minister; the like hath been done in the town of Mendon. Is this the way of peace? Is this the fruit of your love? Why do you hug the iniquity of Eli's sons and walk in the steps of the false prophets to bite with the teeth and cry peace but no longer than men put into your mouths than you prepare war against them. Since you admire our love and peace, we pray you to use the same methods and write after our copy. And for the future never let us hear of your pillaging conscientious dissenters to maintain your ministers. You desire that all former injury done by you to us may be buried in oblivion. W e say, far be it from us to revenge ourselves or to deal to you as you have dealt to us but rather say, Father forgive them, they know not what they do. But if you mean that we should not speak of former actions done hurtfully to any man's person, we say, God never called for that nor suffered it to be hid, and witness § The first of these was [a Standing] minister in Boston, the second in Dorchester, and the third in Dedham.

AN

APPEAL

TO THE

PUBLIC

337

Cain, Joab, and Judas are kept on record to deter other men from doing the like." " Here the public may take notice how desirous pedobaptists ministers are to have odious things on their side buried out of sight, but how contrary has their practice ever been toward us? Even to this day they can hardly preach a sermon or write a pamphlet for infant baptism without having something to say about the madmen of Munster who, they tell us, rebelled against their civil rulers. Whereas in truth we never had the least concern with them any more than our opponents have with the Pope or Turk. Indeed, they often assert that those madmen were the first that ever renounced infant baptism. But there is proof enough from their own historians that this story, which they have so often told from their pulpits, is as absolute a falsehood as ever was uttered by man. And though one learned and pious President of Cambridge college was brought to embrace our sentiments and to bear his testimony in the pulpit there "against the administration of baptism to any infant whatsoever," for which he suffered considerable abuse with much of a Christian temperi While his successor, another "very learned and Godly man" (who therefore must have been well acquainted with the original) held that "baptism ought ONLY to be by dipping or plunging the whole body under water." * Yet these and other honorable examples in our favor have been passed over, and every scandalous thing that could be picked up has been spread to prejudice people's minds against our profession in general. And let it be remembered that when pedobaptist ministers wanted to be favored in Providence they declared, that they could not think of the peace and love which societies of different modes of worship have generally entertained one another with in that government without admiration. And they experienced so much of this from the Baptists in Providence that when some others made a difficulty about admitting Mr. Josiah Cotton (the first minister of the pedobaptists there) as an inhabitant in the town, Col. Nicholas Powers (a leading member of the Baptist church) became his bondsman to the town. Therefore we hope that our honorable rulers and others, will be cautious about giving credit to stories of a contrary nature when they are told to procure or to 0

These extracts were carefully taken from an ancient printed copy of those letters. t Mr. Henry Dunster. Vid., Mitchell's life, pp. 67, 70. t Mr. Charles Chauncy. See an account of Plymouth church, added to Mr. Robbins' Ordination-Sermon, 1760.

338

Isaac Backus

justify the use of force in supporting ministers, especially since ministers refuse to share in the reproach of such proceedings. For a minister who has exerted himself very much of late to support the cause of those called Standing churches yet says, "It is wholly out of rule and quite injurious to charge the churches or their ministers with sending men to jail for rates, for these proceedings are evidently the acts of the civil state done for its OWN utility. The doings of the civil authority and of that ALONE." § Where are the rulers that will stand alone in that practice without either ministers or truth to support them!

CONCLUSION And now dear countrymen, we beseech you seriously to consider of these things. The great importance of a general union through this country in order to the preservation of our liberties has often been pleaded for with propriety, but how can such a union be expected so long as that dearest of all rights, equal liberty of conscience, is not allowed? Yea, how can any reasonably expect that HE who has the hearts of kings in his hand will turn the heart of our earthly sovereign to hear the pleas for liberty of those who will not hear the cries of their fellow subjects under their oppressions? Has it not been plainly proved that so far as any man gratifies his own inclinations without regard to the universal law of equity so far he is in bondage? So that it is impossible for anyone to tyrannize over others without thereby becoming a miserable slave himself, a slave to raging lusts and a slave to guilty fears of what will be the consequence. W e are told that the father of Cyrus, though a heathen, "Had often taught him to consider that the prudence of men is very short and their views very limited, that they cannot penetrate into futurity, and that many times what they think must needs turn to their advantage proves their ruin, whereas the Gods, being eternal, know all things, future as well as past, and inspire those that love them to undertake what is most expedient for them, which is a favor and protection they owe to no man and grant only to those that invoke and consult them." And we are told by the same author,* of another wise heathen who said, " 'Tis observable that those that fear the Deity most are least afraid of man." And § Mr. Joseph Fish's late piece called, The Examiner examined, pp. 56, 59. A reply thereto [by Isaac Backus] in which that constitution is more distinctly opened, may be had at Mr. Freeman's in Union-street, Boston. * Rollin in his ancient history.

A N APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

339

shall not Christians awake to a most hearty reverence of HIM who has said (and will ever make good his word) With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Suffer us a little to expostulate with our fathers and brethren who inhabit the land to which our ancestors fled for religious liberty. You have lately been accused with being disorderly and rebellious by men in power who profess a great regard for order and the public good. And why don't you believe them and rest easy under their administrations? You tell us you cannot because you are taxed where you are not represented. And is it not really so with us? You do not deny the right of the British Parliament to impose taxes within her own realm; only complain that she extends her taxing power beyond her proper limits. And have we not as good right to say you do the same thing? And so that wherein you judge others you condemn yourselves? Can three thousand miles possibly fix such limits to taxing power as the difference between civil and sacred matters has already done? One is only a difference of space, the other is so great a difference in the nature of things as there is between sacrifices to God and the ordinances of man. This we trust has been fully proved. If we ask why have you not been easy and thankful since the Parliament has taken off so many of the taxes that they had laid upon us, you answer that they still claim a power to tax us when and as much as they please. And is not that the very difficulty before us? In the year 1747 our legislature passed an act to free the Baptists in general from ministerial taxes for ten years. Yet because they [the Baptists] increased considerably, when that time was about half expired they broke in upon the liberty they had granted and made a new act wherein no Baptist church nor minister was allowed to have any such exemption till they had first obtained certificates from three other churches. By which the late Mr. John Proctor observed (in a remonstrance that he drew and which was presented to our court ) that they had, as far as in them lay, "disfranchised, unchurched, and usurped an illegal power over all the religious societies of the people in said act called anabaptists throughout this province; for where is it possible for the poor anabaptists to find the first three authenticated ministers and churches to authenticate the first three!" So we have now related a case in which a number of our brethren were put to new cost for copies to notify others with hope of relief to themselves and yet in the same session of court they had a worse burden laid upon them

340

Isaac Backus

than before. And their repeated cries and then the petition of our united churches were all rejected. A very great grievance which our country has justly complained of is that by some late proceedings a man's house or locks cannot secure either his person or his property from oppressive officers. Pray then consider what our brethren have suffered at Ashfield. Many think it hard to be frowned upon only for pleading for their rights and laying open particular acts of encroachment thereon. But what frowns have we met with for no other crime? And as the present contest between Great Britain and America is not so much about the greatness of the taxes already laid, as about a submission to their taxing power, so (though what we have already suffered is far from being a trifle, yet) our greatest difficulty at present concerns the submitting to a taxing power in ecclesiastical affairs. It is supposed by many that we are exempted from such taxes, but they are greatly mistaken. For all know that paper is a money article and writing upon it is labor, and this tax we must pay every year as a token of submission to their power, or else they will lay a heavier tax upon us. And we have one difficulty in submitting to this power which our countrymen have not in the other case, that is, our case affects the conscience as theirs does not. And equal liberty of conscience is one essential article in our CHARTER which constitutes this government and describes the extent of our rulers' authority and what are the rights and liberties of the people. And in the confession of faith which our rulers and their ministers have published to the world they say, "God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines or to obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience, and the requiring of an implicit faith and an absolute blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." And of most famous historian of theirs, after mentioning some former violations of that liberty says, "The great noise that hath been made in the world about the persecution made in New England I will now stop with only transcribing the words uttered in the sermon to the first great and general assembly of the Massachusetts Bay, after the two colonies of Massachusetts and Plymouth were by Royal Charter united, 2 Chron. xii, 12: Things will go well when magistrates are great promoters of the thing

AN

A P P E A L TO THE

PUBLIC

341

that good is and what the Lord requireth of them. I do not mean that it would be well for the civil magistrate with civil penalty to compel men to this or that way of worship which they are conscientiously indisposed unto. He is most properly the officer of human society and a Christian by nonconformity to this or that imposed way of worship does not break the terms on which he is to enjoy the benefits of human society. A man has a right unto his life, his estate, his liberty, and his family although he should not come up unto these and those blessed institutions of our Lord. Violences may bring the erroneous to be hypocrites, but they will never bring them to be believers. No, they naturally prejudice men's minds against the cause which is therein pretended for as being a weak, a wrong, an evil cause.t These things were then delivered and were received with the thanks of the house of representatives and ten years after were spread by the historian through the nation with the express design of stopping any further complaints about New England's persecutions. But if the constitution of this government gives the magistrate no other authority than what belongs to civil society, we desire to know how he ever came to impose any particular way of worship upon any town or precinct whatsoever? And if a man has a right to his estate, his liberty and his family notwithstanding his non-conformity to the magistrate's way of worship, by what authority has any man had his goods spoiled, his land sold, or his person imprisoned, and thereby deprived of the enjoyment both of his liberty and his family for no crime at all against the peace or welfare of the state but only because he refused to conform to, or to support an imposed way of worship, or an imposed minister.* In a celebrated oration for liberty, published last spring in Boston, a maxim was recited which carries its own evidence with it which is this, NO M A N C A N GIVE T H A T W H I C H is ANOTHER'S. Yet have not our legislature from time to time made acts to empower the major part of the inhabitants in towns and precincts to give away their neighbors' estates to what ministers they please! And can we submit to such doctrines and commandments of men and not betray true liberty of cont Magnalia, b[ook] 7, pp. 28, 29. Î Many pretend that without a tax to support ministers that the public would suffer for want of due encouragement of useful learning. But human learning is surely as needful for physicians and lawyers as for spiritual teachers. And dare any deny that the affairs of law and physic fall more directly under the notice of the state than divinity does? W h y then do our legislature leave every man, and woman too, at liberty to choose their own lawyer and physician and not oblige them either to employ or pay any other though the majority may prefer them? Can any better reason be rendered for this difference in conduct than this, viz., It has been found an easier matter to impose upon people about their souls than about their bodies or their temporal estates!

342

Isaac Backus

science! Every person is or ought to be benefited by civil government, and therefore they owe rulers honor and a tribute on that account. But the like cannot be truly said of an imposed minister, for as the Gospel ministry is an ordinance of God and not of man so the obligation that any person or people are under to obey and support any man as a minister of Christ arises from the consideration of his appearing to them to resemble his Master in doctrine and conversation and from the benefit which people receive under their ministrations.5 From whence the law of equity makes the free communications of our carnal things to Christ's ministers to be a matter that as really concerns the exercise of a good conscience toward God as prayer and praise do, for they are both called sacrifices to him in the same chapter, Heb. xiii, 15, 16. Thus we have laid before the public a brief view of our sentiments concerning liberty of conscience and a little sketch of our sufferings on that account. If any can show us that we have made any mistakes either about principles or facts, we would lie open to conviction. But we hope none will violate the forecited article of faith so much as to require us to yield a blind obedience to them or to expect that spoiling of goods or imprisonment can move us to betray the cause of true liberty. A late writer in the Boston papers has taken much pains to prove that some other colonies have imposed upon people in such affairs worse than New England has, and to prove it he informs us, that an act for ministers' maintenance was passed in New York near eighty years ago which succeeding rulers have turned to support a denomination that had very few representatives in court when the act was made while the denomination who made it have been denied any benefit from it. If so, how loud is the call to every man that is a friend to liberty and who regards the good of posterity to rise and exert all his influence to demolish the engine which has done so much mischief in all ages! We are far from trying to represent the fathers of New England as the worst of the colonists; we believe the contrary. But our veneration for their memory is so far from reconciling us to, that it fills us with greater detestation of, that mystery of iniquity which carried them into such acts of imposition and persecution as have left a great blemish upon their character. And since these are tedious things to dwell upon, we shall close with this remark. i Heb. xii, 7, 17; Phil, iv, 9, 10; 1 Cor. ix, 11; Gal. vi, 6; 1 Tim. v, 17, 18.

A N APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC

343

The Massachusetts ministers, in their letter to Governor Jencks and other Baptists in Providence, said, "We hope and pray that ancient matters that had acrimony unhappily in them may be buried in oblivion." Now we are told that acrimony signifies that quality in one body whereby it corrodes, eats up, or destroys another. This eating destroying quality is truly unhappy, but how can it be buried before it is dead? The worst of criminals are to be executed before they are buried. Therefore let this cruel man-eater be fairly executed, and we are ready to join heart and hand to bury him and not to have a bone of him left for contention in all the land. If it be so hard to our opponents to hear of these matters, what has it been to those who have felt their eating and destroying influence for these hundred and forty years? And how can any person lift up his head before God or man and say he hopes to have these things buried if he at the same time holds fast and tries hard to keep alive the procuring cause of them! The foregoing appeal, having been examined and approved by many of his brethren, is presented to the public by their humble servant, ISAAC BACKUS.

POSTSCRIPT Since the above was written, I have received direct accounts, that at Montague (whose case is mentioned, p. 326) they continue from time to time to make distress upon the principal members of the Baptist church there whom the law directs to sign their certificates while they let the rest of the society alone. Also that William White, a regular member of the Baptist church in Ashfield who lives in Chesterfield and has had his standing in said church certified according to law yet had a cow taken from him on August 25,1773, and sold the thirtieth for the pedobaptist minister's rate, and that in both these places the civil charges of the town and the minister's salary are all blended in one tax (contrary, as I am informed, to the law of our province) so that our brethren who would readily pay their civil tax yet cannot do it without paying the minister's also. Now the grand pretense that is made for the use of the secular arm to support ministers is that thereby equality is established among the people, but what religion, equality or equity can there be in the above proceedings!

PAMPHLET

GOVERNMENT

6

AND LIBERTY BOSTON,

1778

DESCRIBED

that their golden opportunity for obtaining religious liberty had arrived when Massachusetts started to devise a state constitution to replace its royal charter. But the first constitution presented to the people for ratification in the spring of 1778 made no alteration in the established ecclesiastical system. As Backus noted here, he called a meeting of the Grievance Committee which prepared a petition to protest this. The constitution was not ratified, and the Baptists had a second chance to gain their goal. It was evident however that the Standing clergy, especially the Unitarian wing of the church led by Charles Chauncy, Samuel West, and Phillips Payson, were just as intent on maintaining the system as the Baptists were in overthrowing it. When Payson delivered the election sermon to the governor and legislature in May 1778 he went out of his way to denounce those "visionary" fanatics who with "foaming zeal" sought dangerous "innovations" in the ecclesistical system. He called upon the legislators to allow no "dangerous experiments in government" which would interfere with "established modes and usages in religion." T H E BAPTISTS BELIEVED

Backus, foreseeing the fight which would come when a new constitutional convention met, wrote this tract to alert his brethren; the Warren Association voted to publish it. It was one of his most effective pieces of propaganda and may well have been the cause of the legislators' decision to ask a Baptist minister, Samuel Stillman, to deliver the election sermon the following year — he was the first Baptist ever to do so. Backus helped Stillman write that part of the sermon in which the Baptist position on church and state was presented in rebuttal to Payson. In Government and Liberty Described Backus played adroitly upon the contemporary confusion over the definition of "an establishment of religion." Two years before, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had begun their effort to overthrow the Anglican establishment in Virginia, and it was clear to these men that disestablishment meant complete separation of church and state. But in New England, which had fought its battle against Anglicanism a century and a half earlier, there were many who argued that church and state were already effectively separated. Charles Chauncy certainly took this view, and Backus shrewdly quoted Chauncy's claim, made in 1768 on behalf of the people of New England, that "We are in principle against all civil establishments in religion." Chauncy, however, was writing this in opposition to the effort of the Anglicans to send a bishop to America. Chauncy defined an establishment as a system in which the State prescribed an official creed, ritual, and mode of worship for all in-

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

347

habitants and enforced them through a hierarchy, spiritual courts, and civil law, — that is, a confessional state on Erastian principles. This indeed the New Englanders did oppose. But in the confusion of social theory surrounding America's transition from a colony to an independent republic and from an outpost of European thought and practice to a unique experiment in republican self-government, Americans were no longer sure precisely what the relationship between church and state should be. Clearly they did not want the Anglican system. But it was also clear that they did not want the complete separation which Jefferson and "the Enlightened" deists of the Age of Reason wanted. Jefferson and Madison had failed in their initial effort even in a state which had good reason to favor disestablishment. In New England, where the established clergy were among the most fervent patriots, it was even clearer that total separation was too radical a break with the old ideal of the corporate Christian state. Backus probably had litde or no knowledge in 1778 of Jefferson's effort in Virginia, but he was aware of the confusion in the public mind on this issue. He therefore pointed it up by placing Payson's election sermon in defense of "established modes and usages" side by side with Chauncy's denunciation of all establishments, and charged "the ruling party" with hypocrisy and duplicity. In addition, he noted that the town of Boston had always supported its churches on voluntaristic principles, and he demanded to know why "what is good enough for Boston is not for the country?" He coupled this with some specific examples of religious persecution still suffered by the Baptists. To bring this lesson home he claimed that the Baptists were being taxed without representation and that this tax was precisely the equivalent of the threepenny tax on tea which had instigated the Revolution. The Baptists were taxed without representation because, as Roger Williams and "the great Mr. Locke" had demonstrated, civil legislators had no power to make ecclesiastical laws; yet the Massachusetts legislature in 1777 had renewed a tax exemption law which required Baptists to pay fourpence in paper money (or threepence sterling) to obtain a copy of their certificate from the town clerk in order to prove to the tax collector that they were exempt from religious taxes. "It is not the P E N C E , but the POWER, that alarms us," he wrote, noting that Chauncy had expressed the same fear of religious taxes to support an Anglican bishop in the colonies. The tract was a brilliant performance, the best piece that Backus ever wrote as a lobbyist for the Baptists. It was weakened only by the selfconscious effort of the Warren Association to assert its loyalty to the patriot cause. But even this gave them an opportunity to indicate the rapid growth of their denomination, which may not have been known to the general populace. The concluding reference to what the Baptists called "The Pepperell Riot" illustrates graphically the depth of the social preju-

348

Isaac Backus

dice which the Baptists still had to overcome in many places. No matter how adroitly Backus played with the theoretical aspects of religious liberty and establishments in terms of Roger Williams and John Locke, the longstanding popular prejudice against Baptists as fanatics, trouble-makers, and undesirables remained at the heart of the problem.

GOVERNMENT /

AND /

LIBERTY /

DESCRIBED;

/

AND /

Ecclesi-

osíícoZ/TYRANNY/EXPOSED./By isaac backus,/Pastor of a Chubch

in

Middleborough:/

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made/us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage./GAL. v. — i./ MASSACHUSETTS-STATE: B 0 S T 0 N ; / P R I N T E D B Y POWARS AND WILLIS,/AND SOLD b y PHILLIP FREEMAN,/in

UNION-STREET.

TO THE PUBLIC As the affairs of GOVERNMENT and LIBERTY are the greatest points of controversy now in the world, it certainly is of great importance that our ideas be clear and just concerning them. Permit me therefore to offer a few thoughts upon a familiar metaphor which the Holy Ghost has used to illustrate their true nature. In Amos v, 24, he says, "Let judgment run down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream." From whence we may observe, First. That judgment and righteousness are essential to freedom. When we would represent anything as quite free we say it is as free as water. And not only the flow of mercy and grace from God to men but also its effects in them in producing obedience unto him are often compared thereto in the word of truth, John iv, 14 and vii, 38; Titus ii, 11, 12 and iii, 5-8. This is most certain because Second. Freedom is not acting at random but by reason and rule. Those who walk after their own lusts are clouds without water carried about of winds or raging waves of the sea foaming out of their own shame, while the true SONS OF LIBERTY are like streams which run down in a clear and steady channel. David says, I will run the way of thy commandments when thou shalt enlarge my heart. I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts. Streams and rivers must have steady channels to run in, but they that promise liberty while they despise government are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest, 2 Pet. ii, 10-19. Third. Though tyranny and licentiousness often make a great noise yet government and liberty are much stronger than they are. The former, like raging waves, dash themselves against the rocks, and die upon the shore or like a tempest, after making sad waste and devastation, their strength is gone, and their force is over. While the latter, like a mighty stream carry all before them and never rest till they can get through or over all obstacles which are put in their way. Fourth. Streams and rivers are of great use and cause a constant flow of refreshment and blessing wherever they come; so does the exercise and administration of judgment and righteousness among all people that enjoy them, Hence,

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

351

Fifth. The command of Heaven is, Let them run down; put no obstruction in their way. No, rather be in earnest to remove everything that hinders their free course. Sixth. The contest plainly shows that a main obstruction to these great blessings among the people then spoken to was their assuming a power to govern religion instead of being governed by it. True religion is a voluntary obedience unto God. And the great design of all ordinances and acts of worship towards him is that thereby w e may obtain pardon and cleansing with direction and assistance to behave as w e ought towards our fellowmen. But instead of this, those people added their own inventions to divine institutions and substituted their acts of devotion towards God in the place of a righteous practice towards men or for a cover to their contrary conduct. And they would fain have been thought very religious although they turned judgment into wormwood, hated him that rebuked in the gate, and abhorred him that spoke uprightly. These things were written for our admonition, and all things of that nature, if indulged, will prove as pernicious to us as they did to the Jews. And since self-interest and self-flattery have an amazing influence to blind men concerning their own conduct in these affairs, great care ought to be taken to guard against deception therein. And perhaps a close attention to two late publications from the ruling party in this State may be very serviceable in that respect. Eleven years ago [1767], the Episcopal clergy appeared very earnest for having bishops established in America; which caused Dr. Chauncy of Boston to write an answer the next year, to what Dr. Chandler had published upon that subject. 1 And as Chandler had declared that all they wanted was only to have their church completely organized without the least design of injuring others the best reason that Chauncy could give w h y his request ought not to be granted was this: Says he, We are, in principle, against all civil establishments in religion. It does not appear to us that God has entrusted the state with a right to make religious establishments. If the state in England has this delegated authority, must it not be owned that the state in China, in Turkey, in Spain has this authority likewise? What should make the difference in the eye of true reason? Hath the state of England been distinguished by Heaven by any peculiar grant beyond the state in other countries? If it has, let the grant be produced. If it has not, all states have in common the same authority in establishments conformable to their own sentiments in religion. What can the consequence be but infinite damage to the cause of God and true

352

Isaac Backus

religion! And such in fact has been the consequence of these establishments in all ages and in all places. Should it be said we claim liberty of conscience and fully enjoy it, and why would we confine this privilege to ourselves? Is it not as reasonable Episcopalians should both claim and enjoy it? It is readily allowed, and we are as willing they should possess and exercise religious liberty in its full extent as we desire to do it ourselves. But then let it be heedfully minded we claim no right to desire the interposition of the state to establish that mode of worship, government or discipline we apprehend is most agreeable to the mind of Christ. We desire no other liberty than to be left unrestrained in the exercise of our principles in so far as we are good members of society. And we are perfectly willing Episcopalians should enjoy this liberty to the full. If they think bishops in their appropriate sense were constituted by Christ or his apostles, we object not a word against their having as many of them as they please if they will be content to have them with authority altogether derived from Christ. But they both claim and desire a great deal more. They want to be distinguished by having bishops upon the footing of a state establishment. The plain truth is, by the Gospel-charter all professed Christians are vested with precisely the same rights, nor has one denomination any more a right to the interposition of the civil magistrate in their favor than another. And wherever this difference takes place it is beside the rule of Scripture, and I may say also, the genuine dictates of uncorrupted reason." From whence we may learn that corrupt reasonings have carried Dr. Chauncy s denomination [the Congregational or Standing Order] on a way beside Scripture rule for these hundred and forty years. For just so long have their rulers interposed their authority to support their religious ministers by assessment and distress to the unspeakable damage of other denominations and contrary to the practice of the first planters of the country for eighteen years.2 And that partiality was wholly an arbitrary usurpation of the ruling party without the least warrant for it in either of our charters. Yet the majority of the [constitutional] convention last winter voted to incorporate those ecclesiastical laws with others into the new [Massachusetts] constitution of government, which they were framing for us which, if it had been received by the people, would have established them in another manner than ever they were before. Upon hearing of which the agent [Backus] and committee of our Baptist churches met at Boston, February 21, and drew up a protest and petition to our next Assembly against it, wherein they show, that those laws are contrary to Christian liberty, exclude Christ from being the only lawgiver and head of his church, are a breach of public faith as they tax people where they are 0

Chauncy's answer to Chandler, pp. 152, 153, 179, 180.

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

353

not represented, and impower the majority to judge for the rest about spiritual guides which naturally causes envying and strife, contrary to the wisdom that is from above which is without partiality and without hypocrisy. And they close with saying, "Our earnest prayer is that your honors may be the happy instruments of promoting such impartial peace as to fix it as a fundamental principle of our constitution that religious ministers shall be supported only by Christ's authority and not at all by assessment and secular force, which impartial liberty has long been claimed and enjoyed by the town of Boston." Great numbers, and of various denominations, subscribed this address to our Assembly,t which alarmed a number of ministers. And Mr. Phillips Payson who preached the election sermon at Boston, May 27th, commended the constitution that was framed for us last winter, and says, "It may justly be considered as a high evidence of the abilities of its compilers and if it should not be complied with, it is very probable we never shall obtain a better." And he said to the Assembly, The importance of religion to civil society and government is great indeed as it keeps alive the best sense of moral obligation, a matter of such extensive utility, especially in respect to an oath, which is one of the principal instruments of government. The fear and reverence of God, and the terrors of eternity are the most powerful restraints upon the minds of men. And hence it is of special importance in a free government, the spirit of which being always friendly to the sacred rights of conscience; it will hold up the Gospel as the great rule of faith and practice. Established modes and usages in religion, more especially the stated public worship of God, so generally form the principles and manners of a people that changes or alternations in these, especially when nearly conformed to the spirit and simplicity of the Gospel may well be esteemed very dangerous experiments in government. For this and other reasons, the thoughtful and wise among us trust that our civil fathers, from a regard to Gospel worship, and the constitution of these churches, will carefully preserve them and at all times guard against every innovation that might tend to overset the public worship of God though such innovations may be urged from the most foaming zeal. Persons of a gloomy, ghostly, and mystic cast, absorbed in visionary scenes, deserve but little notice in matters either of religion or government. Let the restraints of religion once broken down, as they infallibly would be, by leaving the subject of public worship to the humors of the multitude, and we might well defy all human wisdom and power, to support and preserve order and government in the State.* t Which would have been presented if the constitution had been received. t Pp. 8, 18-20.

354

Isaac Backus

Perhaps many may think that the two authors I have quoted upon religious establishments are of opposite sentiments, if not of different denominations, in religion. Could this thought be supported by evidence it would readily be admitted, rather than to suppose them guilty of such self-contradiction as they most certainly are. For facts abundantly show that Dr. Chauncy has exerted himself from time to time to defend the establishment we complain of much more than Mr. Payson has done. And to defend it against the bishops the first of these gentlemen says, "It does not appear to us that God has entrusted the state with a right to make religious establishments." The other warns our civil rulers against suffering any changes in their "established modes and usages in religion." The first declares that such establishments have in fact been of infinite damage to the cause of God and true religion, in all ages, and in all places. The other says, "The thoughtful and wise among us, trust that our civil fathers, from a regard to Gospel worship, and the constitution of these churches, will carefully preserve them; and at all times, guard against every innovation, that might tend to overset the public worship of God." The Jews at Thessalonica, when moved with envy, cried to their rulers, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also. But for a professed minister of Christ to alarm our civil rulers of danger that the worship of God would be overset if they did not carefully preserve these churches is much more surprising! He says, "Persons of a gloomy, ghostly, and mystic cast, absorbed in visionary scenes, deserve but little notice in matters either of religion or government." And indeed I think so too. And to whom can these epithets belong so properly as to those who think that the Church of Christ and the worship of God would be overset if secular force was not used to support them? Are such churches built upon the ROCK or upon the sand? This gentleman says, "The language of just complaint, the voice of real grievance, in most cases may easily be distinguished from the mere clamor of selfish, turbulent, and disappointed men. The ear of a righteous government will always be open to the former; its hand, with wisdom and prudence will suppress the latter." 5 This is an important truth. And since he warns our rulers against innovations, I think it my duty plainly to mention some of them which his party have been guilty of in our land. The learned tell us that to innovate, is "to introduce or § P. 22.

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

355

practice new customs, opinions, or laws after a sly clandestine manner." And let the public judge whether his party have not done so in the following instances; although they have doubtless had many pious men among them. The Massachusetts company came over to New England ten years after Plymouth people had begun the settlement thereof." The charter which constituted them a civil government expressly limited them not to make any laws contrary to the laws of England, and all the freemen who were admitted to vote for their rulers took an oath of allegiance to the government wherein they solemnly engaged to submit to "all such laws, orders, sentences, and decrees as should be lawfully made and published by them." t But when they set out to frame and enforce a new religious establishment very contrary to that of England, they found that their oath stood in the way of it; therefore they passed an act, four years after they came to Boston to absolve themselves and all the freemen from their oath to keep acts lawfully made and framed another of submission to all such laws as they called wholesome. Was not this an innovation of the worst kind? The following year the court sent out to all their ministers and brethren for advice and assistance about one uniform order of discipline in their churches, and at the same time passed an act to compel every male within their jurisdiction of fifteen years old and above to take this new invented oath or be punished at their discretion.1 Mr. Roger Williams was then minister of Salem, and because he publicly warned his flock against taking that oath he was soon convented before the rulers at Boston.5 But he boldly stood his ground against them and their ministers too. The next time their assembly met they took away a valuable tract of land from his church till they should give the court satisfaction upon these matters. For this Mr. Williams and his church wrote letters of reproof to the churches where those rulers belonged, but instead of repenting of this iniquity they banished him out of their colony. 0 Whereupon he went and founded the first civil government that ever established equal religious liberty since the rise of Antichrist. And soon after gathered the first Baptist church in America. He also did the most to prevent the ruin of 4

My history, [I,] pp. 45, 62, 63.

t Pp. 61, 518.

t Pp. 62, 66. § Pp. 57, 66, 70, 338, 452, 500, 536. " Pp. 71, 76, 88, 95, 105, 134, 147, 151, 173, 189, 193, 257, 300, 337, 340, 349, 468, 508, 510.

356

Isaac Backus

all these colonies by the Indians of any one man in the country. Thus he overcame evil with good, while the advocates for the use of secular force in religion have requited him and his friends evil for good ever since. And they were so far from promoting peace among themselves by these means f that in less than a year after his banishment, the two ministers of Boston and the two chief rulers of the colony who belonged to that church got to open clashings in their meetinghouse on the Lord's Day, and the flame spread through the land. 1 This moved them to call a general synod upon it. And because a new house of representatives refused to join in punishing such as the synod had condemned it was immediately dissolved and another house called; and then several were banished, and seventy-six men were disarmed of whom fifty-eight were of Boston.§ The year after they made their first law to support ministers by assessment and distress, which was followed with finings, imprisonings, whippings, and hangings, and with the exertion of all their art and power for forty years after in various attempts to divide and conquer Rhode Island colony. And all the disorders which these and other means could produce therein have been used ever since as a most prevailing argument for an established religion by human laws. And those violations of the rights of conscience furnished the British court with the most plausible plea they ever had ° for taking away our first charter, and in the second, for depriving us of the inestimable privilege of choosing our chief rulers,* which was evidently the root of all the gall and wormwood, blood and slaughter, which we now deplore. For the crown being vested with an arbitrary power of appointing our chief officers, the arbitrary requirement of our property to support them was the natural consequence. And it is well known that contests about that matter kindled this bloody war. So that the scheme of religious establishments by human laws, is stained with the guilt of all this blood. In my late history of New England [1777] a great number of proofs are produced to the above facts, and our opponents are welcome to discover any mistakes therein if they can. And I shall now close with t Pp. 79, 82. t Pp· 33, 87. 98, 107, 116, X18, 310, 319, 387, 399, 501, 524, 536. § Appendix, pp. 7 - 1 5 . 0 Pp- 399, 402, 467, 481, 486, 491, 511, 520, 539. t Appendix, pp. 4, 14.

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

357

earnestly requesting the attention of my dear countrymen to two points. 1. Consider what our civil liberties will be if these men can have their wills. I need not inform you that all America are in arms against being taxed where they are not represented. But it is not more certain that we are not represented in the British Parliament than it is, that our civil rulers are not our representatives in religious affairs. Yet ministers have long prevailed with them to impose religious taxes entirely out of their jurisdiction. And they have now been defied to preserve order in the state if they should drop that practice. "That magistrates should thus suffer these incendiaries and disturbers of the public peace might justly be wondered at (says the great Mr. Locke) if it did not appear that they have been invited by them unto a participation of the spoil and have therefore thought fit to make use of their covetousness and pride as a means whereby to increase their own power."* 2. How can liberty of conscience be rightly enjoyed till this iniquity is removed? The word of truth says, why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. But Mr. Payson says, "Let the restraints of religion once be broken down, as they INFALLIBLY would be by leaving the subject of public worship to the humors of the multitude, and we might well defy all human wisdom and power to support and preserve order in the state." He tells of humors, but it is well known that no men are influenced more by distempered humors, than those who are fond of arbitrary power. And if he had not been deeply absorbed thereby in visionary scenes, how could he possibly have delivered this sentence as he did, directly in the face of glaring facts which then surrounded him as well as against divine truth! By an express law of this government the multitude of people in Boston, have been left entirely free these eighty-five years to choose what worship they would attend upon and not to be compelled to pay a farthing to support any that they did not choose. And there are proofs enough to show that this liberty has greatly contributed to the welfare and not the injury of the town. And his great swelling word, INFALLIBLY, is as contrary to the Holy Scriptures as it is to experienced facts. That word says, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your t Pp· 353. 399·

358

Isaac Backus

carnal thingsΡ The Lord hath ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked. And Christ solemnly forbids the giving of any countenance or support to teachers who bring not HIS DOCTRINE, of which each rational soul has an equal right to judge for himself, Matt. XV; Rom. xiv, 4, 5; 1 Cor. ix, 1, 14 and x, 15-29; Gal. i, 8, 9 and vi, 6, 7; 2 John χ, 11. But the commandments of men among us, while they have allowed this liberty to Boston, have expressly denied the same to the country, where they have ordained that they who preach the Gospel shall live of human laws; which laws are so opposite to these laws of Christ that they empower the majority in each town or parish to judge for the rest, even so that if the minority were ever so fully persuaded that the parish minister perverted the Gospel instead of teaching it truly, yet the majority might seize the goods or imprison the persons of the minority to support that blind guide! And the chief judge of each of our county courts have been required from year to year to charge the grand jury upon their oaths to prosecute every parish in the county that did not settle such a minister as the court called orthodox. Though at the same time if any church, together with the town or parish, was ever so unanimous in the choice of a Gospel minister, yet there is an express law of this government that excludes him from being settled in their constitution until he has an academical degree or an approbation from the majority of the settled ministers in that county. And this constitution has been so far from promoting our public welfare that if the whole town of Chelsea, where Mr. Payson lives, was publicly sold for the most it would fetch, it would go but a little way towards paying the costs this government have been put to only for the sitting of their legislature to form religious societies and to hear and act upon quarrels and disputes of that nature which they have no right to meddle with. And how can justice and righteousness ever have their free course among us while men thus assume power to govern religion instead of being governed by it? I am as sensible of the importance of religion and of the utility of it to human society as Mr. Payson is. And I concur with him that the fear and reverence of God and the terrors of eternity are the most powerful restraints upon the minds of men. But I am so far from thinking with him that these restraints would be broken down if equal religious liberty was established that I am very certain w e should heretofore have suffered much more than we have done if the restrainers

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

359

of religion had not often constrained his party to act contrary to their ecclesiastical laws or to suspend the execution of them. They often declare that they allow us liberty of conscience and also complain of injury if we recite former and latter acts of their party to prove the contrary. Just so has Dr. Chandler done with regard to bishops, and he declares they had now no design of taxing America to them. Yet he says, "Should a general tax be laid upon the country and thereby a sum be raised sufficient for the purpose, I believe such a tax would not amount to more than four pence in one hundred pounds, and this would be no mighty hardship upon the country. He that could think much of giving the six thousandth part of his income to any use which the legislature of his country should assign deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject or member of society." § But in answer hereto Dr. Chauncy says, "If the country might be taxed four pence in one hundred pounds, it might for the same reason and with as much justice, if it was thought the support of bishops called for it, be taxed four shillings or four pounds, and so on." All but tories will allow this to be good reasoning, and why is it not as good in a Baptist as in a Presbyterian? He goes back 150 years and tells of the EPISCOPAL YOKE OF BONDAGE which our forefathers came into this wilderness to avoid and says, "Shall it be declared in the face of the world that this would be no hardship to their posterity and that they would be neither good subjects nor good members of society if they thought much of supporting that POWER which has been, and may again be, TERRIBLY OPPRESSIVE!" 0 True, Doctor; there lies the difficulty. It is not the PENCE but the POWER that alarms us. And since the legislature of this State passed an act no longer ago than last September to continue a tax of FOUR PENCE a year upon the Baptists in every parish where they live as an acknowledgement of the POWER that they have long assumed over us in religious affairs, which we know has often been TERRIBLY OPPRESSIVE, how can we be blamed for refusing to pay that acknowledgement; especially when it is considered that it is evident to us that God never allowed any civil state upon earth to impose religious taxes but that he declared his vengeance against those in Israel who presumed to use force in such affairs, 1 S am. iii, 16, 34; Micah iii, 5, 12. Rulers, ministers, and people ought to improve all their influence in their several stations to promote and support true religion by Gospel means and methods, but as the teaching the fear of God by the pre§ Chandler's appeal, pp. 107, 108. " Chauncy's answer, pp. 193, 194.

360

Isaac Backus

cepts of men, brought confusion and ruin upon the Jewish nation — Isai. xxix, 13, 21 — it surely is of infinite importance that every lover of our dear country be in earnest to have it saved from such iniquity, and from such ruin. I S A A C BACKUS.

Middleboro, August 28, 1778. At the annual meeting of the Baptist churches, called The Warren Association, at Leicester, September 8, 1778, the foregoing observations and remarks drawn up by our beloved agent [Backus] were distinctly read and considered, and the elders and brethren present unanimously desired him to publish the same with all convenient speed, especially for the reasons following, viz., As we knew that our former sufferings would have been greater than they were if it had not been for restraints from Britain, when we saw that the Congress was like to have the highest place of civil power over us we sent our agent to Philadelphia to endeavor to procure some influence from thence in our favor. And being favored with a meeting of the Baptist Philadelphia Association, they chose a large committee to assist us. And a conference was requested and obtained in the evening of October 14, 1774, with the honored delegates to Congress from this State before a number of gentlemen, to whom it was declared that if the country [i. e., the county towns outside Boston] might but have the liberty which Boston has long enjoyed, we asked no more. And some days after, said committee obtained a promise from said delegates that they would use their influence to have the liberty enjoyed by Boston diffused through our whole State. Yet we have since been accused repeatedly of acting the part of enemies to our country only for being in earnest to have that liberty established. And we now solemnly declare for ourselves and believe we safely may for the whole 120 Baptist churches in New England, that we want nothing more in this respect than to have what the before-named Dr. Chauncy says is their principle concerning religious liberty established in fact and reduced to practice. We therefore freely refer it to the impartial public whether our insisting upon this point be the clamor of selfish, turbulent, and disappointed men, who ought to be suppressed or whether that character does not belong to the opposers thereof? Signed by order of the Association, By

JOB SEAMANS,

Moderator Clerk.

E L I J A H CODDING,

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

361

Many talk so plausibly about religious liberty that our good friends who have not had sensible experience or a contrary practice can hardly believe that a religious establishment by human laws is so evil and dangerous as it really is. This makes a recital of a few plain facts highly proper at this time in order to prevent such evils for the future. Many of the Baptists in this State have long been convinced, that a giving in the annual certificates required by the ruling party as the condition of our exemption from TAXES to their ministers contains an implicit acknowledgement of a power assumed by man which in reality belongs only to God. And in our Appeal to the Public, printed in Boston five years ago, we have given the particular reasons why we cannot in conscience perform that condition. Yet only because we have refused to wrong our consciences in that respect our people, in various places have been taxed from year to year to pedobaptist ministers. And I am credibly informed that the towns of Lancaster and Ashby have voted this year that distress shall be made for such taxes upon the Baptists therein who refuse a compliance with that condition. And another town has violated religious and civil rights to a much more surprising degree. Pepperell, in the county of Middlesex, has had a name for religion and regularity and for an uncommon zeal in the defence of our country against foreign invaders. But their attachment to their ecclesiastical establishment by human laws has betrayed them into the following extravagances, viz., Because Mr. Daniel Davis, who had some acquaintance with the Baptists before he removed into that town, requested Mr. Samuel Fletcher of Chelmsford to come and preach at his house, and he, by a letter, had appointed a meeting there on March 19, 1778, his letter was broke open as it came into Pepperell after a town meeting, and Mr. Nehemiah Hubbard, their town clerk, and one of their selectmen, was for calling a vote whether he should preach there or not. And as some asked who this preacher was, Mr. Hubbard said, he is old Timothy Fletcher's son, the fox-hunter's son, etc. Such behavior caused Dr. Ephraim Lawrence to remind them of what was once said about the carpenters son, and so prevented a vote upon it. And Mr. Fletcher came and preached according to appointment. And at Dr. Lawrence's request he came again and preached at his house on March 27th. But in the time of worship the house was assaulted by many inhabitants of the town, some of whom were their leading men. And one Temple, a traveler, was sent in to break up the meeting, who spake out repeatedly for that purpose till he

362·

Isaac Backus

was turned out of the house. And then they went to an adjacent tavern from whence a scurrilous letter was wrote to the preacher which, by advice he burnt. Soon after another was sent directed thus, "To Samuel Fletcher, now in Pepperell." Wherein they say, W e should be glad that you will not come into town ever again upon such an errand, and you may rely upon your being treated with opposition and scorn. Don't, upon your peril, come into town again on such an errand as it will certainly be opposed, as ever such doctrine is delivered again in Pepperell, as we are united and desire no Baptists in town. This for your interest. March 2 7 , 1 7 7 8 . It is acquiesced in by all friends to freedom and unitedness.

This I copied from the original letter. Other threatenings were given out for the same purpose, though Mr. Fletcher was not deterred thereby from preaching again in that town in May. And on June 25, Mr. Isaiah Parker, pastor of the Baptist church in Harvard, came with him and preached there. The next morning they met again, when the aforesaid Mr. Davis, Mr. Simeon Shattuck and his wife, and three single young persons gave a satisfying account of God's dealings with their souls in order for baptism. In the afternoon they met by a river side, for preaching and the administration of that ordinance upon lands that three of them were heirs to which at present is improved by their mother, Mrs. Lydia Wright. After prayer and singing Mr. Fletcher read a text and began his sermon just as Lieut. Col. Henry Woods, Capt. Nathaniel Laken, Cornet Simon Gilson, Lieut. Jonas Varnum, Captain Jeremiah Shattuck, the before-named Mr. Hubbard, and a great number of their followers came up, some of whom were armed with clubs and poles and forbid our friends either to preach or baptize anywhere within the limits of Pepperell. Upon this breach of the peace Mrs. Wright spake to those disturbers and ordered them to depart from off her lands, but they refused to go. Mr. Parker desired that they would act like men if they would not like Christians, and reminded them of the liberty of conscience which all Protestants, and even the King of Britain allowed, and mentioned sundry Scriptures to prove the divine warrant for such liberty. But Cornet Gilson said, Don't quote Scripture here! These men had newly approved of the constitution of government which was framed for us last winter, which Mr. Parker told them they had now broken. All this could not silence their clamor, but in open contempt of our

GOVERNMENT AND LIBERTY DESCRIBED

363

religious sentiments, some of them took a dog into the river and plunged him. And further to enrage the populace the odious name Tory was cast upon Mr. Davis, and when he attempted to answer to that slander, Capt. Laken (a church member and one of their committee of safety) said, Hold your tongue or I will beat your teeth down your throat! Hereupon Dr. Lawrence invited our injured friends to his house, and in an enclosure by his door Mr. Fletcher finished his sermon, though not without much noise and disturbance from the opposite party. And while Mr. Parker was at prayer after sermon, John Green, junior, and Joshua Blood, who stood near him, made open disturbance though Mr. Parker says that from a sense of their safety under the divine protection he blessed God that there were none to make them afraid. Upon which (as others testify) one of them said aloud in prayer time, That is a d—d lie! After which some of those officers with a bowl of liquor hired Abraham Boynton and Jeremiah Lawrence to go into a river that was near, where Boynton dipped Lawrence and then asked him if he believed. And upon saying he did not, he plunged him again, if not a third time. And as if all this was not enough, two dogs were carried into the water in the presence of the aforenamed leaders of the town and as they were put under water Mr. Hubbard said aloud, There is one dipped! There is another, etc. with laughter and insult among the multitude. But lest all this should not deter our friends from their purpose Col. Woods, Capt. Laken, and Mr. Hubbard came into Dr. Lawrence's house and when Mr. Parker asked them whether they would protect the Baptists in obeying Christ in baptism or whether they would act at the head of their molesters? they refused a direct answer but, calling for Mr. Fletcher out of another room, they informed these ministers that they appeared there in behalf of the majority of the town of Pepperell who were against having any Baptist preaching or baptizing therein. And therefore they advised said ministers immediately to depart out of the town, for their own safety. Do you mean, said Mr. Parker, that our lives will be in danger if we do not thus depart? This question they would not answer though Mr. Parker told them he should take that to be their meaning if they did not explain it otherwise. After other discourse Mr. Parker addressed them in this manner, viz., I appeal to your consciences in the presence of God before whom we must all appear hereafter, whether you have come

364

Isaac Backus

up against us in the Spirit of Christ and his disciples or in the temper of the persecuting Jews against them! To this they made no answer but soon left the house. Whereupon our friends privately agreed to disperse and by different ways to draw together to a distant place of water. Which was effected in such manner that those six persons were decently baptized notwithstanding the arrival of some mockers before it was over. And as they were returning to our friend Shattuck's house they were met by Col. Woods and his followers who shook their whips over them and struck some of the company. And after their entrance into our said friend's house, many surrounded it declaring they would have those Baptist preachers out of town that night. Yet as they prayed and sang praises to God the mob dispersed, and they rested there quietly and returned home safely the next day according to their purpose. A narrative of these transactions was laid before our association at Leicester on the 9th instant, and upon consideration thereof it was judged to be expedient that I should visit those injured friends and collect as exact an account as I could of the true state of the most material of those facts and to lay the same before the public. For though far less glaring breaches of the peace in such respects have heretofore been punished by authority in the southern parts of this State, yet we had no certainty that these would meet with like treatment. For there were not only a principal part of Pepperell concerned therein, but Col. Woods was one of our law-givers last year, and many others of them are greatly afraid of losing their legislative power over us in religious affairs, which according to their own principles depends entirely upon their continuing to be the majority of this State. The author of their election sermon two years ago says, "The law of self-preservation will always justify opposing a cruel and tyrannical imposition — except where opposition is attended with greater evils than submission, which is frequently the case, where a few are oppressed by a large and powerful majority. This (says he) shows the reason why the primitive Christians did not oppose the cruel persecutions that were inflicted upon them by the heathen magistrates. They were few compared with the heathen world, and for them to have attempted to resist their enemies by force, it would, without a miracle have brought upon them inevitable ruin and destruction.1' According to which opinion Christ would have ordered t West's Election sermon at Boston, May ag, 1776, p. 19.

GOVERNMENT

A N D LIBERTY

DESCRIBED

365

the use of force in the first erecting of his Church in the world if he had not been so unhappy as to begin the work at a time when the heathen idols had a more powerful party than he had. But since the Baptists worship a Savior who always has had the most powerful party and since he has taught them that the reason why he forbid the use of force in religion is because his kingdom is not of this world, they expect, according to his word, to overcome all their accusers by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and think it their duty to attend upon the use of those means for that end. Indeed, we apprehend that we have the same right to have our persons and properties protected by authority as our neighbors have, but party influence has denied it to us, in many instances. Three Baptists in Chelmsford were imprisoned above five years ago for ministerial taxes, and after bonding the value of above an hundred silver dollars, the Court at Charlestown gave judgment in their favor. Yet the assessors who taxed them contrary to law soon had all their expenses paid by their town while the Baptists have had neither expenses nor damages paid them to this time as they assured me this week. Who then can blame us for appealing to the impartial public against such oppressions? I have been to Pepperell where I preached twice and baptized two persons without molestation. And from the best light I could gain from many witnesses the above state of facts is not exaggerated in any one circumstance, which is published to prevent the like for the future. ISAAC BACKUS.

Boston, September 19, 1778.

PAMPHLET

7

POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY BOSTON,

1779

W E E K S A F T E R Samuel Stillman delivered the election sermon in 1779, the Massachusetts General Assembly voted to call a constitutional convention which would meet in Boston in September and to which each town was allowed to elect delegates. On August 13, Backus published this tract as "Agent for the Baptists in this State." The purpose of the tract was to persuade the delegates to the constitution that if they properly understood Scripture and believed what John Locke said in his Letters Concerning Toleration, they would know "that it is out of their power to bring their old ecclesiastical laws into our new constitution of government." Backus also took this occasion to answer some of the attacks which had been made upon his Government and Liberty Described. The first of these attacks, signed "Hieronymous" (who may well have been Robert Treat Paine), appeared in the Boston Gazette on November 2, 1778, the second on December 28, 1778, and three others by the same author followed early in 1779. Backus answered in the same newspaper on December 14, 1778, and on February 22, 1779. This was the beginning of an extensive and vigorous debate over the next two years in the Boston press regarding all aspects of a religious establishment and of separation of church and state. Backus wrote five letters; Samuel Stillman, using the pseudonym "Milton," wrote four. Several of the best letters against an establishment were written under the name "Philanthropos" by a man who appears to have been a New Light Congregationalist. The Rev. Samuel West of Dartmouth wrote some of the most cogent letters in support of an establishment under the pseudonym "Irenaeus." While some of the attacks on Backus and the Baptists were scurrilous and spiteful, the debate on the whole took place on a very high plane. No one interested in the important issues of separation in America can afford to overlook these long and carefully reasoned letters. In this and subsequent tracts Backus recapitulated most of his side of the newspaper debate. He refers here to two of the letters by "Hieronymous" who said that Backus had impudently and ignorantly abused Chauncy and Payson by claiming that they supported an establishment which favored the Congregationalists and which persecuted the Baptists. "Hieronymous" rightly pointed out that the Congregational churches were nowhere mentioned by name in Massachusetts' ecclesiastical laws, and he asserted that legally a member of any denomination might become a parish minister if the majority of a church and parish voted for him: "I am not able to find anything that has the appearance of an establishment, in our laws," he wrote. THREE

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

369

"All the various denominations of Protestants are treated alike . . . no men are deemed heretics except Papists and Atheists." As for Backus' argument that "it is impious" for the civil magistrate to usurp the power of Christ by punishing those who do not do their duty in supporting religious worship, this argument, said "Hieronymous," would lead us "to abolish all civil authority" on the grounds that we can leave all moral duty up to Christ to enforce or punish. Since evidence was not wanting that many persons became Baptists for the purpose of "saving their rates," "Hieronymous" considered Backus and the Baptists mere hypocrites: "It is highly probable that if they were the prevailing party, their favorite doctrine would be forgotten." Policy As Well As Honesty is significant for Backus' insistence that he believed as strongly as the Standing clergy that Massachusetts should be a Christian state: "religion is as necessary for the well-being of human society as salt is to preserve from putrefcation or as light is to direct our way and guard against enemies, confusion, and misery." Nor did he come to the defense of Papists and atheists. Yet he insisted that religion and the state prosper best when religious support is entirely voluntary. The argument throughout the debate centered almost wholly on religious taxation. "Hieronymous" said that even the Baptists did not question the law requiring every person "to attend divine service" at some place of public worship: "I believe even this pastor of a church in Middleboro will not be hardy enough" to deny the validity of this. And Backus did not deny it explicitly, though he maintained that the state would be better off "if all their ecclesiastical laws were disannulled." He marshalled typology, history, and "sensible experience" to drive this argument home. Students of Roger Williams will find interesting the comparison of his typological arguments on behalf of voluntarism with those of Backus. But it will be noted that Backus dared not use the "irreligious" state of Rhode Island to justify the beneficent results of disestablishment.

P O L I C Y , / A S W E L L A S / H O N E S T Y , / F O R B I D S T H E USE O F / S E C U L A R IN/RELIGIOUS

FORCE/

AFFAIRS./

MASSACHUSETTS-STATE : /BOSTON

Sold by/PHiLLip FREEMAN, in

: Printed by

D R A P E R and F O L S O M , and Union-Street./M,DCC,LXXIX.

The wisdom that is from above is first pure then peaceable, gentle, and, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy, James ni, 1 7 . The necessity of a well-regulated government in civil states is acknowledged by all, and the importance and benefit of true Christianity in order thereto is no less certain. For the great Author of it assures us that his disciples are the salt of the earth and the light of the world, Matt, v, 13, 14. That is, his religion is as necessary for the well-being of human society as salt is to preserve from putrefaction or as light is to direct our way and to guard against enemies, confusion, and misery. This is evident because first, the universal rule of equity enjoined by our Lord has the most natural and effectual tendency to promote extensive union of any means in the world. And both our friends and our enemies know that our salvation and welfare as a people greatly depends thereupon. Second, his precepts plainly require the yielding to all their dues, faithfulness in every station, benevolence to all, and the working ill to none. Third, a regard to all these things is enforced with the certain promises of his help and blessings for time and eternity to those who please him, and with as sure declarations of tribulation and wrath, distress and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil. And who can help seeing that these things are as necessary to the welfare of society as salt and light are for our bodies? But if so, why have such quarrels and oppressions, such deceit and cruelty, been practiced for many ages under the Christian name? The answer in general must be because many mistakes and corrupt principles have been covered with that lovely name, for which the following are not the least: 1. A conceit that religion gives the subjects of it a right of dominion over the persons and properties of others. Which is as contrary to the laws of Christ as darkness to light; 0 and is the evil that all contention comes from, Prov. xiii, 10. This moved such as called themselves Christians in Europe to claim the property of infidels [the Indians] in America, from the poison whereof we are not yet thoroughly purged, 9

Matt,

χ, 1 1 - 1 4 ;

Luke x, 5 - 1 1 ;

1

Cor. x, 32;

1

Pet.

ii, 13,

372·

Isaac

Backus

2. Instead of holding fast THE FORM of sound words which requires our supreme regard to God and the loving of our neighbor as ourselves, men have invented A FORM of Godliness to cover self-love with, under which they have been false accusers and fierce despisers of those that are good, 2 Tim. i, 13 and iii, 1-5. Under this mask one generation after another have cast the reproach of their own wickedness upon others and have made a prey of such as have departed from their evils, Isai, lix, 15. And what less than this has been done to the Baptists for above two hundred years? It is most evident that the mad actions at Munster in 1533 proceeded from a conceit that the sword was then consecrated to the Christian cause so that those who had got it into their hands were to enforce their religious sentiments thereby. Which conceit never was admitted by any Baptist church that we know of either in Britain or America. Yet the ruling parties in both countries have held that evil fast while they have not only reproached the Baptists with the scandals it has produced but also have often made a prey of them for departing therefrom. 3. By these means partiality has been established by law, and men have been empowered to give away the money and to judge the causes of such as they were interested against. Testimonies against this iniquity have not only been given by dissenters from the established worship in this country but also by some of the greatest men among the Congregationalists though little regard was paid thereto. In 1656 the town of Ipswich imposed a tax upon all the inhabitants for a minister's settlement for which distress was made. Whereupon one of their greatest rulers [Samuel Symonds] proved from the first principles of government that representatives have no right to give away any money but only for the good of the whole community, and that the taking of it away from one person or party and giving it to another was TYRANNY.1· And one of their chief ministers, who had been attached thereto till he saw the same measures meted to them again by the tyrant Andros, was so much enlightened thereby as to see that a man has a right to all his temporal enjoyments before he becomes a Christian which he is so far from losing by embracing Christianity [just] because he does not happen to be of the uppermost party that he said, "For an uppermost party of Christians to punish men in their temporal enjoyments because they differ from them in some religious opinions or with an t Mass. history, vol, III, pp. 291-309. Baptist hist., pp. 310-312.

POLICY

AS W E L L

AS HONESTY

373

exclusion from the temporal enjoyments which would justly belong to them is a ROBBERY." * And in the year 1700 he plainly proved that Christ has given the right of choosing all church officers to the brethren in each particular church. From whence he asserted that it would be siMONicAL to affirm that this sacred privilege may be purchased with money.5 And the town of Boston, where he was a minister, procured a special act of the assembly, to exempt them from this simony which has been imposed upon the country ever since. If any inquire how tyranny, simony, and robbery came to be introduced and to be practiced so long, under the Christian name, the answer is plain from the word of truth. It was by deceitful reasonings from the hand-writings which Christ blotted out and nailed to his cross, Col. ii, 8, 14. In those writings direction was given to Israel to seize the lands and goods of heathens, to make slaves of them, and in other respects, to make a visible distinction in their dealing betwixt their own brethren and all others. A high priest was also set up at the head of their worship who, with his family, were to have the whole direction thereof and at whose sentence unclean persons were to be excluded from their camp, unclean houses pulled down and removed, and who had power to turn even a king out of the temple. And who can describe all the superstition, blind-devotion, and church-tyranny that have been brought in by deceitful reasonings from thence! Whereas the New Testament plainly shows that the church of Israel was typical of the elect among all nations, their literal enemies types of the saints' spiritual foes, and the gain they made of them figurative of the advantages believers receive from tribulations and persecutions, that their priesthood were types of Christ and his saints, and officers are never called priests in the New Testament, in distinction from other believers. And in these and a great number of other instances the comparing of type and antitype together is very instructive and edifying, but the invention of officers, orders, and ceremonies in the Christian church to answer to those of the Jews, yea, and to exceed them, as the Christian privileges were to be the greatest, is the very way that mystery Babylon was built; which mystery is ever to be known by these two infallible marks. 1. By not holding THE HEAD, even the ONE LAWGIVER, in whom the church is COMPLETE but imposing ordinances upon her after the docÎ Dr. Increase Mather's life, p. 59. § His vindication of gospel order, pp. 67, 68.

374

Isaac Backus

trines and commandments of men which have a show but not the reality of wisdom, Col. ii, 10, 19; James iv, 12. 2. By not allowing each believer to act as he has been taught but others puffed up with a fleshly mind, assume the power to judge for them in religious matters, Col. ii, 7, 16-18. And can any religious establishment by human laws be found without at least these marks of the beast and the number of his name, which is the number of a man. In the typical state of the church the number six, whether in weeks, months or years, was descriptive of seasons of fatigue and labor, and the seventh of each were resting times. So the beast can get no further than the toiling number whether it be in units, tens, or hundreds. But those who had gotten the victory over the beast and over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, were seen by John in his vision standing upon the sea of glass, singing the song of Moses and of the Lamb, Rev. xiii, 18 and XV, 2, 3. Now as the pure word of God is compared to glass, 2 Cor. iii, 18; James i, 23-25, does not this vision represent the rest and joy that believers will find upon their getting victory over all the inventions of men when they shall stand and act entirely upon divine truth which is as clear as crystal and enforced by divine influence compared to fire? Jer. xxiii, 29; Rev. iv, 5, 6. And is it not strictly true to say that the whole of the late ecclesiastical laws of this province were commandments of men which empowered the ruling party to judge for the rest in religious affairs and to enforce that judgment with the sword. There has been so much of real Christianity in this country from its first plantation as greatly to check and restrain the poisonous influence of this partiality, but the nature of it is never the better for that. So far from it that while some are trying to cover themselves with all the good things that have been among us, and from thence are denying that they have oppressed any, others are catching at those evils to shield themselves against the truth. Many in the State of Rhode Island bolster themselves up in an irreligious way, by the stories they have heard of the injustice and cruelty which the Massachusetts and Connecticuts did to their fathers under a religious mask, while that very irreligion is often recurred to as a prevailing argument for a religious partiality in these other States. And though we have great cause of thankfulness for the light to distinguish things more clearly which has lately been granted and that our honored rulers have discovered so much of a regard to equal

POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY

375

religious liberty, yet lest the same should be fully allowed, I hear that some plead that if rulers have no right to establish any way of religious worship for its own sake, they have a right to do it for the good of civil society. The import of which plea, in my view, is just this, viz., That because religion is a means of great good to human society therefore rulers ought to improve their power to destroy the means in order to accomplish the end! For the whole of religion is to fear God and keep HIS commandments, with a realizing view that HE will bring every work into judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or evil. And the teaching of his fear by the precepts of men is the direct way to confusion and ruin, Eccl. xii, 13, 14; Isai. xxix, 13-21. God has expressly armed the magistrate with the sword to punish such as work ill to their neighbors, and his faithfulness in that work and our obedience to such authority, is enforced by those great motives, Rom. xiii, 1-10; 1 Tim. ii, 2, 3. But it is evident that the sword is excluded from the kingdom of the Redeemer and that he gave this as a sufficient proof why it did not interfere with the government of civil states, John xviii, 36. And it is impossible to blend church and state together without violating our Lord's commands to both. His command to the church is, Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. His command to the state is, Let both grow together until the harvest, 1 Cor. v, 13; Matt, xiii, 30, 38-43. But it has appeared for these thousand years that pure Gospel discipline in the church is very little if at all known in state establishments of religion and that instead of letting conformists thereto, and dissenters therefrom, grow together or enjoy equal worldly privileges, the sword has been employed to root up, and to prepare war against all such as put not into the mouths of the established teachers who are the means of upholding such rulers as pervert all equity, Jer. v, 31; Micah iii, 5-11. It is now well known among us that the having of temporal property in our own power so as not to have it taken away without our consent is the turning point of all civil freedom. And it is evident from the above passages and many others, that the arming any to take it away with the sword, under a religious mask, is the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. The celebrated Bishop of Gloucester wrote a volume about forty years ago wholly upon this argument, that rulers ought to keep up a religious establishment for the good of civil society. He owns that the church was originally such a society distinct from, and inde-

376

Isaac Backus

pendent of, the state, but denies her being complete without an alliance therewith. Which is a plain mark of the beast, as I have before proved. The motives that he says the magistrate has for taking the church into alliance are to preserve the essence and purity of religion, to apply its influence for the good of the state, and to prevent the mischief it might otherwise occasion thereto. To prove that the magistrate should be concerned to preserve the purity of religion he says, "Observing truth is acting as things really are; he who acts as things really are must gain his end; all disappointment proceeding from acting as things really are not." * Very well. But does he prove that the cause of truth will be promoted by the alliance he pleads for? No, he is so far from proving that point that upon another turn of his discourse he flatly denies it. And, in order to prove that his scheme did not interfere with the right of private judgment he positively asserts that for rulers to establish any religion because it is the truth is unjust as they have no right to judge for others in such matters and also it is absurd to suppose such an end could be attained thereby, as the established religion all the world over will be the magistrates. That is, says he, "For one place where the true religion is established, the false will be established in a thousand." t And when he was told of this absurdity, he had no better way to answer it than by saying, "I mean a legitimate policy that ever pursues common utility." Of which it seems he did not suppose there was above one in a thousand. Neither can his scheme admit of so much as that, for in the same page he says, "The supreme magistrate is acknowledged head of the religion." * And as Christ is the only head of the true church, and those rulers that are nursing fathers thereto bow down to the authority he has established therein, they who set themselves up as heads of any religion are guilty of whoredom from whence no legitimate offspring can ever proceed, Isai. xlix, 23; Rev. xviii, 3. Mr. Locke says, "A church is a free and voluntary society. Nobody is born a member of any church, otherwise the religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, and everyone would hold his faith by the same tenure he does his lands, than which nothing can be imagined more absurd." 8 Yet in reality this imagination lies at the bottom of all this " Warburton's alliance between church and state, 3rd ed., pp. 90-92. t Pp. 248, 249.

i P. 97·

§ On toleration, p. 17.

POLICY AS W E L L AS HONESTY

2)77

controversy. By deceitful reasonings from the Jewish hand writings men have been brought to imagine themselves to be born members of the Christian church and therefore have had the token of membership put upon them in their infancy, and from thence hold that the same power which defends their lands should support their religion." And they have no better color for accusing the Baptists of extreme rigidness and of disobedience to authority than because they cannot in conscience give their assent to these two points. As for those who say that religion would soon fail from among us and human learning also if force was not used to support ministers let them consider that those who have a form but deny the power of Godliness are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH and that they creep into houses instead of going in uprightly, 2 Tim. iii, 5-7. It is most certain that Christianity was founded upon the TRUTH and that it prevailed gloriously for three centuries by the power of it without the help of the sword. And that deceit and amazing ignorance followed the introduction of the sword to support ministers. And the town of Boston have found equal religious liberty to be so friendly to human learning that for these thirty years past they have been chiefly beholden for ministers to distant colleges where such liberty is enjoyed, to the neglect of the mercenary sons of Cambridge though within sight of their own doors. Many of whom by reading other men's works to country parishes have got settled in the ministry after which the people have been compelled to support them from year to year, let them be ever so little edified by them. Is not this a creeping into houses? And though such are apt to turn a deaf ear to all the remonstrances of Scripture and reason, yet perhaps the following facts may convince them that it is out of their power to bring their old ecclesiastical laws into our new constitution of government. I. They have lost much of the religious influence which first introduced that scheme into this country. Governor Winthrop, a father to that cause, was a man of eminent piety and devotion and of such self-denial as to sell an estate in England of above six hundred pound sterling a year much of which he spent in promoting a religious settlement here where, for all his vast pains and services in the government, he had scarce a sixth part of that income for his salary. A like religious influence appeared in many other of their rulers. And where can that party now find such ministers to enforce their laws as the " Baptist history, p. 483.

37$

Isaac Backus

famous Cotton, Hooker, Norton, Mitchell, and others were? Yet with all that help their establishment was so weak when it was fifty years old that one of their greatest ministers compared it to a small boat, and only one Baptist society in the colony to the ballast of a great ship which would sink it.* π. The influence of religion is now against them. The two capital points of purity and liberty that our fathers came to this country for are that none should be received to full communion without a credible profession of regeneration, and that a particular church thus constituted in the highest religious judicature upon earth to whom councils are only advisory. But thirty-nine years after Boston was settled, a number of ministers assisted in forming a church there in open separation from the first church in the town because the new inventions of the half-way covenant was excluded therefrom. 1 And the apostasy prevailed so fast, for thirty years, as to move Dr. Increase Mather to declare that if it should do so for thirty years more the most conscientious people in New England would think themselves concerned to gather churches out of churches.5 It was then become a matter of dispute whether any church was entitled to the protection of the laws if she refused to be controlled in the choice of ministers by other ministers and the parish. And forty-four years after, that question was decided in the negative when, because the first church in Canterbury refused to receive the minister they had provided for her, a separate church was formed in the place,* and said minister was ordained over it, and no better encouragement was given to the first church by the ordaining council than only the use of their influence with the legislature of the colony that said church might obtain all legal religious privileges whenever they desired it. t And because they did not desire any new incorporation from the state but only protection from injuries, their goods were spoiled and their persons imprisoned for fifteen years to support a minister they never chose and had no more relief afforded to them either by ministers or civil officers than the priest and levite gave to the man that fell among thieves. Conscientious people in other places waited a year after Canterbury church was thus stripped of all legal privileges and then began to t Baptist history, pp. 494, 544. t Ibid., pp. 388, 405. § Vindication of gospel order, p. 12. 0 A like separation was made at Middleboro the same year. t Fish's examiner examined, p. 76.

POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY

379

gather churches out of churches in imitation of the first churches of this country.1 And though their ministers have often been reproached with the name of lay-teachers, yet we can prove, that their ordinations were derived, in a direct line of succession from the Baptist minister that Dr. Mather helped to ordain in Boston in 1 7 1 8 . 2 And now within these ten years it has plainly appeared by their own publications that the ministers who are most earnest to keep up their ecclesiastical laws are against requiring a profession of regeneration in order for full communion and that they hold that when a minister is settled in any parish the court must compel them to support him until he, or other ministers, consent to his dismission even though the church should convict him of scandalous immoralities.5 Which has cooled the zeal of multitudes for those laws, and sundry of their most capable ministers now appear against them. Six years ago one of them said to Connecticut legislature, "The affairs of the state are the proper province of civil rulers; as to the Church of Christ, be content to let it stand upon its own proper Gospel foundation, regulated by its own laws, and guarded and enforced by its own sanctions. On this foundation she has stood in her best days; on this foundation she can yet stand, and must stand and live forever. And though she may appear weak and feeble and ready to fall, yet the interposition of worldly power to establish her, and civil policy to defend her will only jostle her foundations, and sink her the lower." β Which sentiments he confirms by the writings of Dr. Watts and others. HI. Sensible experience is against those laws. Under our first charter earnest attempts were made to establish the government of the church over the world, and under the second to establish the power of the world over the church. But the effects of both have been so pernicious that many cannot bear to hear of them and have made bitter complaints against me for publishing some of them to the world. But if it be a crime in me to publish them what must it be in those who committed them! And will any now plead for a practice either under the name of religion or of doing good to human society that will not bear the light! Canterbury, Plainfield, and Ashfield after using violent methods to support their ministers have been constrained to dismiss Î This is mentioned to silence their cavils and not because our authority depends upon a local line of succession. § Baptist hist., pp. 109, 110. See Bolton case. " Election sermon at Hartford, May 13, 1773, by Mr. Wetmore of Stratford, p. 21.

380

Isaac Backus

each of them and to come down to a friendly way of treating their neighbors whom they had injured thereby, and in sundry instances to confess their faults to them. And among the many hundred instances of making distress for ministers' support in our day, I have not heard of one but what has caused some conviction of the impolicy, if not the impiety, of that practice. Therefore, IV. If it is continued among us, it must be by naked violence. It has heretofore been covered with good words and fair speeches, but we now know that it is founded in partiality and caused divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of ChristAnd he commands us all to mark and avoid such teachers as we would escape his curse, Rom. xvi, 17, 18; Gal. i, 9; 2 John x, 1 1 . Those who blend church and state together usually violate Christ's commands to both. His command to the church is, Put away from yourselves that wicked person. His command to the state is, Let both grow together until the harvest, 1 Cor. v, 13; Matt, xiii, 30, 38-41. But pure Gospel discipline has been very little known in state establishments of religion, where conformists and dissenters have been so far from being allowed to grow together in the enjoyment of equal civil privileges that the sword has often been employed to root up and to prepare war against those who put not into the mouths of the established teachers, while such teachers have been the means of upholding rulers in perverting all equity, and so of bringing ruin instead of good to the state, J er. ν, 3 1 ; Micah iv, 5-12. The Episcopalians covered their pleas for having bishops established in America with many plausible pretences, but their wisdom failed them. For in the midst of those pleas they have owned that a bill for that purpose had almost got through the Parliament when Queen Anne died, which was defeated thereby. And that though their party have been watching ever since they never could find such another favorable opportunity till now in 1767.* And those who are versed in the history of the nation know that the liberties thereof were in eminent danger when the said Queen died which never were in so great danger since till the scheme was invented to tax America, upon which it seems, bishops were to have been sent over. To prevent which Dr. Chauncy plainly denied that any state had a right to make religious establishments. And though they tried to defend that right, yet in reply to it he said, "The religion of Jesus has suft Baptist hist., pp. 3 3 3 , 388, 524; Appendix p. 1 1 . t Chandler's appeal, pp. 50-54.

POLICY

AS

WELL

AS

HONESTY

381

fered more from the exercise of this pretended right than from all other causes put together, and it is with me past all doubt that it will never be restored to its primitive purity, simplicity, and glory until religious establishments are so brought down as το BE NO MORE." 5 These are the words of the minister who has written the most for these forty years to uphold the establishment we complain of, of any man upon earth. And when I mentioned his first denial of that right last fall, a writer appeared in the Boston Gazette of November 2, and charged me with ignorance for calling their ecclesiastical laws, an establishment, and with impudence and abuse for writing against them. And on December 28, he said, "In our laws, which relate to the settlement and support of ministers, I am not able to find anything that has the appearance of establishment. All the various denominations of Protestants are treated alike — all Protestants are therefore in the view of our laws,* EQUALLY orthodox." Now as our legislature have constantly called those laws an establishment for these eightyseven years, they are involved with me in this charge of ignorance, and as the party they were made for refused to own the truth in that respect it seems that our honored representatives thought it high time to discard such learning and to appoint a minister to preach to them who was in truth a friend to the liberty others made false pretense of. True wisdom is therefore so far from favoring those laws that the folly of fools has been now made use of to uphold them, Prov. xiv, 8. And can they stand upon such a bottom! Men have three things to be concerned for, namely, soul, body, and estate. The two latter belong to the magistrate's jurisdiction, the other does not. There is a learned profession suited to each of these interests, yet every man and every woman have long been allowed that liberty about physicians and lawyers that has been denied them about soul guides. And can my dear countrymen any longer suffer officers to do that out of their province which they dare not do in it! As no man can have a right to judge for others in soul affairs, so they never could convey such a right to their representatives. Therefore all the taxes to support religious worship and judgments in such cases that have been among us were a taxing of us where we were not represented and imposing judges upon us who were interested against us. Which measures God has again meted to this country in I Chauncy's reply to Chandler's defence, 1770, pp. 144, 145. * A more glaring falsehood could not be uttered than this.

382

Isaac Backus

a most terrible manner. Self-love, under the specious name of government and a concern for the public good, has moved and now moves the Britons to act towards us like incarnate devils. And self-love in this country, by sinking our public credit, has exposed us to greater danger than all their fleets and armies could do. The sword, directed by wise counsels, has been the grand means of our defense against those invaders, and infidels must see that an invisible power has turned the scale in those matters one way and the other from time to time, entirely out of the reach of human foresight. And how strong is the argument from hence for faithfulness in all rulers to the trust reposed in them, and faithfulness in their constituents to support them therein? yea, and for faithfulness also in ministers and people toward each other as they will answer therefore to the Judge of all. It was before proved that the use of the sword against such as work ill to their neighbors is expressly warranted by the New Testament. And the time when it is to be laid aside is plainly marked out in the prophecies, namely, when the knowledge of God shall have such extensive influence that there shall be none to hurt or destroy or even to make us afraid, Isai. xi, 9; Micah iv, 1-4. In the meantime the Redeemer has excluded the sword from his kingdom, which he gives as the reason why it does not interfere with the government of worldly states, John xviii, 36. And how can any be true ministers of his kingdom who cannot be content with all the support that his laws and influence will give them! Although the comfortable support of religious ministers is most expressly required both in the Old and New Testaments, yet the use of force to collect it, and against those who have testified against that practice, has produced such effects in all ages as none have been willing to own. But the Judge cannot be deceived by their deceitful coverings and tells us all what will become of those who allow of such deeds against plain light to the contrary, Matt, xxiii, 29-33; Luke xi, 46-52. Rulers, ministers, and people have now a fair opportunity given them to turn from and quit themselves of those evils, and I cannot but hope they will improve it. Eight years ago self-love, under a religious pretense, had such influence in our legislature that we had no way left to save our friends in Ashfield from being robbed of their lands but by an appeal to Britain. And if that evil should be engrafted into our new plan of government we should have no constitutional remedy against it left upon earth. For the Congress refuse to be

POLICY AS WELL AS HONESTY

383

judges of such matters. W e know that Tories had then the chief management of those deceitful and cruel proceedings against us, and also that the king and council did not give relief in that case from a regard to equal religious liberty (which they deny at home) but for other ends. Therefore we have joined as heartily in the general defense of our country as any denomination therein, and I have a better opinion of my countrymen than to think the majority of them will now agree to deny us liberty of conscience. ISAAC BACKUS,

Agent for the Baptists in this State. Middleboro, August 13, 1779.

PAMPHLET

8

AN APPEAL TO THE BOSTON,

1780

PEOPLE

to the Massachusetts constitutional convention assembled in Cambridge on September 1, 1779. Of the 293 elected, only five are known to have been Baptists. But one of these, Elder Noah Alden of Bellingham, was a close friend of Backus and had asked Backus to provide him with his ideas for a bill of rights to be prefixed to the new constitution (see Appendix Three). In addition, Backus had been one of those chosen by the town of Middleboro to draft instructions to its delegates, and he had succeeded in committing them to oppose the incorporation of the ecclesiastical laws into it. The convention appointed Noah Alden chairman of a committee of seven to draft a suitable article on religion for the constitution. On November 10, 1779, this article, the third in the Declaration of Rights, was adopted by the convention. It was not entirely consistent with Article Two, drafted by John Adams, which stated that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience" for Article Three explicitly required the legislature to "authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." This article invested the legislature with the authority "to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend." Article Three did not, however, maintain the established position of the Congregational churches but instead permitted the majority of the inhabitants in any town or parish to elect a man of any recognized sect as its official minister. Furthermore it stated that "all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers [ministers] aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instruction he attends." Thus even in a parish where a Congregationalist was chosen as the official minister the religious taxes paid by dissenters were to go to the minister of their own church, if they had one. T H E DELEGATES

But the final clause in Article Three seemed inconsistent with this system of general religious taxation which, in most parishes, still left the

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

387

Congregational majority in a favored position. It stated that "no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." Article Two, while seemingly broad, actually was concerned only with freedom of belief and worship. Article Three made it clear that compulsory religious taxation could still be the law of the land and minority sects would still be subject to discrimination if not persecution. As soon as Backus and the Grievance Committee learned of this article, they met and agreed to publish it in the Boston Independent Chronicle together with their objections to it. In this letter, published on November 16, Backus stated, "I understand that the advocates for the above article evaded all the arguments which were brought from the perfect and scriptural nature of Christ's kingdom with pretenses that the article had no concern with that kingdom but only with the good of the civil state." Yet, he said, "the article gives rulers the power of compelling people to attend and support the public worship of God; yea, and to support Protestant teachers of piety and religion; and if this is to be done without the kingdom of Christ, where are we got to?" Backus' hope that the convention would reconsider the article and revise or delete it before adjournment proved false. When the convention adjourned and sent its finished draft to the towns for ratification, on March 2, 1780, Article Three was still there as originally drafted. Consequently the Grievance Committee had to transfer its efforts to convincing the voters to reject this article. In addition to letters to the newspapers, Backus wrote An Appeal to the People on April 6, 1780, and saw to it that it was widely distributed. His arguments against the measure are clear and simple. He considered the new ecclesiastical system created by Article Three a major departure from the previous one, and generally much worse. In the first place it embedded the establishment in the constitution where it would be extremely difficult to uproot it. In the second place it did away with the exemption of Baptists and Quakers from religious taxes and subjected all inhabitants to them — though it did provide that the taxes of dissenters were to be turned over to their own ministers if they attended their services regularly. But now the burden rested entirely with the individual to prove that his dissent was bona fide, and it was not at all clear how he might have his taxes transferred to his minister if the town treasurer denied his claim. Nor was it clear whether the hated certificate system would still be required for the purpose of correctly identifying bona fide dissenters. It certainly appeared so. Backus did not, however, make clear in his attacks upon Article Three the extent to which it embodied, from the viewpoint of the Standing Order,

388

Isaac Backus

considerable concessions to the dissenters. Among other things it eliminated the old requirement that a minister had to be examined by the neighboring Standing ministers as to his orthodoxy, ability, and learning before he could be ordained. It also excluded the church members from exercising a concurrent voice in the choice or dismissal of a minister, so that theoretically a church of Congregationalists in any parish might find itself with a Baptist minister if the majority of the parish voted it (though this potential did not become clear until the famous Dedham Case in 1820). In essence Article Three set up a general assessment system for the support of Protestantism very similar to the one which Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Washington were to support in Virginia a few years later. The fact that Massachusetts narrowly adopted this system in 1780 while Virginia narrowly defeated it in 1785 indicates that New England was not so different from the other colonies in its approach to the redefinition of an establishment at this juncture in its history.

AN/APPEAL/TO

THE/PEOPLE/OF

AGAINST/ARBITRARY

THE/MASSACHUSETTS

STATE,/

POWER./

Every one that doeth evil, hateth the light — But he that/doeth truth cometh to the light./jESus CHRIST./ Deliver me from the oppression of man; so will

I

keep thy/PRECEPTS.

KING

DAVID./

BOSTON ¡/Printed and Sold by B E N J A M I N E D E S and SONS, in State-/Street: Sold also by P H I L I P F R E E M A N , in Union-Street./M,DCC,Lxxx.

Friends and Countrymen, A cause is now to be tried before you which is of infinite and eternal importance to us all, and can I be reasonably blamed for addressing you upon it since I am publicly called to act for many thousands in the affair? The cause I refer to turns upon this point, viz., Whether TRUTH and EQUITY, or P A R T I A L I T Y and HYPOCRISY shall constitute the future government of this State? I am far from supposing that you would adopt the latter under these names or when you viewed them in their true nature and effects. The divine law was violated by our first mother under a view of its being good and pleasant so to do, and the empire of iniquity ever since has been carried on by calling evil good and good evil, by putting darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And the inspired apostle says, I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. And he earnestly calls us to mark those who cause divisions and offences contrary to his doctrine under good words and fair speeches, 2 Cor. xi, 3; Rom. xvi, 17, 18. And the case to be tried by you is who this mark belongs to, and whether it shall now be put upon the right persons or not? One of the greatest historians of New England exerted all his art to fix it upon the first Baptists therein.* And the ruling party in this State, have now made a like attempt to fix it upon me and upon the communities [the Baptists] I am connected with. And you are all called upon to approve or disapprove of this attempt [this new constitution] , and if you suffer a wrong judgment to proceed when you can prevent it, you cannot be guiltless therein. Upon this great cause you are to judge according to law and evidence, and my business is to open the case before you as clearly as I can. Now you are to note that Christ himself came on purpose to make divisions upon earth; therefore it is not all divisions but only such as are contrary to his doctrine that are condemned. And a first and capital article of his doctrine is that H E IS HEAD OVER A L L THINGS TO T H E CHURCH, and that she is complete in him, Eph. i, 21, 22; Col. ii, 10. ° Magnolia, book 7, p. 9. Baptist history, p. 109.

AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE

391

And those are to be marked as deceivers who do not thus hold THE Col. ii, 19-23. Another article in his doctrine is that no man can see his kingdom nor have right to any power therein without regeneration, John i, 12, 13 and iii, 3. And the first man that offered money as a means of obtaining power therein is marked with an eternal brand of infamy, Acts viii, 19, 23. A third article is that the whole of our duty is included in love to GOD and love to our neighbor, Matt, vii, 12 and xxii, 37-40. A fourth is that the civil magistrate's power is limited to the last of these and that his sword is to punish none but such as work ill to their neighbors, Rom. xiii, 1-10; 1 Pet. ii, 13, 14. A fifth is that those who receive instruction and benefit from Christ's ministers are required freely to communicate, according to their ability, to their temporal support as they will answer it to him in the great day, Luke χ, 7-12; 1 Cor. ix, 4-14; Gal. vi, 6, 7. A sixth is that none should hear nor give countenance to any teachers who bring not Christ's doctrine but pervert his Gospel, as they would avoid partaking in their guilt, Prov. x, 27; Mark iv, 24; 2 John x, 11. These are plain points of law. The facts and evidence that you are called to judge upon are as follow. The doctrine that New England was founded upon was that "the merits of saints might as well be mingled with the merits of Christ for the saving of the Church, as the laws of men with her laws, for the ruling and guiding of it." Which doctrine was violated fifteen years after when the legislature at Boston determined to mix their laws with Christ's laws about worship and to compel every man in the colony to swear allegiance to that power or to be punished at their discretion. And for testifying against such power and such oaths they banished the first Baptist minister in America out of their jurisdiction.1· 1 And to prevent the like evils for the future our churches sent me to Philadelphia when the first [Continental] Congress was sitting, to improve the best means we could to promote impartial liberty among ourselves, seeing we were equally concerned in exertions against foreign invaders. This attempt was plainly encouraged by the seventeenth resolve of the county of Suffolk wherein they promised to pay all due respect and submission to such measures as the Congress should recommend "for the restoration and establishment of our just rights, civil and religious." It was not then known here that they would refuse to be judges of religious controversies. These resolves I carried

HEAD,

t Baptist history, pp. 31, 62-70, 156, 157.

392

Isaac Backus

with me to that city where a promise was obtained from our delegates in Congress that they would improve their influence toward diffusing the religious liberty that has long been enjoyed in Boston into the remotest parts of this State. But this was so far from being fulfilled that some, if not all, of those gentlemen accused us in the convention last fall of acting an unfriendly part towards our country, for making the attempt which procured that promise. Therefore, in the Independent Chronicle of December 2, [1779,] I gave a narrative of these affairs, and challenged them to a fair hearing thereon. But instead of any such thing, that accusation is repeated in said paper of February 10, to which other horrid ones are added by one who styles himself "a member of the convention," without intending the public should know his name. And all this, my countrymen, is to persuade you to swallow down the third article which, after a very hard struggle, they have inserted in the Bill of Rights that they would lay as the foundation of our future government. Which article is pregnant with the following evil. First. It asserts a right in the people of this State to make and execute laws about the worship of God, directly contrary to the truth which assures us that we have but ONE LAWGIVER in such affairs, Isai. xxxiii, 22; James iv, 12. Second. They who framed this article are so far from holding THE of the church, and from allowing her to be complete in him, that they do not name either Christ or his Church in all their account of the worship of God and the choice and support of religious teachers.2 So that good and happiness are the fine names under which you are urged to receive instructions "in piety, religion and morality," without any regard to our only Mediator, or to her who is presented as a chaste virgin to him, 2 Cor. xi, 2. HEAD

Third. This article is so partial that it would empower the majority in every town and parish to covenant for the rest with religious ministers and to compel every man therein to support the parish minister if the money paid was not required for others. And no man could require it nor minister receive it with a good conscience who believed this way to be unjust, and there are thousands [of such] in this State, of various denominations. Fourth. If this article should be established, our case would be incomparably worse than it has ever yet been. For first, our former laws about worship proceeded entirely from the mistakes and errors

AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE

393

of the legislators and not at all from our charters, but this article would make them an essential part of our constitution. Secondly, we had formerly a legal way of appeal from the unjust acts and sentences of the ruling sect here which was a great restraint upon them. But the plan they have now laid is to have that restraint entirely taken off. Thirdly, this plan is to empower legislators, who are elected by money qualifications, if they do but bear the Christian name (which the Church of Rome does as well as others) to compel all to attend and support what they shall call the worship of God, and what a door this would open upon us you ought to consider. Fourthly, the advocates for this power have already threatened revenge upon us for opposing it, if they can ever get it established. And in the meantime they have exhibited a specimen thereof to the world. For a former legislator headed a mob the June before last and violently broke up a peaceable meeting for divine worship, only because it was in a way different from the judgment of his party.3 And because I published an account of it he said in open town meeting, "I know how I will get my recompense of him if ever I come across him!" * Yet he was so far from receiving any punishment for all this that he has been employed in forming the plan of government that is now offered to you. Another member of the convention was so much inflamed by the forenamed accusations against us last fall that he went home and procured the imprisonment of two of my brethren on the very day that I answered those accusations. And two more of my hearers were fined for refusing to assist in seizing the bodies of their friends for a tax to a minister they had dissented from and had declared they could not in conscience support. And they have since been taxed to him again, and are daily exposed to imprisonment therefor. And our oppressors in their publications of February 10, have accused my brethren in the convention of being such monsters as "even to rake open the ashes of the dead." They say, "No man would betake himself to declaiming and reviling who had any solid arguments to support his cause." I readily grant that such a practice indicates a bad temper or a bad cause or both. So far we are agreed. But the dispute is about which party have discovered this black mark. In this publication they have raked up the German Anabaptists whom they represent as "pleading conscience for lying with each other's wives, and for murdering their peaceable Î Independent Chronicle of Dec. 3, 1778.

394

Isaac Backus

neighbors." To whom they add, "the covetous Pharisees — Mahomet and the Jesuits"; and the writer then says, "the above account appears to me to contain a full answer to what Mr. Backus has published," excepting what concerns the particular gentleman I named. Here therefore, my dear countrymen, you have a very plain case to judge upon. Our opponents call that good which we call evil. And the great Judge of all says, Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light — but he that doeth truth cometh to the light, John iii, 20, 21. And you are called to judge betwixt us upon this great point. Each of us profess to plead for the cause of truth and equity, as it concerns your welfare as well as ours, and if you should give a wrong judgment upon it, none can say how great and pernicious the effects will be to us all, and to all succeeding generations, even till time shall be no more, yea, to all eternity. Never was there so fair an opportunity offered to any people since the rise of Antichrist as you now have to assert your own rights and to cast off tyranny. One character of those who have a form but deny the power of Godliness is that they are false accusers. Another is that they are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, 2 Tim. iii, 1-7. And since it is certain that Christianity was founded upon the truth and that the power of it conquered the Roman Empire do they not deny the power of it who hold that it would soon be lost from among us if force was not used to support it? I concur with them that religion has been the life of New England. But I am so far from thinking that human laws about religious worship have been our life that I know they have been most deadly things to us, and that if the power of Godliness had not been above them and had not prevailed against them, we should all have been ruined long ago. Plagues from God ever have followed, and ever will follow, those who add to his laws about worship, Rev. xxii, 18. This was the practice and the portion of the Pharisees, Mahomet, the Jesuits, and the mad men of Munster, and can you be so much deceived as to continue that practice among us because the advocates for it cast those hateful names upon those who oppose it! They do not come so near to the light as the Pharisees did, for when they taught God's fear by the precepts of men, they made a man an offender for a word, Isai. xxix, 13, 21; Matt. XV, 9. But our accusers have not done so much as this. Since I was first called to act as agent for the Baptists in this State, we have published four books, besides a number of papers, against the use of secular force in religious affairs which are now to be had in

A N APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE

395

Boston, yet when in behalf of our churches I challenged our accusers in the convention to a fair and open hearing, they have been so far from it as to call the covetous Pharisees, Mahomet, the Jesuits, and the German Anabaptists upon us and have added thereto an enormity that but few tyrants were ever guilty of. And all this without producing so much as a single word from all our writings to prove their charges against us. And in Mr. Gill's paper 4 of March 9, [1780,] they call those who oppose said article, "a certain junto, composed of disguised tories, British emissaries, profane and licentious deists, avaricious worldlings, disaffected sectaries, and furious blind bigots." And you must remember that they tell you plainly that if they could have found any better arguments than these to support their cause, they would gladly have used them. Instead of raking open the ashes of the dead we earnestly requested our countrymen seven years ago to bury some of their bones which appeared above ground.5 This our opponents were so far from consenting to that they dragged a carcass into the convention to defile the worship of GOD with, Ezek. xliii, 7-9. Upon which one of my brethren turned the covering a little off from it, which is what they mean by their bitter exclamation. That is, they denied that their fathers ever persecuted any in this country, and he recited a few acts of their courts to prove that they did. The sentence of Solomon may give light in this case, χ Kings iii, 27. For our opponents are so much for dividing the living child that they would have religious teachers settled and supported in the name of this State, who should administer ordinances in the name of Christ. But those women never thought of disputing about which was the living child and which not, as our adversaries do. For after the head of their form was cut clear off, they contend for power to put another head to it and for the people to give life to such a monster as being essentially necessary to the good of the State, Rev. xiii, 15-18. The image there spoken of is undoubtedly a form of Godliness invented and supported by the power of man. In Luther's time it received a great wound by the sword of truth which state policy has since healed. But now when its head has been cut clean off, our accusers are in earnest to have the people put another head thereon so that the teachers who were settled in the name of King George might be supported by a name that then had no existence. All this noise proceeds from no better cause than our insisting upon § Appeal to the public, p. 61.

396

Isaac Backus

impartiality in our future government. We lately proved that the greatest minister in Boston eighty years ago, who was then President of Harvard College [Increase Mather] called the practice we oppose SIMONY AND ROBBERY.* And the special act which was then made in favor of this town shows that the legislators meant to abridge the country of the liberty Boston would not part with. And I challenge all our opponents to prove, if they can, that we have ever desired any other religious liberty, than to have this partiality entirely removed. And such light in these matters has now been obtained in all parts of this State and among gentlemen of all denominations that those who will yet plead for having the sword put into the hands of any to prepare war against such as put not into their teachers' mouths are welcome to all the honor or advantage they can ever obtain thereby. I close with requesting my dear countrymen well to consider what GOD says of those who fasted and asked of him the ordinances of justice while they refused to let the oppressed go free, Isai. Iviii, 1-12 and lix, 1-20. And since he has so remarkably saved us from the galleys and gallant ships that were sent against us from the islands, Isai. xxxiii, 20-22, have we not reason to hope that HIS FEAR will soon become so great in the west as to return again with glorious effects upon those who dwell towards the rising of the sun? ISAAC BACKUS,

Agent for the Baptist Churches in this State, by advice of their Committee. Boston, April 6, 1780. " Discourse on policy and honesty, p . 6 .

PAMPHLET

g

TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL BOSTON,

I781

that Article Three of the proposed Massachusetts constitution was not technically approved by two-thirds of the voters, as the convention had required, it was declared ratified in June, 1780, by those who counted, and juggled, the votes. The Baptists thus saw their golden opportunity to obtain religious liberty defeated. The Warren Association instructed Backus to draw up another protest against Article Three in the vain hope that the legislature might refuse to approve the work of the convention. This petition and remonstrance listed five reasons why Article Three should not be ratified: First, because "this Article would give the majority of each town and parish the exclusive right of covenanting for the rest with religious teachers and so of excluding the minority from the liberty of choosing for themselves in that respect." Second, because "the power [of choosing ministers] is given entirely into the hands of men who vote only by virtue of money qualifications without any regard to the church of Christ." Third, because "said Article contradicts itself" by guaranteeing religious equality and yet letting a majority dictate to the minority. Fourth, because "the civil power is called to judge whether persons can conveniently and conscientiously attend upon any teaching within their reach." And fifth, because the legislature is "empowered to compel both civil and religious societies to make what they shall judge to be suitable provision for religious teachers" where this is not done voluntarily. DESPITE THE FACT

The General Assembly ignored the petition and on October 25, 1780, declared the new constitution to be the fundamental law of the state. In the election sermon that fall, the Rev. Samuel Cooper, a Standing minister in Boston, tried to reassure the dissenters that Article Three would not cause them any hardships: "We may rely that the present government will do all it fairly can, by authority and example . . . where conscience is pleaded." In April, 1781, Backus wrote Truth Is Great and Will Prevail to assert the Baptists' continued opposition to Article Three and to answer some attacks which had been made upon them for their opposition. In particular he wished to refute the charges of the Rev. James Chandler, Standing minister in Rowley, who said he had heard that a group of Baptists had voted at a convention that if Article Three were not eliminated "they would help no more in the war." Backus denied the charge and accused a disaffected and disorderly Baptist in Chelmsford of having spread this rumor because he had been censured for promoting schism among the

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

399

Baptists: "Some would have us look to Britain for help against these oppressors; but we have no idea of any such thing." This tract itself is not one of Backus' better efforts. It rambles from its initial criticism of "all those who set up their reason above divine revelation" in asserting man's free will, to another attack upon Charles Chauncy's Anninianism and hypocrisy, to a discussion of a Baptist controversy in Chelmsford, to a comparison of the Pilgrims and the Puritans, to an elaboration of his newspaper dispute with "Spectator" over an alleged certificate written by Backus in 1780, to a recapitulation of An Appeal to the Public; and it concludes with the insistence that though the Baptists had lost their fight to abolish religious taxation, nevertheless God's Truth would in the end prevail. Backus was, however, obviously despondent over the failure of his decade of work and upset by the "crafty and bitter pieces in ten different newspapers . . . published against me." Nevertheless the tract provided several very interesting insights into the religious situation in Massachusetts at that time. It revealed, for example, that the Baptists shared the increasing hostility of the country dwellers to the city dwellers: Article Three was promoted mainly by the "chief teachers and lawyers" of Boston, and "the country" would never "have adopted it if Boston, with her deceitful arts, had not taken part therein." It revealed his increasing animosity toward Unitarians like Charles Chauncy and Samuel Cooper who had now added "to their partiality in human laws" Arminian heresies which he considered "as great an instance of partiality in the Laws of God." In their support of Article Three "religion was not the good they aimed at" but clerical dominance. The tract also revealed an ambiguity toward Roman Catholicism which was typical of the times. Backus praised Roger Williams who "contended earnestly for impartial liberty for the consciences of Papists with others as to matters of worship" but only "so far as might be consistent with the safety of government and the rights of individuals." He clearly implied agreement with the tendency of all the new American state constitutions, including that of Massachusetts, to exclude any Roman Catholic from office who would not foreswear his allegiance to the Pope. And finally the tract revealed that Backus was beginning to distinguish between his Unitarian enemies within the Standing Order and those Trinitarians (now becoming as evangelical as the Separates in many respects) whom he rightly considered potential allies. He carefully singled out the Unitarians as the great perverters of Gospel-Truth and pointed out to the Trinitarian Congregationalists that in supporting the establishment they were helping to undermine Calvinism and support heresy. Although the Truth will prevail because God ordains it, Backus urged that "no man ever again . . . give his vote for any who" would subvert gospel religion —

400

Isaac Backus

clearly a call to the Baptists and Trinitarians not to vote for Unitarians. There is a glint here of the future unity of many theocratic Baptists and theocratic Congregationalists for a Christian Party in politics. The tract concluded with an appeal to God to hasten the millennial dawn, but it is a more ambivalent millennialism which Backus preached in the 1780's. Mixed with his optimism for the rising glory of America and the rapid spread of Baptist views was a more apocalyptic chiliasm reflecting the pietistic anxieties of "the critical period."

TRUTH I S GREAT, AND/WILL PREVAIL./Buy the not ./King S O L O M O N . / Speaking the T R U T H in LOVE./Apostle Sold by P H I L I P

FREEMAN,

PAUL./

in Union-Street, Boston.

TRUTH,

and sell it

This maxim has been assented to in all countries and in all ages, but the grand question has been WHAT IS TRUTH? Pilate asked it but waited not for the answer. So far from it, that the fear of man moved him to give sentence against the eternal SON OF GOD who came into our world on purpose to bear witness unto THE TRUTH. Jews and Gentiles were confederates in this hellish act, and all nations and denominations ever since have been more agreed in opposing the truth than in any other point. Yet truth prevails still. That there is one supreme BEING whose kingdom ruleth over all is the first and capital article of truth which no nation upon earth were ever able to erase entirely out of their minds. For no government could ever be established among themselves without appeals to HIM for the truth of what was asserted, and to avenge injustices and the violation of contracts and engagements. That it is the indispensable duty of every man to love his Creator and Preserver with all his faculties and powers, and to love his neighbor as himself is a truth inseparably connected with the other. For while JEHOVAH remains infinitely and unchangeably good, and we remain his offspring, our obligation to love him can never be disannulled or abated, and his command to love our neighbors as ourselves is as immutable as his perfections are. That all mankind in their natural condition are in a state of revolt from this heavenly ruler is a truth as evident as the other. What need else could there be for these appeals and restraints? The attempts that have often been made against this truth have always confirmed it and have demonstrated the corruption of the authors of those attempts. Nothing can discover a more mean and dishonest disposition than for a person to steal the property of another and then to labor to adorn and exalt himself therewith while he tries hard to sink the credit of the true owner so as to set self above him. Yet this is the very practice of all those who set up their reason above divine revelation. The writings of the greatest men in pagan countries are full of the intrigues, adulteries, thefts, and murders of their imaginary deities, which, by God's righteous judgment and from their natural tendency, have pro-

TRUTH

IS

GREAT

403

duced like abominations in their worshippers because they changed the truth of God into a lie, Rom. i, 18-32. And those who were favored with the oracles of God and yet did the same thing, thereby brought upon themselves a much greater condemnation than the others did, Rom. ii, 1-24. If so, then what advantage can it be to have those oracles? Answer, much every way. For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? The thought is to be rejected with the utmost abhorrence. Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings and mightest overcome when thou art judged, Rom. iii, 1-4. This is the exact state of the controversy. Men have assumed the judgment seat, and have arraigned the sayings of God to their bar. This practice began near the forbidden tree, Gen. iii, 1-6, and from that day to this men have been ever learning and yet, of themselves, were never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; and that because the judge is the criminal, who cannot live in that way any longer than he is kept in darkness. For whenever the authority of truth takes place in his conscience, sin revives and he dies, and his only way of relief is by faith in the perfect obedience and atoning sacrifice of our great Surety who offered himself without spot to God, Rom. vii, 1-12; Heb. ix, 14 and χ, 1-14. Unassisted reason could never go any farther in this respect than to move men to imbrue their hands in the blood of their own children by offering the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. Yet many are now guilty of stealing a finer dress for human nature from the oracles of God and then of improving the same against the authority of the book they took it from. So that instead of saying, let God be true, but every man a liar, their argument is that every man is not a liar, therefore in several points God does not speak the truth! And it is a common thing for these reasoners to claim a power for themselves which they deny to JEHOVAH, and daily to practise that under his name, which with reverence be it spoken, was never within HIS POWER to do! Num. xxiii, 19; John x, 35; 2 Tim. ii, 13; Heb. vi, 18. They often insist upon it that men cannot deserve praise for doing right nor blame for doing wrong, unless they have power within themselves to act with motive or against motive as they please. If their voluntary actions are not determined by what is within them, they say they are not free. Yet the same men are positive that God's choice of some to salvation, while he leaves the rest to perish in their sins must be determined by what he sees in them and not in himself, or else, say

404

Isaac Backus

they, he would be a respecter of persons. Thus self-determination is claimed for man but is denied to God directly in the face of Christ and the inspired apostle, Matt, xi, 26; Rom. xi, 33-36. The evident cause of this horrid impiety is a secret conceit that there is a good to be obtained which is better than truth and for which truth may be dispensed with and contradicted. Therefore, though it is impossible for God to lie or to deny himself, yet men often do it in hopes of obtaining that imaginary good. Indeed Christ calls us to deny ourselves and to take up our cross daily, but it is only that corrupt and delusive self which is set up against the revealed will of God. He requires us daily to cross our lusts and self-righteous conceits while Satan tempts us to cross the truth and the light of our own consciences. And can any rational soul hesitate a minute upon which of them is to be regarded! That all men have a power within them to act in every case as then seems best to them is a truth as fully given into by the advocates for divine sovereignty as by any freewiller on earth. Perhaps Dr. [John] Owen opened and defended the great doctrines of sovereign grace as well as any man did in the last century, and he says, "to suppose that in all things of spiritual and eternal concernment men are not determined and acted every one by his own judgment is an imagination of men who think but little of what they are, or do, or say, or write. Even those who shut their eyes against the light and follow in the herd, resolving not to inquire into any of these things, do it because they judge it best for them so to do." 0 And the greatest writer against a self-determining power in man that our age has seen, says, 'liberty is the power, opportunity, or advantage that any one has to do as he pleases or to conduct in any respect according to his pleasure." And says he, "it is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that no necessity of men's volitions that I maintain is inconsistent with this liberty." t With which I fully concur, for we can as easily put an end to our existence as we can keep from choosing what we at present view or imagine to be best. Pharaoh did so in all his attempts to hold Israel in bondage, and so he and his people did when they were glad to let Israel depart with rich treasures. And the Lord's design therein was that they might observe HIS statutes and keep HIS laws, Psal. cv, 3745. Yet how unwilling are many, even in this land of Gospel light, 0

Original of evangelical churches, p. 1 9 1 . t Edwards on the will, 3rd ed., p. 38; Appendix, p. 2.

T R U T H IS G R E A T

405

to yield their souls to this authority? Being called by our churches to act as their agent in this great affair, I have had cause to know more of the aversion of many thereto than most others have, of which take the following plain account. When a new plan of government was formed for the Massachusetts State which took in their old taxing laws for religious teachers, I was called to meet our committee at Boston upon it in February 1778. And finding that said plan was to be established or set aside by our next General Court, we drew up a petition, directed to them that it might be fixed "as a fundamental principle of our constitution that religious ministers shall be supported only by Christ's authority and not at all by assessment and secular force." This was signed by many in various parts of the State, which alarmed the ministers who were supported by tax and compulsions. And one of them, who was called to deliver the election sermon to that Assembly, said therein, "the fear and reverence of God and the terrors of eternity are the most powerful restraints upon the minds of men. Let the restraints of religion once be broken down, as they infallibly would be by leaving the subject of public worship to the humors of the multitude, and we might well defy all human wisdom and power to support and preserve order and government in the State".* And a gentleman who had been one of our legislators, hearing that some of his townsmen were going to be baptized on the 26th of June following, went at the head of a large mob and violently interrupted their worship upon their own lands.1 For which breach of the public peace he was so far from receiving any punishment that he was one of the convention that formed our present plan of government and is a member of the first legislature which has acted thereon. In September 1778, a minister of the first church in Boston [Charles Chauncy] hearing of the defeat of our army in Rhode Island, delivered a lecture before many of our rulers from the seventh of Joshua, wherein he tried hard to persuade them that one of the accursed things which caused that defeat was because a new law had not been made and enforced to help ministers about their salaries. This sermon being printed, a writer appeared in Mr. Gill's paper 2 of October 8, with a high commendation of it and declaring that the representation made therein of the case of ministers "was with that noble plainness and fidelity which are among the distinguishing characteristics of that gentleman. But, (says he) although the General } Paysoris sermon, pp. 19, 20.

4o6

Isaac Backus

Assembly has now been sitting for some time, no motion (as I can learn) has as yet been made, or is likely to be made, for this purpose. Are the clergy § then to submit to this treatment? Are they to remain subjected to injustice and fraud!" Now observe how God takes the wise in their own craftiness. Ten years before the same minister saw such danger of having his party all taxed to bishops that he said, "we are in principle against all civil establishments in religion. It does not appear to us that God has entrusted the State with a right to make religious establishments. Hath the State of England been distinguished by Heaven by any peculiar grant beyond the State in other countries? If it has, let the grant be produced. If it has not, all States have in common the same authority in establishments conformable to their own sentiments in religion; what can the consequence be but infinite damage to the cause of God and true religion! and such in fact has been the consequence of these establishments in all ages and in all places." * These, and other words of his, I, as agent for our churches, published in Mr. Willis' paper 3 the very day that the above complaint against our legislature was published by Mr. Gill in the same street in Boston, though at that time I knew nothing of the publication of said sermon. A few days after I published the unanimous vote of our churches, wherein they say, "we solemnly declare for ourselves, and believe we safely may say for the whole 120 Baptist churches in New England that we want nothing more in this respect than to have what the before-named Dr. Chauncy says is their principle concerning religious liberty, established in fact and reduced to practice." And there has never been the least degree of proof advanced since to discover any want either of consistency or of sincerity in this declaration, though the united craft and rage of learned teachers and lawyers have been vented against us therefore to an amazing degree. Crafty and bitter pieces in ten different newspapers have since been published against me by name by writers who have kept their own names concealed.* Whether this is most like to the heathen savages or to the bloody court of INQUISITION let the public judge. At length a minister of Rowley has come out and published an § The word clergy signifies heritage, and to avoid the censure of lording it over the church, officers have usurped the name to themselves. See Dr. [John] Gill on 1 Pet. ν, 3. 0 Chauncy against Chandler, 1768, p p . 152, 153. t Boston Gazette of Nov. 2 and Dec. 28, 1 7 7 8 , Jan. 18, Feb. 1, and March 8, 1770. Chronicle of Feb. 10, and Ledger of May 22, 1780. Providence Gazette, April 15, 1780. Boston Gazette, Feb. 5 and March 5, 1 7 8 1 .

TRUTH IS GREAT

40J

address, directed to the learned pastor of the First Baptist Church in Boston [Samuel Stillman] * and "to the other regular Baptist ministers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" wherein he says of our churches in general, do you, gentlemen, know this people in their several dispersions through the country, what manner of men they are? I am so acquainted with some of them and am so well informed of many more that I can tell you there are only a few, a very few of them, that appear to be serious Christians. The most of them are first Separatists from the churches in which they were educated, and that uncharitably and irreligiously and not as Baptists, and then turn out Baptists to save themselves from paying anything to the support of the Gospel where they live. They forsake our churches and parishes in such a manner as to show they pay no regard to church covenants or the most solemn contracts for the support of a pastor that has been set over them by their own consent and choice. As for their religion, I have long thought from much observation that the most serious part of it is that religion which Mr. Edwards, in his treatise on religious affections, describes as religion that is not connected with salvation. And what ministers have most of them to show unto them the way of salvation? No pastors to take the oversight of them but young, illiterate and bold itinerating preachers such as make a great noise and often rail stoutly against churches and their ministers. These disciples of yours have no church discipline; anybody is received as a brother or sister that turns Baptist and cries up your party. Besides all this, there are many round the country that are not Baptists, who yet join these your little churches. That is, they run to hear their preachers. They are advocates for the party, and all the religion they have they expend with these people. These, most of them, are among the worst men and women in our towns and plantations. The greatest haters of ministers and churches, such as usually spend the sabbath at home, neglecting the ordinary instituted means of grace. Alas! the consequence of the prevalence of this sect! They cause divisions everywhere. In the State of New Hampshire, where there are many new towns, infant settlements, if this sect get footing among them, they hinder and are like to hinder their settling and supporting learned, pious, and orthodox ministers. And so the poor inhabitants of those towns must live, who knows how long, without the ministry of the Gospel and of Gospel ordinances? You do or you may know all these things. And they being so, let me ask you a serious question or two. 1. Whose cause are you serving while you seek to promote this sect and party in opposition to the churches in the land? 2. If you encourage, if you countenance and connive at such preachers as some among your people are, are you in no danger of being partakers of other men's sins and guilty of the blood of souls? Should you ask me what evidence I have of your zeal to promote this sect or party and of countenancing these unqualified preachers? I answer, t Who anonymously has written much to good purpose for religious liberty.

4o8

Isaac Backus

beside other things (some of which we have had in print) you have had two grand Conventions (the second of them upon adjournment) within a few months past at a town in the State of New Hampshire, to serve and promote this cause. At which conventions these illiterate and unskillful preachers and delegates from your little churches around were members. And one thing I heard of as a part of your business at said conventions was to consult what measures you should take to make void in part our new constitution of government, that part of it which respects the public worship of God. And I heard that some of your people then and there declared that if they could not obtain it, they would help no more in the war. 3. Don't you think that if it should please God to revive pure religion in this land, answerable to the prayer and hope of some of his servants, this would confound your party cause as the clouds are driven before the wind? I am yours wherein ye are Christ's, J A M E S CHANDLER. §

Rowley, December 23, 1780.

This paper I received in Boston on February 13, and the same day received a little pamphlet wherein I and my brethren, in our exercise of discipline, are accused of advancing fast in a way that will soon bring us, if a stop is not put thereto, "to outking all kings, outbishop all bishops, and outpope all popes," signed by two Baptist brethren.* And whether these two parties of accusers do not fulfill the words of the inspired apostle, Acts xx, 29, 30, may be considered. It is a known fact that a minister of the First Church in Boston has, for many years, acted at the head of the teachers who are supported by tax and compulsion and has written the most to uphold that cause in New England of any man on earth. And I am greatly mistaken if both he and these Baptist accusers have not openly pleaded for the worst error that ever was known in this world, namely, that perfect obedience to the moral law is not the indispensable duty of all the human race. I meddle not with their internal state, any further than their fruits discover the same, and shall begin with said minister in Boston. After Robert Sandeman with his satirical pen had, in a convincing manner, exposed the corruption of those who imagine that reconciliation to God can take its rise from anything good in man, Dr. Chauncy published a volume of sermons in which he says, "it is said by most Christian writers that the first man was so placed, under the natural or moral law of God, as that he must work his way to life by perfectly § Mr. Gill's paper of Feb. 8, 1 7 8 1 . Ν. B. Our Convention last fall was in this State, and we know nothing of the adjournment he speaks of. 9 Remarks on a council at Chelmsford, Oct. 19, 1780, p . 1 2 .

TRUTH IS GREAT

409

doing all things commanded by it, insomuch that he could not have obtained it but by persevering obedience in every point of duty without the least failure. But this is said entirely without book. The Scripture nowhere insinuates that he was under such a covenant of works. It suggests, on the contrary, that God, in favor to him, did not put him upon so severe a trial for life. His trial, if we may believe the sacred record of it, was in a single instance, and this not of doing but of forbearing to do, Gen. ii, 16, 17. It would be the exact truth should I say that the parents of men, while innocent, in common with their posterity since the lapse, could have obtained life in no way but that of grace through faith." t I will do this writer the honor to say that he has here stated their sentiments with as much fairness and precision as any that I ever saw upon that side of the question. And the difference betwixt his ideas and mine about this matter is chiefly upon the following points: 1. He supposes that Adam was to work his way to life after he was created, but I believe that the image of God, in which he was created, was his life. 2. I know that faith in God was as necessary then for the continuance of life as it is now in Christ for the recovery thereof, but grace, in the Gospel sense of the word, means relief to the guilty and miserable in distinction from works, which innocent man was to have lived by if he had continued in that state. Debt means the reward that is promised which becomes due when the condition of it is performed. And that reward may then be claimed by law whatever difference there is in value betwixt the work and the reward. The angels of light will ever acknowledge an infinite difference between their works and the reward they receive therefor, which at the same time is as distinct from free grace to sinners as Heaven is from earth. It destroys the nature both of grace and works to confound them together, Rom. xi, 6. God never fails to pay all his debts, and sooner or later he will make all know his right to give grace and glory to whom he pleaseth, while he justly inflicts endless punishment upon impenitent sinners. How solemn and convincing is that demand, is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good! Matt, xx, 15. He is the fountain of all good, and the root of all error is a conceit that good can be had in some other way better than in obedience to his revealed will, James, i, 13-25. 3. This author supposes that perfect and persevering obedience in every point of duty required by the moral law would have been too severe a trial for t His 12 sermons, 1765, pp. 18-20.

4 io

Isaac Backus

life to innocent Adam, which in my view is so contrary to truth that a turning therefrom was his death. The forbidden tree was the test, to try whether or not he would regard God's sovereignty over all and his property in all the creatures he had made. And by taking and eating of that fruit man rebelled against H E A V E N and seized upon the earth as his own. And when our Savior came, the Jews, from the same principle, said, this is the heir, come let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance, Matt, xxi, 38. Every wise ruler will lay his plans so as to need as little alteration hereafter as may be and never to be defeated or disappointed in his designs if he can help it. Yet those who firmly hold, and boldly assert, that J E H O V A H ' S plan is absolutely perfect in all these respects so that nothing can be put to it nor anything taken from it are often looked upon and treated as the worst of men, and that because men are not willing to fear before HIM, Eccl. iii, 14. Our Savior was so far from removing or abating this fear that he greatly enforced it, and when Peter would fondly have prevented his dying for us, he rejected the attempt with the same detestation as he would have shown to the Devil himself, and also assures us that the only time for having our debts paid by him is before we are cast into prison, Matt, ν, 17-26 and xvi, 23. Nor can the conceit of those who deny the endless punishment of such as die in an impenitent state be true till rebellion against H E A V E N shall become a finite evil, so that finite doings and sufferings, either in this or another world, can purge it away. Nor, indeed, till J E H O V A H shall become a servant to perishing worms, so as to go and come at their bidding or call, Job xxi, 14, 15; Isai. xxvii, 1 1 and xliii, 24; Jer. ii, 27; Acts iv, 12; Dan. xii, 2. The case of the Baptist accusers, before mentioned, is as follows: On September 8, 1767, a number of our elders and brethren met at Warren and agreed upon an annual meeting under the name of the Warren Association, the design whereof they since published in these words, viz., "we are not insensible of the attempts that have been made by ministers in various ways to assume a classical power and jurisdiction over the churches, neither are we unaware of the evil and pernicious effects of their obtaining such a power, which therefore we desire we may always watch against. Yet as it is certain that the churches in the apostolic age did, by messengers and letters, hold a friendly correspondence with each other for mutual advice, help, and comfort, and sometimes by the meeting of many of them together for that purpose, and as we are commanded to follow after the things that make for

TRUTH IS GREAT

4II

peace and things wherewith one may edify another, we have been convinced that it is both warrantable and expedient for our churches that are so much scattered through this land and who have heretofore been so much unacquainted with each other, thus to associate together for prayer, preaching of the word, mutual advice, and endeavors to promote union and Gospel order among them and to guard against the contrary, as well as to afford what assistance we can to flocks that are destitute, weak, or oppressed." This was published in September 1771. And this plan has been so fully observed that no appeals of any personal case of discipline in any church nor complaints against any other community of Christians have ever been admitted by the Association. And it stands on record in our church book that the doing of any such thing would break the conditions that we joined them upon. They have been so far from it that when a breach of communion once happened betwixt two churches in the Association which affected others, and an attempt from thence was made to bring the case before this body, it was positively refused. And the contending parties were prevailed with to agree in calling a few judicious men to hear and labor with them upon it. And such a blessing was granted upon these means as entirely to remove the difficulty. Yet one Baptist teacher 4 has discovered some dislike to our Association for ten years past which might partly be caused by information that by this means was spread of his presuming to break bread to a minor part of a Baptist church whom the majority had censured, this information being an impediment in the way of his preaching elsewhere. His mind has also been somewhat entangled with [Robert] Sandeman's notion of exalting the atonement in such a manner as to pay little or no regard to a divine work within us, of conviction by the law, and relief by the Gospel.5 And in preaching at Chelmsford last spring he delivered such questions about the law as greatly burdened the church who heard it, though one or two members were pleased therewith, they having privately propagated such questions there for some years. When said teacher came there again in the fall the church refused to admit him to preach therein again till he should give them satisfaction. Upon this two brethren got five or six sisters to join with them in openly withdrawing from the church and setting up a separate meeting near by to hear that teacher, without stating the principles they differed upon. A council was soon after called by the church, whereof I was scribe, and when we had gone through with hearing other cases the church was desirous of laying

412

Isaac Backus

this also before us. Said teacher and brethren were present, and though they were not active in calling the council and were unwilling to submit any cause thereto as such, yet they consented to discourse with us upon these affairs. This was done for about two hours, and then we said in our result, "it appears plainly, that they hold that God the Father has given the government of the world into the hands of his Son in such a manner that none of the human race are now under the curse of the law that was given to Adam and that Christ's ministers are so far from being called to preach that law and to tell any men that they are under the curse of it that they questioned with earnestness whether so to preach is not to preach a liei Which opinion we fully believe to be contrary to the Holy Scriptures of truth and of a very dangerous and pernicious tendency to the souls of men, and therefore we earnestly call upon those brethren to retract it and warn all against it." Great relief was hereby given to the church, and two valuable men were baptized and added thereto to the next Lord's day. I gave no copies of our result to any but the churches immediately concerned, yet those two brethren who signed this publication against us say, "every Christian man's character is too sacred to be tossed about at the pleasure of everyone. For a select number from several churches to undertake to judge such cases may well alarm us to look about us and see where our privileges are going, for we think it is not hard to see what such assuming councils are aiming at. This council have excommunicated two brethren; this solemn warning is like hanging them in gibbets. But may indulgent Heaven interpose for us, seeing vain is the help of man." * How far their passions have carried them beyond the truth, is left to consideration. They had assumed the power to make a schism in that church and to write an account of it by said teacher to the pastor of another church whom they hoped to have drawn to their party before we met there in council, and we did no more to them than I have related, let them call it by what name they will. They own that they asked the question we have mentioned and also the following, viz., "if any of the human race are under the law in the same sense and upon the same conditions, as it was delivered to Adam, what will ever bring them from under it, seeing Christ dieth no more?" And they now say, "we hold that mankind are not without law to God but under law to Christ. Now the law of Christ, which mankind are now under t Remarks, pp. 4, 1 1 , 12.

TRUTH IS GREAT

413

is for substance the same which was given to Adam, namely, to love God and our neighbor, but it is not given to men, nor are men holden under it, upon the same terms and conditions as it was given to Adam." « In my view, this is so far from rightly dividing the word of truth that it is really a confounding of law and grace together. They have taken words which are peculiar to the regenerate, 1 Cor. ix, 21, and have applied them to all the human race, which, alas! is too common through the world! Our Savior plainly applies the moral law to mankind in general and says, This do, and thou shalt live, Matt, xxii, 40, compared with Luke x, 28. And no one can be actually and personally in the new covenant, so as to be under law to Christ, till the Holy Spirit puts that law into his mind, and writes it in his heart, Jer. xxxi, 33; Heb. viii, 10. And, says Dr. Owen thereon, "let this way stand, and the way of man's wisdom and self-righteousness perish forever." * Every soul is wedded to the law of do and live and is bound thereby as much as any wife is to her husband, till by the work of the Spirit in the soul she is made dead to that law, and it to her; and it is adultery to pretend to be married to the living Savior in any other way, Rom. vii, 1-12. Many years after the death of Christ the inspired apostle said, as many as are of the works of the law ARE under the curse; from which the only way of deliverance was, and is, by receiving the promise of the Spirit through faith, Gal. iii, 10-14. Till then the elect are shut up under the law and are slaves to sin and guilty fears, even as others, Gal. iii, 23, 24; 1 Eph. ii, 3. This was as really the case before the death of Christ as since; only then it was taught more obscurely, now more plainly. The bloody token of circumcision was a type of his being cut off for us and also of our being cut off from any confidence in the flesh, which great change is now openly to be declared by being buried with him in baptism, Rom. ii, 29 and vi, 1-4; Phil, iii, 3; Col. ii, 11, 12. Upon which Scriptures Mr. Edwards says, "that baptism by which the primitive converts were admitted into the church was used as an exhibition and token of their being visibly regenerated, dead to sin, and alive to God. The saintship, Godliness, and holiness of which, according to Scripture, professing Christians and visible saints do make a profession and have a visibility is not any religion and virtue that is the result of common grace or moral sincerity ( as it is called ), § Ibid., pp. 7, 9. * Owen on the 130th Psalm, p. 247.

414

Isaac Backus

but SAVING GRACE." t But for his embracing and holding this point, in opposition to the conceit of the Lord's Supper being a converting ordinance, other ministers separated him from his dear flock in Northampton in June, 1750. Just fourteen months after I was buried in baptism, in which way I am greatly confirmed since. The mercy seat was just as long and broad as the ark, in which the moral law was kept whole, and into the side of which the ceremonial law was put, Exod. xxv, 16-22; Deut. xxxi, 26, which was an eminent type of Jesus Christ, in whom mercy and truth have met together, Psal. xl, 6-8 and Ixxxv, 10, 11; Heb. χ, i - i o . Here is our only place to meet and commune with God, which instead of abating, greatly increases our obligation to keep all his commandments, only before the duty was required in order to obtain the blessing, but here the blessing is given to enable us to perform the duty. The oldness of the letter makes every defect a bar against coming; the newness of the Spirit makes the greatness of our evils and distempers a reason why we should come without delay, Psal. xxv, 11-14. The ark was to be carried upon the priest's shoulders, according to God's special direction, Num. ix, 17-23. And when two priests refused to be content with the support that his influence procured and presumed to take what they pleased from the people by force, the ark was so far from being any defense to them that they were both slain in one day and the ark was taken by the Philistines. But it proved so terrible, both to them and to their idols, that they put it into a new cart, and left it to the divine influence to carry it back to Israel again, 1 Sam. ii, 16, and vi, 7-12. Yet David paid so little regard to the right way that he set men to drive the cart as they judged best, till an awful stroke from Heaven, and divine teaching upon it, brought him into the due order, 1 Chron. xiii, 7-10, and XV, 13. And may the many strokes we have had teach us as much! Gospel order is not to eat any man's bread for naught, 2 Thess. iii, 5 10. Which rule is of equal authority upon rulers, ministers, and people. And the officer who invades the rights of any, and the people or person that refuses to receive the Gospel or to treat those well that preach it, according to their ability and opportunity, are daily exposed to punishments infinitely worse than man can inflict, and so are they who give countenance to men that pervert the Gospel, Luke x, 3-12; 1 Cor. ix, 1-14; Gal. i, 8, 9 and vi, 6, 7; 2 John x, 11. Therefore men can have no more RIGHT to judge for others in these affairs than they have POWER to answer for them at the bar of God. t On a right to sacraments,

pp. 20-23.

T R U T H IS G R E A T

415

The Gospel knows of no priests in the Christian church but Jesus Christ and the souls which are built by faith upon him by hearing his sayings and doing them. This is the church which is the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and the pillar and ground of the truth, Matt, ν, 13, 14 and vii, 24-27; 1 Tim. iii, 15; 1 Pet. ii, 5. Officers therein are never called priests in distinction from other saints. And a great historian says, "baptism was administered in the first century without the public assemblies in places appointed and prepared for the purpose and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." And of church government he says, "the people were undoubtedly the first in authority, for the apostles showed by their example that nothing of moment was to be carried on and determined without the consent of the assembly, Acts i, 15; vi, 3; xv, 4, and xxi, 22. A bishop during the first and second century, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which at that time was, generally speaking small enough to be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted not so much with the authority of a master as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant." * But he informs us that in the second century certain teachers affirmed "that Christ had established a double rule of sanctity and virtue for different orders of Christians. Of these rules the one was ordinary, the other extraordinary; the one of a lower dignity, the other more sublime." And soon after some adopted from the heathen philosophers a maxim "that it was not only lawful, but even praiseworthy, to deceive and even to use the expedient of a lie in order to advance the cause of truth and piety." In the meantime about the middle of the second century a notion was industriously propagated that Christian ministers succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. Upon which bishops considered themselves as invested with a rank and character similar to those of the Jewish high priest, while the presbyters represented the priests and the deacons the Levites. "The errors to which it gave rise were many, and one of its immediate consequences was the establishing a greater difference between the Christian pastors and their flocks than the genius of the Gospel seems to admit." § It is as evident that Abraham, as he was father of the members of the Jewish church, was a type of Christ, as that Aaron, the head of the priesthood, was so, Eph. ii, 1922; Rom. iv, 1 1 , 12. Therefore in the beginning of the third century a controversy appeared about bringing infants to baptism. Tertullian, eccl. hist., Dublin edition, vol. I, § Ibid., pp. 139, 150, 155. See Col. ii, 8-23.

% Mosheim's

pp. 70, 76, 96.

4i6

Isaac Backus

who first mentions it, opposed it, but soon after Origen said, "what is the reason that whereas the baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the usage of the church, baptized when if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them? It is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." * And Cyprian said, "it is manifest where and by whom the remission of sins, which is CONFERBED IN BAPTISM, is administered. They who are presented by the rulers of the church OBTAIN, by our prayers and imposition of hands, the HOLY GHOST." These things were said in the third century, and in the fourth, Constantine the Great appeared to profess the Christian religion and acted as head of the church for twenty-four years without paying so much regard to the authority of Christ as ever to be baptized till a few days before his death. Yet under his influence it was adopted as a maxim "that errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition were punishable with civil penalties and corporal tortures." t Thus nature and grace, law and Gospel, church and state, were confounded together, which is the very essence of mystery Babylon, who has made merchandise of slaves and souls of men and by whose sorceries all nations have been deceived, Rev. xviii, 13, 23. Her cruelties were such in all parts of Europe as to move our pious fathers to fly therefrom into this American wilderness. Those who began the settlement here in 1620, came trusting wholly upon DIVINE PROVIDENCE * without any royal grant from England to depend upon. " Clark against Gill, pp. 105, 111. t Mosheim, vol. I, pp. 236, 263, 287, 314. Î New England Chronology, pp. 3, 60. In the election sermon, Oct. 25, 1780, [by Samuel Cooper] before the first General Court of our new constitution, it is said, "upon our present INDEPENDENCE, sweet and valuable as the blessing is, we may read the inscription, 1 A M FOUND OF T H E M THAT SOUGHT M E NOT. Be it to our praise or blame, we cannot deny that when we were not searching for it, it happily found us." This is strictly true, and infinite wisdom planted the root of it when he first planted the country with a NOBLE VINE whose noble sentiments were, "that the merits of saints may as well be mingled with the merits of Christ for the saving of the church, as the laws of men with his laws, for the ruling and guiding of it." Saying to their oppressors, "since tithes and offerings were appurtenances unto the priesthood, and as the priesthood, both of Melchisedec and Levi, are abolished in Christ, as the shadow in the substance, and as the Lord hath ordained T H A T THEY WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL, SHALL LIVE OF THE GOSPEL, we willingly leave unto you both your priestly order and maintenance, contenting ourselves with the people's voluntary contribution, whether it be less or more, as a blessing of God upon our labors, the fruit of our ministry, and declaration of their love and duty." Nor could others bring Plymouth rulers into compulsive measures in such affairs till they had buried Governor Bradford and had crowded two of their seven assistants out of

TRUTH IS GREAT

417

But on March 4, 1629, the Massachusetts Company received an ample grant of a vast tract of land in America from the head of the Church of England, who took their power from the head of the Church of Rome, who received his from the old dragon, Rev. xiii, 2. The company that received said grant of lands called the Church of England "our dear mother" when they came from Europe but contended, even unto blood, against having her worship introduced into America. For which she at last revoked that grant and gave another, wherein she reserved an arbitrary power to set over us what governors she pleased and to demand as much of our property as she pleased for their support; and contentions about this point have now forced us to declare ourselves independent of her.8 In 1701 a large society was constituted in England who have expended vast sums to propagate her worship in this land, and in a sermon before that society on February 20, 1767, it was said of the first adventurers here, what reproach could be cast heavier than they deserved who, with their native soil, abandoned their native manners and religion and e'er long were found in many parts living without remembrance or knowledge of God, without any divine worship in dissolute wickedness, and the most brutal profligacy of manners? Instead of civilizing and converting barbarous infidels, as they undertook to do, they became themselves infidels and barbarians. And is it not some aggravation of their shame, that this their neglect of religion was contrary to the pretences and conditions under which they obtained royal grants and public authority? . . . The want of bishops in our colonies, besides other disadvantages attending it, appears in particular to be the fundamental cause of the want of native ministers. . . . If these things are so, we may entertain hopes that this benefit will flow to the church from our present most gracious Sovereign. . . . This point obtained, the American church will soon go out of its infant state, be able to stand upon its own legs, and without foreign help, support and spread itself. Then the business of this society will have been brought to the happy issue intended.* Thus the saying of our Lord is verified, if thine eye be evil, thy whole body is full of darkness. I f , therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! This is the case of all who do not sincerely love their brethren as themselves but hate them in their hearts though they outwardly pretend the contrary, 1 John ii, 3 - 1 1 . office; and hanging of Quakers at Boston followed, immediately upon it. Baptist History, pp. 30, 32, 319-321, 329· § Baptist history, pp. 54, 59, 519; Appendix, p. 4. 0 Bishop of Landaff's sermon before said society, pp. 6, 7, 22, 24, 25.

4i8

Isaac Backus

And it is a most glaring fact that all men who have been fond of supporting their worship by force have never been willing to change places with dissenters therefrom. And when the Most High metes the same measures to them again, they loudly complain of the injustice and tyranny of those measures. The year after Boston was planted a law was made there to exclude all from a vote in government but communicants in Congregational churches. In the year 1636 they appointed a committee of five rulers and three ministers to make a draft of laws agreeable to the word of God, to be the "fundamentals of this Commonwealth," and in the meantime ordered their executive courts "to hear and determine all causes according to the laws now established and, where there is no law, then as near the laws of God as they can." Two years after they made the first law to support religious teachers and ordinances by assessment and distress that ever was enacted in New England. It was to enable freemen to compel those who were not freemen to contribute proportionably with themselves for the upholding church ordinances, "whereof he doth or may receive benefit." Harvard College was founded that year, and one of their first class of graduates gave it as his mind that he who should deny such an exertion of power "is rather to be taught by cudgel than argument, as a denier of first principles." The first Baptist church in America was constituted at Providence the year after said law was made.* And that cause has been supported by cudgel and ours by argument ever since. And the latter is so much the strongest that the aged minister who ventures to subscribe his name to accusations against our churches, says, "alas the consequence of the prevalence of this sectl they hinder, and are like to hinder, the settling and supporting learned, pious and orthodox ministers." * And the writer of the ninth and tenth learned accusations against me by name, closeth the last of them with saying, "I must petition to conceal my real name till I am become such a salamander in the moral world that I can live no longer out of the fire." Is not this a surprising event! that "illiterate, bold itinerating preachers" should prevail so far as to vanquish all the learned teachers and lawyers in New England where religion, according to their account, has long been established by law in the best manner of any part of the world? That their skill and courage should now fail them so much that one who ventures to own t Baptist history, pp. 49, 79, 98-105. t Rev. xviii, 10, 16. They put learning before piety.

TRUTH IS GREAT

4I9

his name and place of abode, yet should be afraid to name any person or community of the accused, and he who is so bold as to name one of them, yet petitions to have his own name concealed lest he should be burnt up by them! Will not some people be apt to think that these illiterate, bold itinerating preachers are successors of some who lived above seventeen hundred years ago, against whom like complaints were made? John vii, 47-51; Psal. ii, 1-4; Acts iv, 5-22 and v, 17-40. By these accounts it appears that one great difficulty which then labored among the learned was a want of agreement among themselves about those teachers, some of them thinking it was not lawful to condemn a man before they had heard him and knew what he did. Another was that the accusers were conscious that much good was done by the accused, so that it was a very difficult thing to convince the common people that they were bad men. A third thing was that what these itinerant preachers said and did, laid great bands upon themselves, and when they inquired of their HEAD by what authority he did it and how he came by that authority, he quickly brought those learned men into such a dilemma upon that point as they knew not how to get out of but by pleading their own ignorance, Matt, xxi, 23-27. This last writer against us is so much mistaken in thinking to keep out of the fire by concealing his name that both of his publications prove him to be now in it, and that compassion is called for to pull him and his confederates out of the fire, if possible, hating the garment spotted by the flesh. In which condition are all those who have men's persons in admiration because of advantage, 1 Cor. iii, 11-15; Jude 16, 22, 23. And that this is his character is evident, for speaking of acting upon sinister views in religious matters he says, "in such instances I know that conscience would bite like a serpent and sting like an adder. And, as it is likely there are some such characters among every denomination, for my part I wish the law might be altered to the form Mr. Backus has exhibited or that the Warren Association would propose a form agreeable to their minds and the third article in our Bill of Rights, which we cannot consent to have altered or infringed upon without violating our consciences, for we have consciences as well as the Baptists and hold these rights most sacredly." The form of mine, here referred to, was only to inform strangers in a distant town of a plain fact, viz., that such a man, by name, "is a baptized member of the First Baptist Church in Middleboro." This is all that was certified by the pastor of the church, without any other name to it, or its being directed to any

420

Isaac Backus

place or person, which is as different from any certificate ever required by law in this government as Joseph's wearing his garment in his master's house was from adultery. Yet the two last publications against me are built entirely upon a supposition of its being a legal certificate, and upon this supposition it is represented in the first of them that either a new revelation or necessity had moved me "to dispense with my sacred promises and conscience." And the writer says, "I hope his laudable example will be punctually imitated by all others of the same profession." And he still pleads for this in his last publication as the only way left for the securing their rights, claimed in the third article which they hold "conscientiously and sacredly." And he says, "if the practice of giving certificates be really such an intolerable burden and unpardonable sin, why was it for so long a time punctually complied with!" In reply to him I ask, why the spirit of truth does not guide us into all truth at once? John xvi, 12, 13. When grace and truth could be promoted by circumcision, Paul complied with it, Acts xvi, 3. But when it came to be contended for in a way which obstructed that great and good end, he refused to give place by subjection, even for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with the churches, and he had no mercy to show to dissimulation, no not in Peter himself, Gal. ii, 4-14. And the word of truth shows that the victory of the church over that evil in him who pretends to be Peter's successor and his followers will be gradual, viz., over the beast and over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, which is the number of a MAN. Be it in units, tens or hundreds, it is no more than man set up in God's place, 2 Thess. ii, 3, 4; Rev. xiii, 18 and xv, 2. And that the power now contended for is of that nature, is most evident. For in the Boston Evening-Post of May 17, 1773, mention was made of their law to tax all members of the Church of England in each town, with others, which the church minister, if they had any, was to draw out of the town treasury. And then it was said, "had the same prudent precaution been taken with respect to Anabaptists when they were exempted from being taxed towards the maintenance of the ministers of the churches by law established, those avaricious and dissolute persons who get under water to wash away their ministers rates without any expectation or desire of washing away their sins, would have little or no temptation to declare themselves Anabaptists." This, with other means, brought the Warren Association in the fall after to publish

TRUTH IS GREAT

421

these five reasons why we could not in conscience obey their certificate laws any longer: 1. Because so to do would imply an acknowledgment that civil rulers have a right to set one religious sect up above another, which they have not. 2. Because they are not our representatives in religious matters, therefore so to tax us is to tax us where we are not represented. 3. Because this practice emboldens the uppermost sect to assume God's prerogative and to judge the secrets of others hearts. 4. Because the church is presented as a chaste virgin to Christ and to place her love and trust upon any others for temporal support is playing the harlot, Hos. ii, 5, and so is the way to destroy all religion. 5. Because this practice tends to envy, hypocrisy, confusion, and every evil work and so to the ruin of human society.5 No answer has ever been returned to these reasons better than railing, imprisonment, and spoiling of our goods. If said third article be compared with the amendments which the town of Boston voted to have made therein, all may see that it is the very scheme which was published in 1773, as I have related it. Neither have we any reason to think that the country would have adopted it, if Boston, with her deceitful arts, had not taken the public lead therein. Her chief teachers and lawyers have acted the part in this matter which we have described in Matt, xxiii, 3, 4. The winter after the first taxing law for ministers was made, after their second charter was received, an addition thereto was passed wherein it was said "that nothing herein contained is intended, or shall be construed to extend, to abridge the inhabitants of Boston of their accustomed way and practice, as to the choice and maintenance of their ministers." And this partiality has been established here by law for eighty-eight years. And our attempts to remove it has been the only cause of the outcry which that party have made against us for eight years past. And to their partiality in human laws a noted minister of theirs has now added as great an instance of partiality in the laws of God. In his plan of grace, promise and precepts, privileges and duties, are inseparably connected together, and to expect one without the other is to tempt him instead of trusting in him, Deut. vi, 16, 17; Matt, iv, 6, 7. And I fully concur that the following words are very applicable to the present state of this country, Jer. xxx, 20, 21. "Their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them. And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them, and I will cause § Appeal to the public, 1773, pp. 43-49.

422

Isaac Backus

him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me; for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me, saith the LORD." Yet this text was taken, with the omission of all the words here put in italics, and a very learned and polite election sermon was delivered from the other part of it on October 25, 1780, at the "commencement of the constitution, and inauguration of the new government, by SAMUEL COOPEB, D. D." He is minister of a church in Boston that is the first we know of in this government who in their first constitution expressed a dislike at our father's strictness in requiring a credible profession of saving faith of all persons that they receive to communion at the Lord's Table.* It may be of service to compare this with the address to the people of the compilers of our new constitution, to move them to receive it, p. 17. Say they, "your delegates did not conceive themselves to be vested with power to set up one denomination of Christians above another, for RELIGION must at all times be a matter between God and individuals," which is given as the reason why they refused to exclude out of our future legislature such Roman Catholics as shall "disclaim the principles which are subversive of a free government." Yet all the power contended for in their third article is put into the hands of communities who have the exclusive right in its exercise. Therefore they knew that RELIGION was not the good they aimed at therein. The first founder of the town and colony of Providence Plantations, [Roger Williams] had a plain sight of the deceitfulness of such claims and contended earnestly for impartial liberty for the consciences of Papists with others, as to matters of worship, so far as might be consistent with the safety of government and the rights of individuals and that none but spiritual weapons should be employed against mere errors in judgment of any kind. But the fathers of the Massachusetts called this liberty "dangerous principles of separation," t and vented all their skill and rage in trying to divide and conquer his little colony. And all the disorders, which by these and other means were caused therein, have been a prevailing argument for tyranny in the Massachusetts, and their tyranny has been a strong argument for the continuance 0 It [the Brattle Street Congregational Church] was constituted in 1699. t Baptist history, pp. 156, 165-171, 297, 298. His argument then was that civil rulers can have no right to any more or other power than is fairly given them by the people and that the people as such had no religious power to convey to rulers; all which is now allowed to be truth, though many are trying hard to establish a power and practice, entirely of a contrary nature. We deny Mr. Chandler's charges against our churches as to covenant breaking, and if any person or community has

TRUTH IS GREAT

423

of those disorders in the other State ever since. And how far these two parties have now been confederates in trying to crush our attempts to remove that tyranny and those disorders, I know not. Some would have us look to Britain for help against these oppressors, but we have no idea of any such thing. For their king in a speech to his new Parliament, November 2, 1780, exclaims aloud against others "boundless ambition" and urges for such preparations and exertions as, says he, "shall convince our enemies that we will not submit to receive law from any powers whatsoever." And yet before this speech arrived among us, a declaration was received from his commissioners at New York which would fain persuade us that the British Parliament have received law from America so as to give up more to us than we asked for before the war, and thereupon they earnestly invite us to return under their protection, while in the same declaration they exhort those whom they call the loyal "to persevere in their integrity for the preservation of their religion and liberties." Compare this with the Bishop of LandafFs sermon, and who can put any trust in such men? Such men as a century ago accused Dr. Owen and his friends of favoring POPERY because they refused to join in fellowship with the Church of England whose claims of arbitrary power soon after brought the nation to the brink of ruin. In answer to that accusation Dr. Owen observed that all the reformation from popery which any had attained to was built entirely upon these three principles: 1. That the Holy Scriptures are our only rule in religious matters. 2. That each rational man has an equal right to judge of their meaning for himself. 3. That all church power, and office power therein, is derived from Christ by his Word and Spirit to each particular church. That the succession of ministerial power is secured by his continuing, according to his promise, to call souls effectually by his grace and to furnish men with spiritual gifts fit for such offices as he has instituted, and making it the duty of the church to call them thereto and set them apart therein.

done so, we stand ready to do what we can to rectify it when it is properly pointed out. Government in church, as state, is founded in compact or covenant, implied or expressed, and they are equally binding upon officers and privates, to act towards each other according to the nature of the compact, as far as their ability and opportunity will admit of. And if anyone in a public or a private station could gain the whole world by making SHIPWRECK OF FAITH AND A GOOD CONSCIENCE, he would be an infinite loser by the bargain. Therefore let no man ever again attempt to deceive others or give his vote for any who evidently do so as he would escape such a shipwreck himself and also the guilt of endangering the community he belongs to thereby.

424

Isaac Backus

And says he, "those who plead for a successive ministry without respect to these things, without resolving both the authority and office of it unto them, do but erect a dead image or embrace a dead carcass instead of the living and life-giving institutions of Christ." * This was emphatically the case with New England when God was pleased remarkably to pour out his Spirit and gloriously to revive religion therein forty years ago. This Mr. Edwards in his book of five parts very plainly proved. But in answer thereto the next year Dr. Chauncy labored hard to prove that the itinerant preaching which was the chief means of that work was a thing of very bad and dangerous tendency and that the first leader therein [George Whitefield] was guilty of very rash and uncharitable judging for expressing his fears, that many, nay most of the teachers in the land did not experimentally know Jesus Christ; therefore he raked this country, and even ransacked the Church of Rome, for filthy stories to cast upon the instruments and subjects of that work. And to prove that the ministers of New England had not then lost their character, he produced Dr. Cotton Mather's testimony in their favor, who said, "no man becomes a minister in our churches till he first be a communicant, and no man becomes a communicant until he hath been severely examined about his regeneration as well as conversation." But when was it so? This testimony was published in 1696. But twelve years after it was openly preached up that the Lord's Supper was a converting ordinance, which doctrine had spread through the country before this revival began. And to guard against the increase of the Baptists in Boston in 1772, Dr. Chauncy said to the world, "the divinely appointed way in which persons become members of the visible Church of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the supposition that in order to their being so, they must be the subjects of saving faith or judged to be so." According to which opinion the fathers of New England were the uncharitable men for severely examining into that matter as much as the New Lights were for reviving that practice, or the Baptists for persevering therein, and it was an imposition upon mankind to bring that testimony, to uphold a cause that was and is contrary thereto. TRUTH and M E R C Y shine with equal luster in the glorious kingdom of the Redeemer, and to his works of this nature he appeals as his greatest witnesses against the powers of darkness, John v, 36, 37. Their united influence convey the golden oil into the church to make her the

t Original of evangelical churches, 1681, pp. 165, 291-297.

TRUTH IS GREAT

425

light of the world, Zech. iv, 2-14. These witnesses have long prophesied in sackcloth till of late it seems as if they had scarce any entrance into any administrations of civil government in the world but rather to have fallen in the streets so that he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey, Isai. lix, 14, 15. But when the spirit of life from God shall enter into them, the kingdoms of this world will soon become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his annointed, and the ark of his testament will be seen again, Rev. xi, 3-19. Then the Spirit that is upon him and the Words of his mouth shall not depart from his seed forever, Isai. lix, 19-21. The magistrate's sword is to punish none but such as work ill to their neighbors, Rom. xiii, 1 - 1 0 . And when the influence above described shall extend so far as to restrain those who would hurt and destroy, the sword will be entirely laid aside, Isai. ii, 2-5 and iv, 5, 6 and xi, 9, 10. Amen; even so, come Lord Jesus. ISAAC BACKUS.

Middleboro, April 20, 1781.

PAMPHLET

10

A DOOR OPENED FOR CHRISTIAN LIBERTY BOSTON,

1783

I N T O G L O O M by the ratification of Article Three of the new Massachusetts constitution, the Baptists published a circular letter in October 1781 exhorting their brethren to stand fast for their principles: "It is evident that our strength consists in union and perseverance in opposition to the unjust claims of our enemies . . . Oh, brethren, face them down boldly upon this point [freedom of conscience] and they cannot stand . . . Look to the great Captain of our salvation, who will not fail nor be discouraged till he has set judgment in the earth . . ." The letter concluded by urging the Baptists to continue their civil disobedience by refusing to give in certificates or to pay religious taxes, and said that if any suffered for these reasons, they should send word to the Grievance Committee which "will endeavor that the expenses which may fall upon any individuals for such refusal shall be made equal by collecting money for said purpose among the churches." It was not long before the Baptists were faced with the issue. The town of Attleboro, like other towns in Massachusetts, assumed that under the new constitution it was to lay religious taxes upon all inhabitants regardless of their denomination, and on December 20, 1780, it proceeded to do so. When the members of the Baptist church in Attleboro refused to pay, their goods were sold at auction and one of them, Elijah Balkcom, was arrested and taken off to jail. Balkcom paid his tax under protest and decided to sue the tax assessors. Backus immediately heard of the case and rallied the Baptists behind it as a means of testing the constitutionality of Article Three. Balkcom's lawyers, James Mitchell Varnum and William Bradford, argued that Article Three was inconsistent with itself, for it stated that "no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law" and yet Balkcom, a Baptist, was told by the east parish of Attleboro that if he did not provide a certificate to prove he was a dissenter, he would be taxed to pay for the support of the Congregational Church. Robert Treat Paine, attorney general of the state, arguing on behalf of the parish, insisted that the article was not inconsistent because giving a certificate was "not a subordination to any sect, but to the government ' which required it simply as a means of identifying to which denomination Balkcom belonged. When the county court, sitting in Taunton, rendered a decision for Balkcom on March 16, 1782, the Baptists were elated. The Captain of their salvation had opened a door for equal Christian liberty which the deceitful and crafty teachers and lawyers of Boston thought they had effectively shut. For if the Balkcom case was any precedent, Baptists PLUNGED

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

429

would no longer have to turn in certificates and no longer be required to pay religious taxes. The court had in effect declared that that part of Article Three requiring religious taxes upon all inhabitants, was void because it contradicted the more basic right of religious equality. Thus the courts had achieved what Backus could not — they had disestablished the churches of the Puritans.1 Backus was also heartened by the results of "the Hingham Riot" which he detailed here. Though the rioters succeeded for a long time in avoiding the suit by Richard Lee, the Baptist exhorter whom they had assaulted, they were at last forced to settle out of court or face certain conviction. The successful culmination of this event coinciding with the Balkcom decision brought new hope to the Baptist cause. "I congratulate my countrymen," Backus concluded, "upon the arrival of more agreeable times and upon the prospect of a much greater reformation before us." And then he proceeded to equate the success of the Baptist cause with that of the American Revolution and the newly signed Treaty of Paris. But it is worth noting that Backus still insisted that this millennial dawn was rising not upon a secular society with complete separation of church and state in Jeffersonian or deistic terms, but upon a Christian state in which "No man can take a seat in our legislature till he solemnly declares, Ί believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.' " Backus apparently did not see, as Jefferson and Madison would have, the danger to religious liberty implicit in an oath for officeholding which gave the state the right to determine who was or was not a Christian. It is sometimes implied that one of Thomas Jefferson's more original contributions to American political thought was his transformation of John Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and property" into "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But any perusal of the New Light tracts of the preRevolutionary era will demonstrate that for these pietists happiness was always the main end of government. Backus makes this explicit in his concluding paragraphs of this tract: "Reason and revelation agree," he wrote, that "happiness [is] the great end of government." It is not so strange, perhaps, that Baptist pietists should have been the great bulwark of the party of the deistic Thomas Jefferson. Lacking our knowledge of how deistic and anti-Calvinist Jefferson really was, the Baptists saw him as the champion of religious voluntarism against an established-church system and of decentralized democracy against an oligarchic, stratified political system. Calvinistic Baptists and deistic Jeffersonians agreed that at the moment the most important issue for the new republic was its commitment to an individualistic rather than a corporate pursuit of happiness.

A / D O O R O P E N E D / F O R E Q U A L / C H R I S T I A N LIBERTY,/AND NO MAN C A N SHUT IT./This proved by plain FACTS./ Brethren, ye have been called unto L I B E R T Y ; / only use not liberty for an occasion to the Flesh, but by/love serve one another. Gal. v. 13./ Behold, I have set before thee an open Door, and no/man can shut it. Rev. iii.8./ BOSTON ¡/Printed for the AUTHOR, and sold b y / P H I L I P F R E E M A N , at the GLOVE,/in UNION-STREET.

The return of PEACE to the nations and to this land in particular, with its circumstances and privileges, is a very great event indeed which calls loudly to all for gratitude and thankfulness to be manifested by a wise improvement of the favors granted us and a faithful discharge of duty in our several stations. And as contentions about religious liberty have caused much difficulty among ourselves, whereby our enemies hoped to have got advantage against us, it may be of public benefit to lay open the prospect we now have of their being happily terminated. The east parish in Attleboro, supposing that our laws about worship were the same as formerly, taxed and made distress upon several persons for the support of their worship who did not attend thereon. One of them thought proper to try how our laws now are in that respect and for that end sued their assessors before a justice of peace in Norton, February 22, 1782, when and where he fully proved that he had usually attended public worship with the First Baptist Church in Attleboro ever since May 1780, and had communicated to its support to their satisfaction. Yet judgment was given against him from which he appealed to the county court at Taunton. And it being a matter of great importance to have points of law well defined and settled under our new constitution of government, both parties agreed to have the case tried by the honorable justices of the court, namely, Walter Spooner, Thomas Durfee, Benjamin Williams, and William Baylies, Esquires. The counsel for the appellant were the honorable William Bradford, and James Mitchel Varnum, Esquires. For the appellees was the honorable Robert Treat Paine, Esquire, attorney general for this Commonwealth. The latter, when pleading for said parish, owned that religion must at all times be a matter between God and individuals and declared that he disclaimed all subordination of any one sect to another, but pleaded that the certificates, formerly required by law, were not tokens of subordination of one sect to another but of subordination to the government, and accused the Baptists of refusing to be subordinate to government. He also pleaded that the appellant was born in the second

432

Isaac Backus

parish of Attleboro, was baptized there, and therefore was to all intents a member of that society, so that if he thought he had cause to leave them, the law, reason, and even common civility required that he should give them notice of it, which he had not done. The chief pleas for the appellant were that BELIGION was prior to all states and kingdoms in the world and therefore could not in its nature be subject to human laws, that the certificates heretofore required were given to parish officers, officers of one particular sect, and not to officers of government, and as our constitution says, "No subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law," those laws are repealed thereby. And as the constitution was established by the people, it is stronger than any law the assembly can make, it being the foundation whereon they stand. Also the society to which the appellant joined is as regular a society as the other that taxed him. These points were learnedly discussed on March 16, 1782, after which the justices retired a little by themselves and then returned and declared, "that they were unanimously agreed in giving the appellant damages and costs." Which judgment not only settled the controversy in Attleboro but has been extensively beneficial elsewhere. As far as my memory and judgment serve me, this is a fair representation of those transactions, and if any can set them in a more just light, they are welcome to do it. And since some in Attleboro accused the Baptists of great inconsistency in protesting against the third article in our Bill of Rights and yet now making use of it against them, I shall take leave to make a few remarks upon this subject. χ. It is well known that on December 2, 1779, three months before the constitution was finished, as agent for our churches, I published that article in the Independent Chronicle with exceptions against the power claimed therein; when I declared, that I "fully concurred" with that part of it which we have now made use of, and none could tell how it would operate but by experience. 2. If natural birth and the doings of others could make a person a member of a religious society without his own consent, we should have no objection against the way of withdrawing from such a society that our opponents plead for. But since religion is ever a matter between God and individuals, how can any man become a member of a religious society without his own consent? And how can a man who believes it to be impossible practically say that it is possible without

A DOOR O P E N E D

433

contracting guilt to his conscience? This is the exact state of our controversy about religious liberty. W e have been very far from perfection in our behavior therein, but we have not been accused of disobedience to government and of disturbing the public peace because of our ever invading the rights of others but only because w e will not give up our own. It is because we have chosen sufferings rather than to sin against God. W e believe that attendance upon public worship and keeping the first day of the week holy to God are duties to be inculcated and enforced by his laws instead of the laws of men, but we have had no controversy with our rulers about that matter. The town of Boston must now look at home for a want of subordination to government in that respect. * 3. The first and most essential article in the order of Christ's kingdom is that no man can see it, nor have any right to power therein, until he is born again, John i, 12, 13; iii, 3. And the fathers of the Massachusetts government paid such a regard to this truth that during their first charter none were admitted to full communion in their churches, nor to govern in the choice and support of ministers, without a credible profession of that great change. And their excluding of all others from a vote in civil government and yet compelling of them to attend and support their worship gave the most plausible handle that the British court ever had to rob us of the stipulated privilege of choosing our own governors while they demanded our property to support governors arbitrarily set over us. And contentions upon this point was the root of the late bloody war which has cost a multitude of lives and involved both countries amazingly in debt. Yet many are still attached to the errors of our fathers while they are resolutely set against their virtues. After a glorious reformation, the First Church in Middleboro were bereaved of their beloved pastor in April 1744. The church then consisted of above an hundred male communicants, but after they had voted to hear Mr. Silvanus Conant four sabbaths upon probation the parish committee went and got another minister to supply the pulpit the same days. And a council of six ministers approved of their so doing and advised them to persist in that way. By this means the society was divided, and a pastor chosen by three quarters of the church and who proved to be one of the best ministers in the county * A law about these things was made here last fall which, after repeated meetings, is not obeyed by this town.

434

Isaac Backus

had no better place than a barn to preach in till they built a new meeting house for him. The ministers who caused that division * belonged to Scituate, Hingham, Hanover, Pembroke, and Bridgewater. And the setting up of the world to govern the church about soul guides was the evident cause of the following profane, cruel, and scandalous actions. Mr. Richard Lee, a gifted member of one of our churches, having labored with success in Scituate, was earnestly requested by a man in Hingham to come and hold a meeting at his house, which he consented to. The meeting was appointed to be in the evening of May 28, 1782, but as the people were assembling for worship, a large mob came up, armed with clubs and staves, and warned Lee and his friends to depart out of Hingham immediately, or it would be much worse for them. He inquired whether they came with any authority and finding that they did not, he, with the Bible in his hand, began to exhort the people to hear God rather than man. Upon which one of them violently seized him by his arm and collar, and others also laying hold of him, hauled him away out of the house and out of the town. When he attempted to speak and to recite passages of Scripture they repeatedly smote him on his mouth with the palms of their hands and also made loud noises to prevent his being heard. As one who had hold of him blundered down, another shook a club over his head and swore that if he flung another down he would sink Lee to Hell in a moment. He then said, "I look upon this Holy Bible to be the very best law that ever I heard of." Upon which it was spitefully struck out of his hand and stamped under foot with curses and execrations too horrid to be here repeated! When the mob had got him over the town line their captain shook a club over Lee's head and swore that if he ever came into that town again he would tie him up and whip him thirty stripes. Said our suffering brother, "that's not so much as they whipped Paul." What! d—η you, said one, do you compare yourself with Paul! A Hingham man said, Mr. Lee may go and hold a meeting at my house. But others declared that if he did, they would burn his house down and carry him out of town. One of the mob cast soft cow-dung in Lee's face, and then they insulted him because of that defilement, with a great deal more of abuse to men and blasphemy against God. Two other Baptist brethren were then hauled by violence out of Hingham, and they went and held a religious meeting in Scituate the same night. t Rom. xvi, 17.

A DOOR OPENED

435

In the above actions they tore Mr. Lee's clothes considerably and also bruised and injured his body so much that he was ill for some days, and then he returned home to Gloucester in the county of Providence. In July I met him at Scituate where we were credibly informed that his safety, and even his life, were still threatened by those rioters. We then went to Boston to ask advice, and many there as well as in the country advised him to present a complaint to the grand jury of Suffolk county against those rioters as a necessary means of securing the public peace and the liberties of mankind. This was accordingly done when the county court sat at Boston in October. Thirteen men were named in the complaint, which was supported by the testimony of eight witnesses, and a warrant was granted against five of the rioters, four of whom were taken, and pleaded not guilty before the court. Upon which their trial was appointed to be on January 14, 1783. Snow, ice, and a very sharp air caused the traveling to be exceedingly difficult, yet Mr. Lee traveled seventy miles from his house to Scituate, and, with other witnesses, twenty-three more from thence to Boston at the appointed time. But after an expensive attendance of two days, the case was put off till April. And the ill treatment he then met with made him determine not to appear there again without somebody from a distance to speak for him; and the event justified this determination. For no sooner did a lawyer from Providence appear for him in Boston on April 23, than a proposal was made to leave the whole affair to chosen men to settle it. This was agreed to, and the gentlemen appointed met upon it in Bridgewater the sixth instant. But then the defendants could not bear to have their case publicly opened, and Mr. Lee was prevailed with to settle the matter with them upon their promising to pay a sum far short of what many thought they ought to have done, so that none can justly charge him with prosecuting them out of a revengeful spirit, nor with taking all the advantages of them that the law would have given him. And their names are not omitted in this publication out of any fear of not being able fully to prove every article, but because we would expose and give proper warnings against such actions for the future without mentioning their names; and we hope and pray for their repentance and salvation. The fathers of this town and government mistook the work of civil rulers so much as to imagine that they were to inflict corporal punishments upon men as sinners against God, and not only for crimes

436

Isaac Backus

against the community.* They therefore banished several persons upon pain of death for adultery before they did any for heresy, and some were hanged here for adultery near twenty years before they hanged the Quakers. But the apostle has plainly taught the churches to put away wicked persons out of their communion and says upon it, Them that are without God judgeth, 1 Cor. v, 13. And in the parable of the tares of the field our Lord has commanded his servants to let the children of his kingdom and the children of the wicked one grow together in the world till the end of it. Which divine laws have ever been violated by all those who have confounded the government of the church and state together. On the one hand they have been deficient about if they have not wholly neglected Gospel discipline in the church, while they have ever invaded their neighbors' rights in the state, under religious pretences. And for twelve or thirteen centuries all colleges and places for superior learning were under the government of men who assumed the power to lay religious bands upon children before they could choose for themselves and to enforce the same by the sword of the magistrate all their days. But I congratulate my countrymen upon the arrival of more agreeable times, and upon the prospect of a much greater reformation before us. For the following reasons convince me that God has now set before us an open door for equal Christian liberty which no man can shut. 1. Not only America but all the kingdoms and states of Europe who have acknowledged the authority of our Congress have set their seal to this truth, that the highest civil rulers derive their power from the consent of the people and cannot stand without their support. And common people know that nothing is more contrary to the rules of honesty than for some to attempt to convey to others things which they have no right to themselves, and no one has any right to judge for others in religious affairs. 2. All former taxes to support worship were imposed in each government by a particular sect who held all others in subordination thereto, which partiality is now expressly excluded from among us. 3. No man can take a seat in our legislature till he solemnly declares, "I believe the Christian religion and have a firm persuasion of its truth." And as surely as it is true Christ is the only HEAD of his Church t In Israel God was their only lawgiver, and our fathers run into their error by attempting to form a Christian Commonwealth in imitation of the Theocracy of the Jews. These things I mention not out of disrespect to them but for our instruction.

A

DOOR O P E N E D

437

and she is COMPLETE in him, and is required to do all her acts IN HIS and all worship of a contrary nature is will worship and is only to satisfy the flesh, Col. ii, 10, 19-23; iii, 17. And all ministers who were supported by tax and compulsion among us before the late war received that power in the name of the King of Great Britain, and not King Jesus, and they are the only officers in this land that have retained the power over the people which they have received in that name. Whatever gifts and graces any of them have received from Jesus Christ let them faithfully improve the same according to his direction, but, as they would appear loyal to him or friends to their country let them renounce the holding of any earthly head to the church. NAME;

4. If this be not done, none can tell who they will have for their head. For the name Protestant is no longer to be a test of our legislators, and to persuade the people to yield thereto the compilers of the constitution said to them, "your delegates did not conceive themselves to be vested with power to set up one denomination of Christians above another, for religion must at all times be a matter between God and individuals." This is a great truth, and it proves that no man can become a member of a truly religious society without his own consent and also that no corporation that is not a religious society can have a right to govern in religious matters. Christ said, who made me a judge, or a divider over you? And Paul said, what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Luke xii, 14; 1 Cor. v, 12. Thus our Divine Lord and the great apostle of the Gentiles explicitly renounced any judicial power over the world by virtue of their religion. And to imagine that money can give any power in religious matters is the doctrine of Simon the sorcerer, and by such sorceries the whore of Babylon hath deceived all nations, Acts viii, 18, 19; Rev. xviii, 23. It was from thence that the Pope, on May 4, 1493, the year after America was first discovered, presumed to give away the lands of the heathen therein. And the same power was claimed by the crown of England in granting several charters of this country. From whence some of the states were lately contending in Congress with others, about the western lands on this continent. 5. All the power that the constitution gives our legislature in this respect is to make "suitable provision" for Christian teachers. And according to their declaration, divine revelation must determine what is suitable, and that determines that they shall live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. ix, 14. Those who under the law collected support for religious

438

Isaac Backus

teachers by force brought complete destruction upon themselves therefor, ι Sam. ii, 16, 25; Micah iii, 5-12. Christianity is a voluntary obedience to God's revealed will, and everything of a contrary nature is antichristianism. And all teachers who do not watch for souls as those who must give an account to God, and all people who do not receive and support his faithful ministers as they have opportunity and ability are daily exposed to punishments infinitely worse than men can inflict, Luke x, 3-12; Gal. vi, 6-9; Heb. xiii, 7, 17, 18. 6. Reason and revelation agree in determining that the end of civil government is the good of the governed by defending them against all such as would work ill to their neighbors and in limiting the power of rulers there. And those who invade the religious rights of others are self-condemned, which of all things is the most opposite to happiness, the great end of government, Rom. xiii, 3-10; xiv, 10-23. 7. If men will refuse to be happy themselves, yet their power to enslave others is now greatly weakened. And a faithful improvement of our privileges will weaken it more and more till there shall be no more use for swords because there shall be none to hurt or destroy in all God's holy mountain, Isai, xi, 9; Micah iv, 1-4. And who would not be in earnest for that glorious day? ISAAC BACKUS.

Boston, May 10, 1783.

PAMPHLET

11

AN ADDRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF NEW ENGLAND BOSTON,

1787

BACKUS' HIGH HOPES after the Balkcom case were dashed by another court decision, this time in the Superior Court. Frost v. Cutter concerned a Baptist in the W e s t Parish of Cambridge w h o refused to turn in a certificate or pay his religious taxes. He was imprisoned and, like Balkcom, brought suit against the tax assessors. But the Superior Court, ignoring the precedent in the Balkcom case, decided against Gershom Cutter in October, 1785. The only remedy for this was for the Baptist minister in Cambridge, Elder Thomas Green, to sue the town treasurer for the money which Cutter and his other auditors were required to pay; for while the Superior Court denied Cutter's exemption, it did not deny that Green was entitled to receive his tax as Cutter's preferred Protestant minister. Green won his case in 1785 and from then until Backus' death in 1806 the Baptists of N e w England continued either to sue the tax assessors or threaten them with suit. Most parishes thereafter left the Baptists off the tax lists provided that they turned in certificates (it seemed easier to revert to this old practice than to follow that in Article Three). Backus, of course, was disheartened by this closing of the door of liberty, but short of obtaining an amendment to the constitution, the Baptists henceforth had no choice. Backus wrote no more tracts on church and state though he continued, as agent for the Baptists, to help Baptists who suffered under the system. As late as 1801 he was handling cases of Baptists who were being distrained and imprisoned for failure to turn in certificates or whose certificates were considered invalid by the tax assessors. Backus' diary for the 1780's reveals his alternating moods of optimism and pessimism for the future of the new nation, especially after the false dawn of the Balkcom Case. For him this decade was indeed "the critical period," and in his diary he frequently lamented the economic and political disorders which shook N e w England and threatened it with ruin. In December 1783 he wrote "the great men of the earth crowded in their fine wares upon us, which all ranks of people in America were fond of buying, to our unspeakable damage, in the sinking of public credit and the most extravagant gratification of pride, intemperance, fraud, and cruel oppression." T h e cruel oppression was mainly upon the creditors and debtors, most of whom were Revolutionary veterans and farmers. W h e n the legislature voted to raise taxes in order to pay off the state's war debts, these farmers found themselves oppressed by the state. By December of 1786, Backus was writing in his diary that only an "extensive reformation" or religious revival "can save our country from ruin. For the people are so uneasy with our present government that they forcibly prevented the

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

441

courts of common pleas from sitting in Hampshire County on August 29, at Worcester September 5, and at Concord, Taunton, and in Berkshire, September 12. Upon which our General Court was called together, and heard various complaints of the people and published an answer thereto, dated November 14, 1786." The answer of the General Court to the complaints of Shays and his rebels is quoted by Backus in An Address to the Inhabitants of New England. W h y Backus felt called upon in March 1787 to publish his endorsement of the General Court's apology is not clear. Obviously he was an opponent of paper money and believed that the inability of the poor to pay their debts was largely the result of their own immoral and improvident desire to purchase the luxuries and "gew-gaws" which British merchants had nefariously dumped into the new republic after the peace. Whether the Baptists were more sympathetic with the rebels than were other religious denominations no one knows. That many of them were sympathetic to Shays is beyond question. Several Baptist ministers were dismissed for failing to sympathize with the rebellion, and petitions for the pardon of Shays and Shattuck contain the names of many Baptists. On the surface Backus' tract seems to have been inspired simply by his desire to lend his moral weight to the side of law and order. T o him the economic crisis was a manifestation of God's displeasure and man's sinfulness which only a "reformation in morals" could remedy. The Protestant ethic which he espoused was as individualistic as his theory of conversion; a man had no one but himself to blame if he got in debt over his head. Yet beneath the surface lies another and more important message. If Backus chastised insolvent debtors who resorted to violence, he was equally hostile to the crass commercialism of the Boston merchants who imported and sold these British "gew-gaws" to the farmers. Their materialism and self-interest helped to lead weak men astray. The tract singled out lawyers, the tools of the merchants and bankers, as particularly guilty of making money out of the miseries of the weak-willed debtors. The blame for the crisis, however, lay ultimately upon the Arminians, freewillers, and Unitarian rationalists whose false doctrines pandered to human self-esteem instead of upholding the necessity for the sinner's spiritual rebirth. If Backus took the conservative side here, it was not simply out of allegiance to the Protestant ethic or out of a belief in the sinfulness of debt. Rather it was evidence of his annoyance at the failure of Americans to live up to their professed ideals and their divine destiny. "Instead of being the light of the world . . . what a stumbling block are w e to other nations who have their eyes fixed upon us." The purpose of the tract basically was to urge the inhabitants of the new nation to get on with their errand into the wilderness and not let vanity and false doctrine delay them in the fulfilment of their manifest destiny.

AN/ADDRESS/TO THE/INHABITANTS/OF/Netü-EngZand./Concerning the present/Bloody Controversy therein./ Printed and sold by S.

HALL,

State-Street,

B0ST0N./1787.

My dear Countrymen, Our fathers came to this land for purity and liberty in their worship of God, but how many have drawn their swords against each other about the affairs of worldly gain, whereby an exceeding dark cloud is brought over us. Instead of being the light of the world and the pillar and ground of the truth, as those are that obey Him who is the fountain of light and love, what a stumbling-block are we to other nations, who have their eyes fixed upon us? Permit me therefore to lay before you a few thoughts which I hope may be serviceable in this dark season. If we were as well agreed about the way of relief as we are about the cause of our present distress, a happy deliverance would soon appear, as the following facts will show. From March to July last year the order of lawyers in our government was exposed in the Boston papers in a very striking manner, and in the two following months many people arose in arms against our executive courts in the counties of Hampshire, Berkshire, Worcester, Middlesex, and Bristol. Hereupon the town of Boston met and sent an address to all the other towns in the Massachusetts earnestly requesting that a redress of grievances might be sought for in a constitutional orderly way only and pledging themselves to join their endeavors with the country, in that way, to obtain a redress of any such grievances as really existed. Hereby they intended to have the people stirred up to send in an account of their real grievances to the General Court at Boston. And after many such accounts had been laid before them they published an address to the people, November 14, 1786, wherein they say, W e feel in common with our neighbors the scarcity of money, but is not this scarcity owing to our own folly? At the close of the war there was no complaint of it; since that time, our fields have yielded increase, and Heaven has showered its blessings on us in uncommon abundance. But are we not constrained to allow that immense sums have been expended for what is of no value, for the gewgaws imported from Europe and the more pernicious produce of the West Indies. And the dread of a paper currency impedes the circulation of what remains. It is said, however, that such a currency would give us present relief. But like the pleasure of sin, it would be but for a season, and like that too, it would

444

Isaac Backus

be a reproach to the community and would produce calamities without end. Without a reformation of manners we can have little hope to prosper in our public or private concerns. As the difficulty in paying debts increased, a disregard to honesty, justice, and good faith in public and private transactions, became more manifest. Some persons have artfully affected to make a distinction between the government and people, as though their interest were different from and even opposite. But we presume the good sense of our constituents will discern the deceit and falsity of those insinuations. Within a few months the authority delegated to us will cease, and all citizens will be equally candidates in a future election. Many who disapprove insurrections against the government neglect to afford their aid, in suppressing them, but to stand still, inactive spectators in such case, is like a man who when his house is in flames should stand with folded arms, and console himself with this, that he did not set it on fire. This view of the cause of our distress, perhaps will not be denied by a single person, but the measures which have been taken since have moved many to declare their sorrow that we ever revolted from Great Britain. But I am so far from any such thought that I fully agree with our General Court that a paper currency would produce calamities without end. For by it the Court of Britain have been enabled to carry blood and slavery round the world and to load the nation with a debt of more than two hundred millions sterling, above a third of which was in attempts to bind us in all cases whatsoever, and so to rob us both of manhood and Christianity. For to have our choice governed by reason is essential to manhood and to have it governed by revelation is essential to Christianity. Yet so late as November 2, 1780, in a speech from the throne they said, "We will not submit to receive the law from any power whatsoever." So the Jews said, We will not have this man to reign over us, Luke xix, 14. Therefore God chose their delusions and brought their fears upon them, because they always resisted the Holy Ghost, Isai, lxvi, 1-5; Acts vii, 8, 48-51. Their fear was that the Romans would come and take away their place and nation, yet rather than to receive King Jesus, they chose Caesar, who brought that destruction upon them, John xi, 48, xix, 15. Thus God's immutable plan of government determines the choice of the worst of men without the least excuse for their wickedness, John xix, 1 1 ; Acts ii, 22, 23. And if these plain truths were duly regarded peace would soon take place among us. For our legislature truly say, "Within a few months the authority delegated to us will cease,

AN ADDRESS

445

and all citizens will be equally candidates in a future election." This is the true nature of our Constitution, and the command of God is, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. This ought to be a matter of conscience with every soul, 2 Pet. ii, 3, 4; Rom. xiii, 1-10. His revealed will, enforced in the name of the Lord our righteousness, is as clear as glass and as powerful as fire, it being the only perfect law of liberty. And teachers of a contrary way are guilty of whoredom, stealing, and lying, 2 Cor. iii, 5-18; James i, 1 6 25; Jer. xxiii, 5, 6, 14, 29-32. And putting away these evils in the valley of Achor is our only door of hope, of deliverance, and happiness, Joshua vii, 1 1 , 12, 26; Isai. Ixv, 2-16; Hosea ii, 5-15. The comfortable support of his ministers is as really an ordinance of God as any sacrifice that he ever instituted, and those who do not heartily obey him therein sow to the flesh and shall of the flesh reap corruption, 1 Cor. ix, 14; Gal. vi, 6-9, 19-23. No son of Aaron might offer any sacrifice anywhere but upon Gods altar, nor with any fire but that which was received from Heaven. Two of his sons were struck dead for violating this law, Lev. ix, 24; x, 1, 2. And Christ is the only altar on which all our sacrifices ought to be offered, and none can have a right to eat thereof who build upon the covenant of circumcision, Heb. xiii, 1 0 18; Phil, iv, 10-18. For Abraham could not admit any Gentile into it without buying of him as a servant. And God has expressly repealed that covenant, Gen. xvii, 1 1 - 1 4 ; Matt, xxiii, 8; 1 Cor. vii, 19-23; Gal. vi, 15, 16. And instead of fire from Heaven, the tongues of those who are for many masters are a world of iniquity, setting on fire the whole course of nature, and it is set on fire of Hell. And nothing can quench it but the wisdom that is from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. And none can countenance the natural distinctions which were in Abraham's covenant without partiality and dissimulation, James iii, 1, 6, 17; Gal. ii, 12-20. The way wherein teachers have kept up these evils so long in the world has been by insisting upon it that self-determination in the will of man is essential to moral agency. This doctrine, and the doctrine of purgatory, is now carried further in London and in Boston than it is in Rome. Which is so opposite to the doctrine of Christ that he says, I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my fathers commandments and

446

Isaac Backus

abide in his love, John vi, 38; xv, 10. And in this way only can we make our calling and election sure and escape the error of the wicked, 2 Pet. 1, 3 - 1 1 , iii, 17, 18. And that all who are in authority may protect and encourage such a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty is my earnest prayer. ISAAC BACKUS.

Boston, March 28, 1787.

PAMPHLET

12

THE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR ELECTION AND FINAL PERSEVERANCE BOSTON,

1789

B A C K U S F I R S T TOOK N O T E of the spread of John Wesley's doctrines in America in 1783 when he wrote in his diary that William Black, "a follower of Wesley," was preaching "considerable errors" with success in Nova Scotia, much to the distress of the Separate-Baptists there. The rapid spread of Wesleyan Methodism thereafter caused Backus considerable concern. His distress reached a peak during his tour of North Carolina and Virginia in the spring of 1789. Here he found the Wesleyans by far the most successful competitors of the Baptists. Though Methodism had not yet threatened the Baptists in New England, Jesse Lee, the first Methodist itinerant to enter the region, was, unknown to Backus, beginning his tour of Connecticut and Rhode Island at the very moment the tract was published.

When his friends in Virginia asked Backus, as the leading polemicist of the denomination, to publish a refutation of Wesleyanism he obliged with this tract. He had already published some criticisms of Wesley in the second volume of his history in 1784. The burden of this tract was that Wesley's doctrines were contrary to the truth of Scripture because they asserted the freedom of the will, denied predestination, claimed that Christ died for all men, and taught that the regenerate can fall from grace. It is fitting to conclude this selection of Backus' tracts with this attack upon Wesley, for Methodism was to remain the most important rival to Baptist views throughout the next century. America stood at this moment upon the brink of the Second Great Awakening in which Calvinism suffered its final defeat, even among the Baptists. All of the important aspects of battle between Arminianism and Calvinism which occupied American evangelicals during that Awakening are laid out in these pages. In a way this tract symbolizes the coming of age of the pietistic dissenters in America and their turning from the self-centered problems of survival against the oppressions of the old establishments, north and south, to the more important issue of converting the new nation to their brand of Evangelical Christianity. For a generation after 1790 they engaged in acrimonious dialogue, prefigured in this tract, among themselves trying to formulate their evangelical doctrines. But in the end it was the pragmatic experience of mass revivalism, essential to cope with the massive westward migration of the population, which resolved the issue. The direct experience of conversion was condensed from months or weeks to days and hours. And logically enough this encounter with divine Truth now took place amidst the "sensational" mass experience of the

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

449

revival meeting itself. Backus lived long enough to read the accounts of the great camp meetings on the Gasper, Muddy, and Red Rivers in Kentucky, and he died rejoicing in these new torrents of blessing. Intrinsically the doctrine of "immediate conversion" and the use of "new measures" to "promote revivals" were logical outgrowths of the Lockean laws of psychology which Backus had accepted in the First Awakening. He could die peacefully now that the Baptists had entered the mainstream of American life. Fortunately for him he did not live to realize that their success depended more upon their assimilation of Wesleyan Arminianism than upon adherence to the gospel according to "the great Mr. Edwards."

THE/DOCTRINE/OF/PARTICULAR VERANCE,/EXPLAINED

ELECTION/AND/FINAL

PERSE-

AND V I N D I C A T E D . / B y I s a a c Backus,/PASTOH

OF A CHURCH IN MIDDLEBOROUGH./

Yea, let God be true, but every Man a Liar. — /The Election obtained it, and the Rest were blinded./Rom. iii 4; xi 7./ BOSTON : / P r i n t e d MDCCLXXXIX.

and

sold

by

SAMUEL

HALL,

at

No.

53,

Cornhill./

Advertisement Teachers who turn grace into lasciviousness have men's persons in admiration because of advantage, Jude 4, 16. With such, nothing can be too bad to say of any who expose their darling errors, while they will not allow us to be charitable if we cannot think them all to be good men, whom they admire. But in what follows I have endeavored to open principles and facts plainly and to leave every reader to judge of men by their fruits and not by their plausible pretences. Middleboro, July 25, 1789. PARTICULAR ELECTION and FINAL PERSEVERANCE Vindicated1 Controversy is generally complained of and peace is earnestly sought, but often in a way which denies to all others the liberty we claim for ourselves. The revealed will of God is the only perfect law of liberty, but how little is it believed and obeyed by mankind. Both the Hebrew and Christian churches were to be wholly governed by it, and when the first King of Israel presumed to violate a plain command of God, and then thought to atone for it by acts of worship, he was guilty of rebellion, which is as the sin of witchcraft, 1 Sam. xv, 23. And in like way Mystery Babylon by her sorceries has deceived all nations, and in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth, Rev. xviii, 23, 24. Yet these extensive terms are so limited by carnal reasoners that none of them, in any nation, will allow themselves to be of that bloody city. And at the same time they are for extending general words of grace beyond any limits and are ready to accuse us with making God deceitful if we hold that he did not design the merits of his Son equally for all mankind. If we inquire then, why all are not saved? the general answer is that they would not receive that salvation, or if they did for awhile, and

452

Isaac Backus

then turned away from it, God rejects and destroys them therefor. We readily grant that God always rewards the righteous and never destroys any for anything but sin and iniquity, but this cannot content many without we will allow that grace hath put power into the wills of all mankind to become righteous and to obtain salvation when they shall please to set about it in earnest. The fruit of which is that men neglect the great salvation because they love darkness rather than light. Yea, everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, Heb. ii, 3; John iii, 19, 20. And when any are brought to obey the truth and so come to the light, every art is made use of to get them into darkness again if possible. This has been remarkably the case in the southern parts of America. Many of their teachers [Anglican clergy] were so dark as to swear profanely, drink to excess, and follow gaming and at the same time to preach up do and live to their people. But the light of the pure Gospel produced some reformation among them above forty years ago, and it has greatly increased since 1768, as I was well informed when I was called to travel and preach in Virginia and North Carolina last winter. But after this reformation had spread extensively, the followers of Mr. John Wesley introduced his writings against particular election and final perseverance and thereby greatly obstructed the work. I was therefore requested to publish a brief answer thereto. His first piece on that subject was published above fifty years ago under the title of Free Grace, and it was closed with a hymn called Universal Redemption, and therein he says, Thine eye surveyed the fallen race, When sunk in sin they lay, Their misery called for all thy grace, But justice stopped the way. Mercy the fatal bar removed, Thy only Son it gave, To save a world so dearly loved, A sinful world to save. For every man he tasted death, He suffered once for all, He calls as many souls as breathe, And all may hear the call. A power to choose, a will t' obey, Freely his grace restores; W e all may find the living way, And call the Savior ours.

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

453

He denied that man had any natural liberty of will left after the fall until it was restored by grace. This he more explicitly did in a pamphlet on predestination, election, and reprobation published in 1776; and said upon it, "We believe, that in the moment Adam fell he had no freedom of will left but that God, when of his own free grace he gave the promise of a Savior to him and his posterity, graciously restored to mankind a liberty and power to accept of proffered salvation," p. 16. But if the fall took all natural liberty of choice from man until grace restored it, then the fall released him from the authority of the law of God as it was first given to him, and he never hath been under it since, but under grace. The beasts are not under that law because they never had the powers of thinking and choice as rational creatures have, and if men are not under that law, what are they better than beasts? Yea, do they not corrupt themselves more than brute beasts that know and obey their owners? Jude 10; Isai. i, 2-4. And if all freedom of will is from grace, then it is only by grace that any have power to sin against God, as none can sin against him who have no natural liberty of will. This opinion is most plainly confuted by the case of the fallen angels who never had any grace revealed to them. Yet the Devil sinneth from the beginning, and all wilful sinners are children of the Devil in opposition to all those who are born of God, John iii, 8-10. In the same book Mr. Wesley says, "1. God's love was the cause of his sending his Son to die for sinners. 2. Christ's dying for sinners is the cause of the Gospel's being preached. 3. The preaching of the Gospel is the cause (or means) of our believing. 4. Our believing is the cause or condition of our justification. 5. The knowing ourselves justified through his blood is the cause of our love to Christ. 6. Our love to Christ is the cause of our obedience to him. 7. Our obedience to Christ is the cause of his becoming the author of eternal salvation to us," p. 8. And is not this going about to establish our own righteousness? For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man who doth those things, shall live by them. This is a zeal of God but not according to knowledge, Rom. x, 2-5. Mr. Wesley goes on to say, "I shall now briefly show the dreadful absurdities that follow from saying Christ died only for the elect. If Christ died not for all, then unbelief is no sin in them that finally perish, seeing there is not anything for those men to believe unto salvation for whom Christ died not. 2. If Christ died not for all men then it would be a sin in the greatest

454

Isaac Backus

part of mankind to believe he died for them, seeing it would be to believe a lie. 3. If Christ died not for those that are damned, then they are not damned for unbelief, otherwise you say, that they are damned for not believing a lie. 4. If Christ died not for all, then those who obey Christ by going and preaching the Gospel to every creature as glad tidings of grace and peace, of great joy to all people, do sin thereby, in that they go to most people with a lie in their mouth. 5. If Christ died not for all men, then God is not in earnest in calling all men everywhere to repent, for what good could repentance do those for whom Christ died not? 6. If Christ died not for all, then why does he say, He is not willing that any should perish? Surely he is willing, yea, resolved that most men should perish, else he would have died for them also. 7. How shall God judge the world by the man Christ Jesus if Christ did not die for the world or how shall he judge them according to the Gospel when there was never any Gospel or mercy for them?" p. 14. Answer. If Christ died with a design to save all men, why are not all saved? Can the Devil cheat him of a great part of his purchase? Or can men defeat his merciful designs? No, say many, he died for all, and he will finally save all. Others go farther and conclude that a God of infinite goodness could not give existence to any creature that shall be miserable without end, but that he will finally deliver every child of Adam from Hell, though many of them will be tormented therein for ages of ages. But how is their deceit here discovered? Fallen angels were as really the creatures of God as fallen men, yet no salvation was ever revealed for them, but they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. And this is a clear evidence against ungodly men who turn grace into lasciviousness, Jude 4, 6. God was so far from ever proclaiming atonement to all men, without any exception, that he said, The soul that doth ought presumptuously, the same reproacheth the Lord and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. And for such presumption, Korah and his company perished most terribly, Num. xv, 30; xvi, 1-3, 31-34. And teachers who privily brought damnable heresies into the Christian Church were presumptuous and self-willed under the name of liberty. They despised government and perished in the gainsaying of Core, 2 Pet. ii, 1, 10, 19; Jude 11. For if the inability of debtors and criminals could release them from the authority of the laws, until rulers would give them power to bring the government to

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

455

their own terms, how would all dominion be despisedl These filthy dreamers have now filled the world with Babylonian confusion, Jude 8. The Jews called it heresy in Paul to believe in and obey Jesus as a lawgiver above Moses, Acts xxiv, 14. And this is the first place where the word heresy is used in the Bible, and if we observe what is said in the last chapter in it of every man who shall add to or take from its words, must we not conclude that all men who do so and violently impose their inventions upon others are guilty of heresy? The head of the Church of Rome assumed God's place in the Church, and exalted himself above God, who never could violate his promise or his oath or entice any into sin, and how justly are all those given up to strong delusion who practice either of these evils? 2 Thess. ii, 3-12; Heb. vi, 18; James i, 13-15. And how happy should we soon be if these iniquities were excluded from our land? True believers are so far from presuming upon the secret designs of God that when the same are revealed, they dare not make his designs but his laws the rule of their conduct. Though his design of removing Saul and making David King over Israel was clearly revealed, yet David refused to kill Saul when greatly provoked thereto because he had no direction to do it. Neither did David assume the regal power over Israel until each tribe freely received him as their King by a solemn covenant. But the envious Jews no sooner had it declared to them that Jesus was to die for that nation than from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death, John xi, 53. Hereby we may see the plain difference between true believers and reprobates. For unto the pure all things are pure but unto the defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate, Titus i, 15, 16. In this way, teachers who turn grace into lasciviousness deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ, Jude 4. But many are deceived by them because in words they profess to know him. Since Christ was exalted to the right hand of the Father his only priests upon earth are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Being born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever. These are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that they

456

Isaac Backus

should show forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light, χ Pet. i, 2, 23; ii, 5, 9. But Mr. Wesley, in his piece on predestination, election, and reprobation, says, "They were chosen through belief of the truth and called to believe it by the Gospel; therefore they were not chosen before they believed, much less before they had a being," p. 5. And in his sermon from Rom. viii, 29, 30, he says, "God looking on all ages from the creation to the consummation as a moment and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all the children of men knows every one that does or does not believe in every age or nation. Yet what he knows, whether faith or unbelief, is in no wise caused by his knowledge. Men are as free in believing or not believing, as if he did not know it at all," p. 6. I readily grant that his knowledge does not cause any sin, which is altogether of the creature. The angels who fell kept not the first estate but left their own habitation, Jude 6. And those who stood were elect angels, 1 Tim. v, 21. And sin came into human nature by violating a known command. And Adam was a figure of Jesus Christ, and therefore death reigned over all his posterity, many of whom never committed any actual transgression, as he did. And the word as, so often used in this affair, cannot be true in any sense if both Adam and Christ were not heads and representatives of all the seed of each. It is certain that Adam was not a figure of Christ, as he conveyed death and ruin to his posterity by a just sentence of law; for Christ conveys life and salvation to souls by a free gift of grace. Neither could Adam be a figure of Christ in the great things that he did by one offence, for Christ atoned for many offences; therefore where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, Rom. v, 12-21. Even to the resurrection of the dead, 1 Cor. xv, 21, 22. I say the word as cannot be true in all these places unless those two men acted for all their seed. Many would have it, that this word cannot be true unless Christ atoned for as many as fell in Adam, but certain death came upon all Adam's race while multitudes hold that salvation by Christ is uncertain and depends upon the wills of individuals. In this view they would make Christ vastly inferior to Adam whose doings were efficacious, and the doings of Christ exceeding precarious, upon their plan. And they who hold that Christ will finally save all the race of Adam from Hell yet imagine that the creature's suffering must save them and not the efficacy of the death and grace of Christ. Or if they hold that he will save all from future sufferings, they hold also that he hath now saved

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

457

them from the authority of the law of God, which Adam never did. By the sentence of it every child of Adam returns to the dust, the righteous as well as the wicked, so that if the doings of Christ are not efficacious for the final salvation of his seed, it cannot truly be said that as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Adam was made upright, but Solomon could not tell how many inventions his children would seek out, Eccl. vii, 29. A darling one in our day is that a man cannot be worthy of reward or punishment unless he hath power in his will to become righteous when he pleaseth. And if so, then faith would be of himself and not the gift of God, directly against the truth of his Word, Eph. ii, 8. Boasting could not be excluded in such a case, as it is by the law of faith, Rom. iii, 27. So that this controversy is not with poor worms but with the eternal God. His will was as really exercised in raising up Pharaoh and others and suffering them to go far in their rebellion and in oppressing the saints, as it was in finally destroying the former and saving the latter. But the objection against this doctrine was and is, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath ever resisted his will? This was the language of those who followed after the law of righteousness but did not attain to it because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law, Rom. ix, 1&-32. Yea, and those who do so are exceeding partial in the law. Mr. Wesley in his book called Predestination Calmly Considered says, "I believe election to be conditional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal decree concerning both is expressed in those words, He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned. And this decree without doubt God will not change, and man cannot resist," p. 10. But where did he make any such decree? In the Gospel commission, he says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark xvi, 16. But men have presumed to alter that decree ever since the third century, before which no man hath proved that infant baptism was ever named in the world. By baptism believers put on Christ, Gal. iii, 27. Which no one can do for another any more than one can be saved or damned for another in eternity. Christ is the only lawgiver to his Church, and when Kings shall become nursing fathers to her they will bow down to his authority therein, Isai. xlix, 23. And how great is the difference betwixt a nurse and a whoremaster. The good tidings to Zion is, Thy God reigneth. And with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, Isai. iii, 7; Rom.

458

Isaac Backus

χ, io, 15. And none will be owned by him in the last day who are now ashamed to confess him before men, Matt, x, 32, 33. And if God looked on all ages as a moment, how could he elect persons and then reject them again in that moment? Yet Wesley says, "One who is a true believer or, in other words, one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself, may nevertheless finally fall from grace," P· 49· His first argument to prove this assertion is taken from God's saying, When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, in his trespass that he hath trespassed and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die, Ezek. xviii, 24. From whence Wesley says, "One who is righteous in the judgment of God himself may finally fall from grace," p. 51. Answer, God never promised to support any one in an unrighteous way, neither will he destroy any true penitent for his own sins or for the iniquity of his fathers. And if God cannot speak of these things in a conditional way without having the final event uncertain in his own infinite mind until the creature decides it, then this argument may stand, and not else. And if the creature could disappoint the Creator, then we should fear man more than God. A horrible evil! A second argument is drawn from 1 Tim. i, 18, 19, from whence it is said, "Observe, 1. These men had once the faith that produceth a good conscience, which they had or they could not have put it away. 2. They made shipwreck of the faith, which necessarily implies the total and final loss of it," p. 51. But in the same chapter it is said, "The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned; from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." And if men cannot be greatly enlightened and reformed by the Spirit of truth and yet afterwards swerve from it and put it away, without ever being born again, then this argument may stand and not otherwise. His third argument is framed from Rom. xi, 17, etc. Upon which he says, "Those who are grafted into the spiritual, invisible church may nevertheless finally fail," p. 53. To which I reply that the unbelieving Jews failed from the visible church, and saving faith was necessary to graft the Gentiles into it, who ought not to be high-minded but fear, as is very evident from this passage, and God says, I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me, Jer. xxxii, 40. And who will dare

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

459

to contradict him! Mr. Wesley takes his fourth argument from John XV, 1-6, from whence he infers, "That true believers, who are branches of the true vine, may nevertheless finally fail," p. 55. But as Christ is the only head of the true church, many may be visible branches in him and yet be cast into the fire for their unfruitfulness while living branches are purged and made more fruitful. And to such Christ said in the same chapter, Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit and your fruit should remain. Afterwards he said to the Father, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none, John xviii, 9. Yet, fifthly, Mr. Wesley brings 2 Pet. ii, 20, 21, to prove that "Those who by the inward knowledge of Christ have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions and perish everlastingly," p. 56. But all ought to know that the dog who returns to his vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire, never had their natures changed, though their behavior was so for awhile. Therefore we are warned against giving the holy things of the church to dogs, swine, or wolves as far as we can discover them by their fruits, Matt, vii, 6, 15. His sixth argument is taken from Heb. vi, 4-8, p. 56. But we may see that the persons here spoken of are like ground which beareth thorns and briars and are entirely distinct from souls who receive the seed into good ground, Matt, xiii, 23. Our author takes his seventh argument from Heb. χ, 38, which he says, if rightly translated, is, "If the just man that lives by faith draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him," p. 58. But we ought to know that living by faith and drawing back are two opposite things, and the first is here urged as an effectual guard against the last. Eighthly, our opponent brings Heb. χ, 26-29, to prove "That those who are sanctified by the blood of the new covenant may yet perish everlastingly," p. 62. But though persons who sin willfully against the laws, blood, and Spirit of Christ will have a much sorer punishment than they who died without mercy under the law of Moses, yet this cannot prove that any such person was ever truly regenerated. However, after quoting many more Scripture warnings against disobedience and apostasy, Mr. Wesley lets us know that he would not have us consider this doctrine by itself "but as it stands in connection with unconditional reprobation, that millstone which hangs about the neck of your whole hypothesis," p. 65. From whence we may see that the plain language of revelation is of

460

Isaac Backus

no avail with him against his horrid ideas of reprobation. When any try to put that terrible word out of their minds, he says, "To think about a certain number of souls, whom alone God hath decreed to save, in that very thought reprobation lurks; it entered your heart the moment that entered; it stays as long as that stays, and you cannot speak that thought, without speaking reprobation. True, it is covered with fig leaves so that a heedless eye may not observe it to be there. But if you narrowly observe, unconditional election cannot appear without the cloven foot of reprobation," p. 9. Answer, we well know that the doctrine of particular election implies that the rest of mankind are left to perish in their sins as God might justly have dealt with us all. But this idea is rejected by Mr. Wesley. And when it was said, "You know in your own conscience that God might justly have passed by you," he said, "I deny it. That God might justly, for my unfaithfulness to his grace, have given me up long ago, I grant, but this concession supposes me to have had that grace which you say a reprobate never had," p. 18. Answer, We are far from believing that all the natural liberty of men is by grace, as he hath asserted, for God says, In the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof. From such men turn away. These resist the truth; reprobate concerning the faith, 2 Tim. iii, 1-8. This is a most exact description of the reprobates of our day. But I am far from thinking that grace gave them a power to love themselves above God and their neighbors and to run into all this wickedness under a form of Godliness, while they deny the power thereof. Yea, do not all those deny the power of it who deny particular election and final perseverance? Mr. Wesley says, "I have heard that God the Father made a covenant with his Son before the world began wherein the Son agreed to suffer such and such things and the Father to give him such and such souls for a recompense; that in consequence of this those souls must be saved, and those only, so that all others must be damned." This idea of the covenant he rejects and says, "The tenor of it is this, Whosoever believeth unto the end, so as to show his faith by his works, I the Lord will reward that soul eternally. But whosoever will not believe, and con-

ELECTION AND P E R S E V E R E N C E

461

sequently dieth in his sins, I will punish him with everlasting destruction," pp. 44, 45. And what difference is there between this and saying, The man that doth them shall live in them? They who turn the Gospel into this sense are bewitched, Gal. iii, 1, 12. As to the covenant, Jesus said, I lay down my life for the sheep. Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. Jesus lifted up his eyes to Heaven and said, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him, John x, 15, 26-29; xv ii> i) 2. If particular election and final perseverance are not contained in these passages, I know not what can be intended therein. And as Mr. Wesley and his followers are so vehement against that doctrine and tell of showing their faith by their works, it is needful to examine some of their works concerning America. In November 1763, Mr. Wesley said in his Journal, "Many have been convinced of sin, many justified, and many backsliders healed. But the peculiar work of this season has been what St. Paul calls The perfecting of the saints. Many persons in London, in Bristol, in York, and in various parts both of England and Ireland have experienced so deep and universal a change as it had not before entered into their hearts to conceive. After a deep conviction of inbred sin, of their total fall from God, they have been so filled with faith and love ( and generally in a moment) that sin vanished, and they found from that time no pride, anger, desire or unbelief. They could rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks. Now whether we call this the destruction or suspension of sin, it is a glorious work of God. Such work as considering both the depth and extent of it, we never saw in these kingdoms before. It is possible some who spoke in this manner were mistaken, and it is certain some have lost what they then received." That many of them were mistaken can easily be believed; much easier than to believe that any of them were perfect and then fell from it. For as long as their controversy in Britain about taxing America was carried on by words Mr. Wesley openly appeared in our favor, but when they came to blows, he shifted sides and exerted all his extensive influence in that bloody cause, and so did Mr. John

462

Isaac Backus

Fletcher, an author much esteemed by that sect. Mr. Wesley was in the city of Bristol in September 1774, and highly recommended to his friends a pamphlet wrote by M. P. entitled An Argument in Defence of the Exclusive Right Claimed by the Colonies to Tax Themselves. But when the sword was drawn the next year, Mr. Wesley took out the substance of a piece wrote by Dr. J. entitled, Taxation no Tyranny and added some warm reflections of his own and published the whole as his own to inflame all his followers against us. Therefore a Baptist minister in Bristol published a brief answer to him with a mention of these facts under the name of Americanus. Hereupon Wesley reprinted his pamphlet, with a preface in which he said, "The book which this writer says I so strongly recommended, I never yet saw with my eyes. The words which he says I spoke never came out of my lips." Two of his friends in Bristol each wrote to him that they knew he herein wronged the truth, yet he refused to make any public retraction until Mr. Caleb Evans, the said Baptist minister, published a letter to him in a newspaper, and then he said, Rev. Sir, You affirm, 1. That I once doubted whether the measures taken in respect to America could be defended either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence. I did doubt of this five years, nay indeed five months ago. You affirm, 2. That I declared last year the Americans were oppressed, injured people. I do not remember that I did, but possibly I might. You affirm, 3. That I then strongly recommended an argument for the exclusive right of the colonies to tax themselves. I believe I did, but I am now of another mind. You affirm, 4. You say in the preface I never saw that book. I did say so; the plain case was I had so entirely forgotten it that even when I saw it again I recollected nothing of it till I had read several pages. If I had, I might have observed that you borrowed more from Mr. P. than I did from Dr. J. If you please to advance any new arguments (personal reflections I let go) you may perhaps receive a further reply from your humble servant, JOHN

WESLEY.

London, December 9, 1775. But did he let go personal reflections? Mr. Evans' reply is before me wherein he says, "Your insinuating that I have taken more from Mr. P. than you have from Dr. J. is an artifice to cover your own plagiarism, too thin not to be seen through by the most superficial. It is not fact. I have not taken a line from that or any other author without acknowledging it. But when you published your address you

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

463

gave not even a hint of having taken any part of it from Dr. J. or any other writer." Thus did Mr. Wesley exert all his influence to assist Great Britain in her attempts to bind us in all cases whatever. And had they succeeded therein we should have been in as bad a case as he says Adam was before a Savior was revealed to him. Yea, as much worse as falling into the hands of unmerciful men is worse than being in the hands of a merciful God. And these men are still pursuing us with attempts to rob us of our only hope in Christ and also of the liberty wherewith he hath made us free. For in 1784 Mr. Wesley and his followers published a book in England, which they call, The Sunday Service in North America. Three orders of ministers are prescribed therein who are to have the whole power of receiving and excluding church members without calling any vote of the brethren. And when the lowest order of those ministers is to be ordained they say to him, "Will you reverently obey them to whom the charge and government over you is committed, following with a glad mind and will their Godly admonitions? Answer, I will endeavor so to do, the Lord being my helper," p. 283. Soon after which they published a pamphlet entitled, "A Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America Considered and Approved at a Conference held at Baltimore in the State of Maryland, on Monday the 27th of December 1784, in which the Reverend Thomas Coke, L L . D . and the Reverend Francis Asbury presided." In their first section they say, Question 1. What was the rise of Methodism, so called, in Europe? Answer. In 1729 two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737 they saw likewise that men are justified before they are sanctified, but still holiness was their object. God then thrust them out to raise an holy people. Question 2. What was the rise of Methodism, so called, in America? Answer. During the space of thirty years past, certain persons, members of the society, emigrated from England and Ireland, and settled in various parts of this country. About twenty years ago Philip Embary, a local preacher from Ireland, began to preach in the city of New York and formed a society of his own countrymen and the citizens. About the same time Robert Strawbridge, a local preacher from Ireland, settled in Frederick County in the State of Maryland, and preaching there, formed some societies. In 1769 Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor came to New York who were the first regular Methodist preachers on the continent. In the latter end of the year 1771, Francis Asbury and Richard Wright of the same order came over. Question 3. What may we reasonably believe

464

Isaac Backus

to be God's design in raising up the preachers called Methodists? Answer. To reform the continent and spread Scripture holiness over these lands. As a proof hereof we have seen in the course of fifteen years a great and glorious work of God from New York through the Jerseys, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, even to Georgia. And before they admit any man to preach in their society, they say to him, "Have you faith in Christ? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?" After which they say, "We are all agreed, that we may be saved from all sin before death," pp. 13, 30. Thus a society, many of whose laws are contrary to the laws of Christ and whose head is in Great Britain are spreading their influence in America and have already tried to get some of their leaders elected into the State Legislature in Virginia, if not in other States. The law of Christ puts all Elders in the church upon a level and says to the whole community, All of you be subject one to another and be clothed with humility, for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace unto the humble, 1 Pet. v, 1-5. And when Christ came a light into the world the only persons that believed on him were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God. Except a man be horn again he cannot see the kingdom of God, John i, 12, 13; iii, 3. But ever since the rise of the man of sin teachers have claimed a power of office above the church which none could convey to others but officers and also a power in their wills to bring children into the kingdom of God without their own knowledge or choice. And to this day men are exceeding tenacious of this arbitrary power. The followers of Mr. Wesley say in their form of discipline, "Question 1. How is a bishop constituted? Answer. By the election of the majority of the conference and the laying on of hands of a bishop and the elders present. Question 5. If by death, expulsion, or otherwise there be no bishop remaining in our church, what method shall be pursued? Answer. Let the conference immediately elect a bishop, and let the elders, or any three of them, consecrate him to his office." The Presbyterians hold bishops and elders to be equal but both above the church, and in this way many hold their succession of office from the old bishops in England. The President of their university in Connecticut, in a sermon before the legislature of that State, said of the first ministers in New England, "The induction of the ministers of the first churches was performed by lay brethren, and this was called ordination but should be considered

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

465

what in reality it was, only induction or instalment of those who were vested with official power. These were all ordained before by the bishops in England." 0 Another of their noted ministers said to the Baptists in the same year, "To be consistent with yourselves you cannot look on any of us as Christians or any church in the world but your own denomination to be a Church of Christ; all the world but yourselves, are in a state of paganism; not one baptized person in it except yourselves; not one minister of the Gospel but your own, and when you rebaptize those in adult years, which we have baptized in their infancy, you and they jointly renounce that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost whom we adore and worship as the only living and true God and on whom we depend for all our salvation." t And a Presbyterian minister in North Carolina, though more charitable, yet says of the Baptists, "They made their appearance in Germany soon after the reformation began, but the present race of Baptists are happily very unlike the furious and blood-thirsty bigots who wore the name at that time. Considering that they have no written standard of orthodoxy and that their preachers are men without a liberal education, I have often sat with wonder and pleasure to hear them so sound in doctrine as they really are." * Indeed, it may justly be matter of thankful wonder to all considering the errors of learned ministers on every hand. For if our civil rulers should now declare, that they derived their office power from Great Britain and that the people of America had only inducted them into their offices to which they had a prior right, what a confusion should we soon be in! But this is not the worst of our case, for all who have renounced the only living and true God are pagans and the covenant of circumcision, on which infant baptism is built, required Israel to destroy all the pagans in Canaan and to seize upon their estates. And from the bloody imagination that Christians had a right to do the like came the late war. The Church of Rome acted upon this bloody imagination until England revolted from her in 1533 and set up their King as the head of their church. The inhabitants of Munster in Germany did the like in the same year. Yet the madness of Munster, because it was soon defeated, hath been cast upon all believers through the world who refused to put baptism before faith in Christ. * Stiles's election sermon, May 8, 1783, p. 61. t Huntington's address, p. 23. t Pattillo's Sermons, 1788, pp. 47, 48.

466

Isaac Backus

And it is now said, "In church government the Baptists have adopted the independent plan, the inconveniency of which they often experience as it provides no final and decisive judge of controversy nor tribunal to pronounce in heresy or false doctrine. But the distinguishing characteristic of the Baptist profession is their excluding infant, and practicing only adult baptism and making it their great term of communion, excluding all other Christians from the Lord's Table among them and not suffering their members to communicate with other churches. How they can acknowledge any other people to be a Church of Christ and yet continue this bar of separation is not to be accounted for, and we must leave them under the weight of this difficulty until themselves are pleased to remove it." 5 Here all may see that it is much easier to charge others with inconsistency than to act consistently ourselves. For these three last authors profess the doctrine of particular election and final perseverance, and yet they blame us because we dare not practically allow that persons may be brought into the covenant of grace without their own knowledge or choice, many of whom fall away and perish forever. They also condemn the independent plan of government in the church though they celebrate it in the State. But there can be no government in the State if officers therein are not invested with power to compel delinquents to submit to their lawful judgments, but the votes of officers in the church are no more than the votes of the brethren, and the whole community have no more power in this respect than to exclude unworthy members from their communion. And to allow ministers a power of office in any church which that church could not give and cannot take away is to make them lords over God's heritage instead of being examples to the flock. We are so far from denying the visible Christianity of all who do not see with us about baptism that we view it as a point of vast importance that none should be baptized but visible Christians. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Without it they are not Christians, yet many contend with us because we dare not say the contrary in practice. All who have received that Spirit ought to be baptized in water, Rom. vi, 4, viii, 9; Acts χ, 47, 48. I believe that the dispensing with the plain laws of Christ and the forcibly imposing the inventions of men in his worship is the scarlet colored beast which supports the whore of Babylon. It was and is not, yet is. It will change into all shapes as circumstances § Ibid., pp. 48, 49.

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

467

and inclinations carry men. God hath many people in this mysterious city, but his voice from Heaven is, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues. The writings of the apostles who have explained the prophets and all center in Jesus Christ is the only foundation of his church, and they will triumph over Babylon when she falls, Eph. ii, 19; Rev. xvii, 3, 5, 8; xviii, 4, 20. Early warning was given against grievous wolves and perverse schismatics to avoid whom God and the word of his grace is our only security, Acts xx, 29-30. The perfection of the Holy Scriptures is held up as what must be continued in if we would get out of the perils which love to self under a form of Godliness hath brought upon these last days, 2 Tim. iii, 1-5, 14-17. In those writings we have no mention of any instance of baptism without a personal profession of faith and repentance nor of anyone who was admitted into the Christian Church without water baptism. The followers of George Fox, who have formed a large society without it have set up a rule in themselves above the Holy Scriptures. A late writer of theirs, after attempting to excuse George Fox for saying the soul was infinite, and trying to prove their opinion of an inward rule from the first chapter of the Gospel of John without being able clearly to do it, said, "Is not the apostle John's Greek as ordinary as G. Fox's English?" " Thus he would set the leader of their sect on a level with the oracles of God! And it is well known that the majority of them held with Great Britain in her late bloody attempts against American liberty and also are strongly set against the doctrine of particular election and final perseverance. And can any men be found upon earth who deny that doctrine and yet make conscience of obeying the following plain rules of Scripture? In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision but a new creature, Gal. v, 6, 23; vi, 2, 6 , 1 5 , 16. God calls his covenant with Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham had no right to circumcise any stranger until he had bought him as a servant with money, Acts vii, 8; Gen. xvii, 13. But the Gospel says to Zion, Ye shall be redeemed without money. * Phipps against Newton; reprinted at Philadelphia, 1783, pp. 191, 203.

468

Isaac Backus

Thy God reigneth, Isai. Iii, 3, 7; Rom. χ, 15. He purchased the church with his own blood, Acts xx, 28. And after he had done it he said, Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat, 1 Cor. v, 2; vii, 19, 23. Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them, Eph. v, 6, 7, 1 1 . Every tree is known by his own fruit, for of thorns men do not gather figs nor of bramblebush gather they grapes. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good, and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil, for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Luke vi, 43-46. When the blade sprung up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. Let both grow together until the harvest. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one, Matt, xiii, 26, 30, 38. In these plain Scriptures, the covenant of circumcision is repealed by the name which God gave to it, and the church and world are clearly distinguished as two different judicatories, the one to exclude all who appear by their fruits to be fornicators, covetous, railers, drunkards, or extortioners, from their fellowship, the other to let them grow together with the children of the kingdom, in the world, until the end of it, only punishing such as work ill to their neighbors, Rom. xiii, 1-10. And fighting and oaths are allowed of in this latter government, John xviii, 36; Heb. vi, 16. And wars will not fully come to an end until the nations shall freely receive the law from Ζion and guile shall be banished from the church. A loud cry will then be heard, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, Micah iv, 1 - 1 0 ; Rev. xiv, 1-8. The covenant of circumcision will no more be called the covenant of grace nor men be bewitched, as the Galatians were, with the practice of confounding works and grace together. God never injured Cain in giving saving faith to Abel, nor the Midianites, who were of the seed of Abraham, in electing Israel for his church, neither did he injure Korah, or the

E L E C T I O N AND PERSEVERENCE

469

children of Reuben, Jacob's first born, in electing Aaron and his lawful seed for priests. And he never injured any man in uniting the priestly and kingly offices in Jesus Christ and in souls who are born again, who are only the kings and priests in the Gospel-church, Heb. ν, 4-6; Rev. i, 5, 6; ν, io. And no others have any right to be members therein, and they all ought ever to be like little children instead of striving who should be the greatest, Matt, xviii, 3, 4. None can have a right in the kingdom of God who do not receive it as a little child, Mark x, 15. Such are glad of gifts. But Mr. Wesley has flatly denied that God could justly have passed him by and not have given him power in his will to believe, which is his notion of grace. Wages can be recovered by law, but a gift is bestowed on whom, and in what manner the giver pleaseth. Therefore God says, Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good? So the last shall be first and the first last, for many are called but few chosen, Matt, xx, 15, 16. This is the true idea of election which men have an amazing quarrel against. For if it depends entirely upon the will of God whether he will save any of us or not, then we can have no encouragement to set up our wills against him. If we do so, he can blast all our schemes as he pleaseth, and when we come to die he may then choose whether he will hear our cries for mercy or not. Yea, he hath assured us that he will not hear our cries then if we now delight in scorning and hate knowledge, Prov. i, 20-29. Giving diligence in the believing pursuit of virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, Godliness, brotherly kindness and charity is the only way to make our calling and election sure; while heretics are self-willed, under the name of liberty, 2 Pet. i, 5 - 1 1 , ii, 1, 10, 19. Our Lord hath set before us an example of great faith which may encourage us in this pursuit, Luke vii, 1-9. Here observe, 1. That this Roman centurion took all his encouragement from God as he revealed himself in his Son and none of it from any imaginary worthiness in the creature. I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof, wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee. Yet he believed that Jesus, of his own infinite mercy would grant relief. 2. He was careful to seek it in a lawful way, and before the death of Christ it was unlawful for a member of that church to keep company with other nations, Acts x, 28. Therefore he would not violate the law of God, even to save life. 3. He believed that Jesus could do it when absent as well as if he was present. Say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. Herein his faith was much greater

47°

Isaac

Backus

than the faith of Martha, Mary, or of Thomas the apostle, John xi, 21, 32; XX, 29. He clearly acted by faith and not by sight. 4. He made good use of his reason to strengthen his faith, and not to weaken or destroy it, as is the case with multitudes. He said, I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doth it. And if an unworthy sinner with a commission from a heathen power could be thus obeyed, what can be too hard for the Captain of our salvationl He took not on him the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Every discovery of sin and want should speed our flight to the throne of his grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. For he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them, Heb. ii, 14-18; iv, 16; vii, 25. His only temple here below is in them who are poor and of a contrite spirit and tremble at his word. And if their brethren pretend to regard to the glory of God in hating of them and casting them out, yet he says, I shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed, Isai. lxvi, 1-5. The first Christian martyr sealed this testimony with his blood, Acts vii, 48-51. And others overcame the great accuser by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death. And when their souls shall be raised the Devil will be bound and be cast into the bottomless pit out of which the beast came who kills the two witnesses, Rev. xi, 7; xii, 1 1 ; xx, 1-4. The Word of God, both by Moses and the Lamb, is as clear as glass and as powerful as fire; and they who obtain the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name stand and act joyfully upon the sea of glass mingled with fire, 2 Cor. iii, 18; Jer. xxiii, 29; Rev. xv, 2, 3. Covetousness is idolatry, Col. iii, 5. And to destroy idolatry Elijah said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him, and if Baal, then follow him, which point was decided by fire from Heaven, 1 Kings xviii, 21, 39. And way for the first coming of our Lord was prepared by a man who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, Mai. iv, 1, 2, 5; Luke i, 17. And way for his second coming will be prepared by the raising of the souls of the old martyrs which I think means the resurrection of their

ELECTION AND PERSEVERENCE

471

Spirit and power in the churches. For God gave them not the spirit of fear but of power, of love, and of a sound mind, 2 Tim. i, 7. Even such love as to sacrifice their lives before they would violate any rule of truth or equity. All the world have now seen that love is a vastly more powerful principle of action than fear. For as long as the Americans were afraid of destruction or slavery their union and activity defeated all the attempts of their enemies, but no sooner was that fear removed than the love of riches, honors and pleasures prevailed over contracts and oaths and filled the land with discord, treachery, and infidelity. By the love of money vast numbers have erred from the truth and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. And our only remedy is not to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God who giveth us richly all things to enjoy. That we do good, that we be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, laying up in store a good foundation against the time to come that we may lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. vi, 9-19. AMEN.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE Exchange of Letters between the Separates of Titicut, Massachusetts, and the Parish Committee of Titicut, November ιγφ

This appendix consists of two letters, one written on November 2 1 , 1748, by the leading members of Backus' newly formed Separate Church in Titicut, and the other an answer to it, which is undated, from the Precinct or Parish Committee of Titicut. Backus undoubtedly helped to draft the original letter and he attributes the reply, in his diary, to a neighboring minister of the established church, though it does not give the appearance of having been written by an educated man. It is seldom that such ephemeral items as these have been preserved, and were it not for Backus' meticulous concern with preserving a historical record of the Separate and Separate-Baptist movements we would not have these. Because these letters reveal so clearly the workings of the average citizens in the parishes, it has seemed worthwhile to leave them in their original spelling and grammar as much as possible. The issues were complex ones to grapple with even among those who knew the traditions and parish practices well. Any effort to modernize the spelling and grammar would inevitably detract from and perhaps distort the intricate thought processes by which each party sought to rationalize an enormously complicated and highly emotional problem. The manuscripts are in the Backus Papers, Andover Newton Theological School.

To the Inhabitants of the Precinct, part of Bridgwater and part of Middlebor'[ough] who differ from us in Sentiments Respecting religion. Gent[leme]n: though a differance hath Subsisted with us for Some years in this respect, yet when the minister w e have Setled with us; first Came amongst us; after you had heard Converst with him &c. you appeard freely to Joyn with us, in Calling or inviteing him to preach among us: and there was a Seeming unity and wonderfull agreement amongst us. But after Some Space of time; you were disposed to withdraw from us and Call a minister among your Selves and the division apeared near the Same as heretofore. Now these are to propose Conditions of peace and reconciliation, or of Peace at least; if w e Can't agree to meet together &c.

476

Appendix One

1 We would propose, that if you will again return and Joyn with us In meeting &c: you are hertily welcome, Shall be freely Excluded from all Charges heretofore Created in the Setteling our minister and we are ready freely to Joyn in Compleeting the meeting house, to go on in love together Even till Death, Shall part. But if this is So mean you Canot Conseed to it 2 We would propose to go on in peace though we are not agreed to walk together. Intreating you would not Press upon us to help to build you a meetinghouse and maintain a minister when we ask no Such thing of you. You will own that oppression will make a wise man mad, and much more Such as we are; and pray Consider would you Like it; if we were a few more in number than you to be forced to help us build a meeting house and maintain our minister? We Doubt it much. And yet we all talk of Giveing Liberty of Concience freely and if So: pray where's the Golden rule? And farther we would say as we were at equal Charge with you in Purchasing and raiseing the meting house we are willing to Quit it to you Provided you will go on without oppresing us; and leave you Liberty to help us as much about ours If you See good. And do remember that if we are those unhapy Souls that are gone back from following Christ, that we don't read that he ever forced those that did draw back to maintain him and those that did Continue to follow with him. Nay we do realy take it [to] be Contrary to the gospel which Saith on this wise, So to live Reali religion and hold the truth, practis holyness that the light may So Shine before others as to thus win them to Gloryfie god, not force them to do it: which is So Contra', as we take it, as to really Savour of that Spirit of persecution So much Condemned in the word of god. And Before you proceed to lay hold of us we would pray you to Consider that the day is a Coming and is realy nigh, when we Shall be Judged without partiality, all of us. And if you will Spend a few moments to Ponder on these things and don't find neither of them reasonable and agreeable, pray advance Some that be if you See good, that We may go on in peace tho' apart. . . We Remain your Souls wellwishers Novr. 21st: 1748

Joshua Fobes Samuel Alden etc.

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

477

[Reply from the Titicut Parish Committee] To the Inhabitants of Titicutt Parish Who have Separated from us. Britheren; We Recived Yours of November the 21: 1748 and have Taken the Contents of your Letter into Serious Consideration and have Endeavered to way them in the Ballance of the Santuary and of Reason With Deliberation and Without Prejudice or Persiallity. In your Letter we have a Request made to us by way of proposal Which Consists of Two parts; as first that we would Joyn With you in meeting and then in the next place, if we Cannot Joyn with you in the meeting &c. that we would go on in Peace with you. As to the first part of your Request that we would Joyn with you in the meeting we answer that we Can by no means Comply with it. Neither Do we apprehend that the arguments you make Euse of as motives to Enjage our Complyance have any weight att all in them. Your first argument is this, that we Shall be heartily welcome. Heartyly welcome to what, why to Come to the meeting to be Spectators of your worship to hear what your Preacher hath to Say to us and Perhaps once in a While a brother or Sister amongst your Selves Disposed at the meeting to give us a word by way of Reproof and Direction, not that we Shall be heartyly welcome to Come into your Church as You are pleased to Call it Till in the first place we pass under An Examaination Before your Selves and Even then your own Experiances may be the ground Tryal of our fittness for admition, not that we are now heartily welcome to Joyn with you in those Religious acts which you Consider and view[?] as the Duty and previledge of them that are Converted, for you plainly Tell us we and you are of Different Sentiments in Religion. Gentlemen is the appelation you give us which is a Civil Denomination, not Bretheren Which is a christian Sallutation. And yet how many among us have a Reagular Standing as members in the Church of christ never forfitted our Carecter as Christians by falling in to Erors in Judgment or Scandal in practice. You Say we Shall be heartyly welcome namely to Come to the meeting if in the first place we Comply to the proposed Conditions and is this your Condesention Bretheren, Oh wonderfull. Why veryly in this Respect the mehomitants, the papist, the quakers go Beyond you for they will allow men of Differand Sentiments in Religion to Come freely to their meeting to be Spectators of their worship to hear what their Preacher hath to Say without Entering in to any aggreement with them Before hand upon what Condition they

478

Appendix One

Shall come. Your proposals with the first argument to Enjage our Complyance is endeed Surpriceing and so indeed is the Second. Tis this, that you will freely Exclude us from all chargeis here to fore Created in the Settleng your Minister. And Do you Really think Bretheren that our money is our Riligion, that What we are aiming at in our oppesision to you is to get free of Chargis and Save a penny. We Desire to have Little Regard to our money in Comparison with the glory of god as Tis manefested in our holding forth the Truth in Calling and Settleing among us a Pious and Learned minnistry and keeping the ordinanceis as Delivered to us in the word of god. If we Can obtain this by the Blessing of god upon our Endeavors though our Difficultyes and Charges are greater and Risies higher yet, after all we Trust that we Shall Rejoyce in it. If the honor and glory and of the Redeemer is their by advancied all is Well &c. If we ware acted by a Sordid Spirit of Coveteousness and had a mind To Save Chargis then perhaps you might hear us Cry out against the pious and Learned minnisstry as too Chargable and Exspensive and against minnisters of this Carecter as hierlings but at present through the Divine goodness Such a Spirit has not Eateen us up. And accordingly this argument of yours is of no weight to move our Complyance with your Request. Neither your third and Last argument which is this, that if we will Come to your meeting, you are Ready freely to Joyn in Compleating the meeting house, to go on in Love together Even till Death Shall part. To this we Say: and why are you not Ready freely to joyn with us in Compleating the meeting house, to go on in Love with us Even till Death Shall part although we Don't Come to your meeting. Don't you know Bretheren, Can you in Reason desire any Clearer Evidence than we give that we are Even to this Day persuing the origional desighn and intension of our being incorperated by the genaral Court into a Disstinct Preceint to have a pious and Learned minisstry Settleid and the ordinanceis adminnisstered among us and that goverment in the church attended Conformed to by us which is agreeabel to the Constitution of the New England Churchis gathered out of the word of god. This is what we are and have been to this day persuing in building us a meetinghouse, inviteing Duly quallifyed persons as Candidates to preach amongst us. And accordingly we have not Seperatied and Departed from you but you have Seperated and Departed from us, and hence our Duty is not to Return to you but your Duty is to Return to us. And now having Set forth in a clear Light the vanity

EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

479

of your arguments as being of no weight to Enjage our Complyance with your Request, we Shall now proseed to give you some Reasons why we Refuse a Complyance with it: I.e: why we Refuse to joyn with you in meting &c. ist: our first Reason is that we have been and are to this Day persuing the origional Desighn and intention of our being incorporated into a Precient [precinct] by the genaral Court, namely that a pious and a Learned ministry might be setteled and the ordinances adminnisstered among us according to the word of god &c. and accordingly Bretherin we have not Sepperatied and Departed from you for you were professedly with us at first in this Desighn but you have Seperated and Departed from us and hence our Duty is not to Return to you but your Duty is to Return to us. 2: Secondly our second Reason is this. We very much Disapprove of him who you Call your minnister one Mr. Isaac Backas as being won who is in no measure fit to Sustain the minnisterial office in any church of Christ for these Reasons. Because at his first Coming among you he was under Church Censure for Disorderly walking and Remains So to this Day as far as we Can learn. Becase 2nd he is not a person of Truth as we Can Evidence and prove, and Don't give a fair and Just Representation of things. By this means Some of us were to our grief and Shame Deceived by him at his first Comeing amongst us which was the unhappy ocasion of our improveing him as a Preacher for a few Sabaths. 3ly he pretends as is Eussual with Deceivers to an Extreordinary mission and Extraordinary Call to the ministry, a Call Equally Extreordinary with that of the prophets and apposles, Still Insisting upon this that his Call is the Same with them Even with Respect to nature and Substance, as if their was nothing Esential to their Call, prophets and apposles, but what is found in him Self, So by this means Raising an high opinion of him Self in the thoughts and Sentiments of the more Ignorent. Because 4ly he is not a man sound in prinsiples as to Several important points in Religeon as we are Ready to Evidence and prove and in perticuler as to his notion about the Call of perticuler Persons to the work of the minnisstry, his notion about a visable Church, his notion about the Sensibillyty of that fellowship which True Believers have one with another by virtue of their union to Christ. Because 5thly by Reason of that false notion which he has about Several points in Religeon he goes about from place to place as a preacher to the hurt and prejudice of Religion and to the Dissturbance of the Peace of well Constituted Churchis of Christ. For these and such like Reasons we very much

480

Appendix One

Disaprove of him Whom you Call your minister and so for the present Can by no means Joyn with you in metting. A third Reason Why we Cannot Joyn with you in meeting is this, because of the Disorderly and unscripturial way and maner in which you Rent off from the Churchis you belonged to without the Consent of the Churchis where you Belonged and Contrary to the Advice that had been given you by the Neighbouring minnisters at A fast. We Say the unscriptureal Disorderly way and maner in which you Rent off from the Churchis you belonged to under a notion of forming your Selves into a Church State and Since you have Done this as you pretend Receiveing male Contents [malcontents] from the neighboring Churchis in to your fellowship and Communion as you please: such measures as these we Look upon to be Exstreamly arbitrary. We Come now to the second part of your Request made to us by way of proposal that if we Can't see Light to Joyn with you in meeting yet that we would go on in Peace with you. We Reply, your Peace in a good Cause and in a good way and upon a good foundation, we would by no means Disturb but Should be glad to Cherish and promote it. But if you are att peace in a bad Cause and in a Sinfull way and upon a false foundation we Should be glad to break it for your good. Britheren to go on in Peace with you: i.e. to let you alone without Euseing our Endeavers to Reclaim and Recover you wherein you are Wrong and out of the way of Truth, which would be to purchase peace at the Exspence of Duty. You mintion Two things which if we press upon you are as you think just grounds of offence and will Render us the Blamable Cause of Breaking Peace and So that the guilt will be upon our side, namely if we press upon you to help build us a meeting house and to maintain our minisster. To the first of these we Reply, when we urge and press upon you to go on with us in building a meeting house for the publick worship of god, in this we urge and press you to Do no more than your Duty Still to Comply with and not sinfully Start back from the original Desighn and intention of our being incorporated into a Disstinct Preceint. In this we urge and press you to Do No more than your own professed and Declared End: when at first incorporatied with us into a Disstinct Society: and now Bretheren pray inform us how are we guilty in this. Is it our sin that we urge and Press you to Do your Duty, are we become your Enemies because we tell you the truth. In the next place, when we urge and press you to go on and Joyn with us in Calling and Settleing a pious and a Learned minesstry among us where

EXCHANGE OF L E T T E R S

481

is our Sin and iniquty in this. Tis to Do that which is Required at your hands both by god and the Christian majesstrates and why then Do you fault and blame us in this. Shall we Let you alone in the Neglect of your Duty to the Emenent hazard of your own Spirittual intrist: and the intrist of your Children after you. And although we Live in a Christian goverment must we be silent and never make Euse of the power and Authority of the Christian majisstrates to Reclaim and Reform you. Is this oppression, is this going Contrary to the Golden Rule. Doos this infringe upon that Liberty of Concience which god gives, is this Persicution. Let us make a Brief inquiry in to these things: and first as to oppression, this Can't mean and intend that Tis unwarantable or Sinfull for men to Urge and press others to a Complyans with their Duty as it is pointed out by the Laws of god or the good and wholesome Laws of the Land. And in Case men through obstinacy and willfullness and so will not make good their Lawfull Contracts, Covenants, the original good and Desighn of their being incorporated into Disstinct Sociityes and so Tis no oppression for the Christian majusstrates to oblyge them to it by puting the good and Wholsome Laws of the Land in Execcution upon them. If any call this oppresion they Do Err Exceedingly not Knowing the Scriptures nor what the office or Duty of the Christian majesstrate is. And since this is the Case how Can you have the face Bretheren to give us So much as one hint as if we are oppressors: when we Do but put you in mind of your Duty and urge you to a Complyance with it: Namely to go on and keep Still with us in building an house for the publick worship of god &c. In the next place Let us Consider what the golden rule is. It intends this, that men Should Do to others in Regard to things that are Equall and Right that what they Desire others to Do to themselves in the Like Case or Surcumstancies: i.e. in Regard of things that are Equall and Just for the golden Rule takes place only in things of this nature. Now Let us see how you apply this Rule. You ask: Should you Like it in us, if we were a few more in Number then you are: and So should force you to help build us a metting house and maintain our minnisster; we answer no, we Should Dislike it very much, neither would the Laws of god or men oblyge us to it: for in Such a Case what you would Desire of us would be neither Lawfull nor Wright; if you ask how Dose it appear that it would be neither Lawfull nor Rright; we answer because your measures and proseedings in Renting off from the Churchis you belonged to and forming your Selves in to a Church State, as you call it,

482

Appendix One

are unscriptureal, some of your professed articles of faith absolutely false, and your preacher unsound as to Some important points in Religion and in other Respects unfitt for a minister; but what we Desire of you is Equall and Right, Tis to Eunite and go on Still with us; in the original Desighn and intention of our being incorporated into a preceint to build a meeting house, to Call and settle a pious Learned minnisstry &c. What we Demand of you is Equal and Right, what you Demand of us is Evill and sinfull and hence we have the golden Rule upon our side whille you are Receeding and Departing from it. For if we were in an Eror and out of the Right way as we see and Know that you are in several Respects, and you see and Knew it of us as we Do of you, we think that the golden Rule would Oblyge you to Tell us of our Eror and not let us alione to go on peacablely in it, that is, with out Euseing proper means to Recover and Reclaim us: whether by the Laws of god or the good and Wholesome Laws of the Land, as we now treat you for the good of your selves and posterrity, you being out of the Right way. So if this Should Ever be the Case with us, for we are Liable to Eror Even as you, nothing but Divine goodness hath prevented it, we say if this Should Ever be the Case tis our Desire that others would treat us as now we Do you for our good and the good of our children after us; the next thing we have to Consider is whether our Conduct towards you Dose Enfringe upon or is any ways Contrary to that Liberty of Consience which god gives; and here we must tell you Liberty of Concience according to the word of god is not for men to Live as they list or Do as they please while they maintain Erors in Judgment, Disown the truth of god, Exclaim against a faithfull minnesstry, make Light of that good order and goverment which Jesus Christ has Set up in his Church; neither Dose god himself Countinance or give Liberty to any men to follow the Dictates of a missguided Eronious Consience, while he puts Darkness for light and light for Darkness, if men in a Christian goverment Emajane that they have Liberty from a great god to break over their Lawfull Contracts, Covenants, the original good and Desighn of their being incorporated into Disstinct socityes, and that they may Do this under a notion of Liberty of Concience without being Called to an accompt for it by men in authority, we say if any imajane thus, Tis a plain intimation of their gross ignorance both with Respect to the Scriptures and also the office and buisness of a Christian Ruler, where wise and faithfull men are at the helm of goverment in a province Set up their own Dictates

EXCHANGE OF L E T T E R S

483

as oracles and their own Judgment as the Rule and Standard for Every body also to Conform to: and so upon this to act and Conduct as they pleas under a vain notion and pretence that god gives them Liberty of Concience; in a word Let men ['s] Concience be never so Eronious or misguided god gives them no Liberty, he Don't aprove them in this that they maintain Erors in Judgment or Break his Laws in practice. That which you Call Liberty of Conceince in Refuseing to go with us in building a meeting house, Calling, Settleing a pious Learned minnisstry is Really a Liberty to sin. In the next place Let us Consider what persicution is and whether we have given you any Just grounds to think that we are acted by a Persicuteing Spirit in our Treatment of you. And here Let it be observed that their is a great Differance betwen persicution and prosicution. What if the guilty are told freely of their faults, put in mind of their sinfull Conduct, Reproved for their Disorderly practicees? What if they are prosicuted as Evil Doers and are Buffited for their faults and Suffer as Busibodyes and have the good and Wholsom Laws of the Land Execcuted upon them by the Christian majestrates for not fullfilling thim Lawfull Contracts and Covenants or for the plain violation of the Laws of god that are Evidenced and proved upon them such as Idolitry, Swearing, sabath Breaking or if in a tumultious Disorderly maner they Dissturb the peace of gods people when assembled for publick worship, is this Persicution. Let one Divinely inspired Ditermine the matter, see ist of Peter 20 and end; 3rd: 17; ist of peter 4 and 15. 1 In what is it Bretheren that we Discover a persicuteing spirit in our Treatment of you. Is it because we put You in mind of your Duty and urge and press you to a Complyance with it. We Speak now of your Duty in Euniteing and Joyning with us in building a meeting house, Calling and settleing a pious and Learned minisstry according to the original good Desighn of the society when first set off in to a preceint; and in Case you Refuse this we think it agreable and Just that the good and wholsome Laws of the Land should be put in Excicution upon you by the christian majesstrates to oblyge you to your Duty, and is this persicution. Do you in this suffer for Righteousness Sake. Do you in this suffer for well Doing. No Surely. And now bretheren we pray you to way what we have offered in these Lines in the Ballance of the Sanctuary and of Reason with a Calm mind and with out prejudice; Revive your past Conduct towards us in all the parts of it Just as it has been and Let Concience fathfully Discharge its office; Let your thought and medita-

484

Appendix One

tion be fixed if it be but for a few moments upon that great and Nottable Day of the Lord Which is approaching When you and we shall have an impersial Tryal before an impersial Judge who Cannot be Deceived and who will not be mocked; we are Ready to hope bretheren that you are not as yet so far under the influence of a misguided Eronious consience, not so far as yet Carried away with a Spirrit of inthusiasm or with a partey spirit but that there Remains still a possibility of your being brought to see things, Divine things, in their True and proper Light, and So of your Returning to such a Temper of mind as may yet Render you serviceable and acceptable in the society and Community where of you are members. We are Ready to think that a future Judgment Duly Realized and Considered would be of admirable service to you in order to this. And now bretheren our proposal is this, that you and we for the future as the Elect of god, put on bowels of mercy, Kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, Long sufering forbearing one another and forgiveing one another and above all these things that we put on, Charity, and Let the peace of god Rule in our hearts to which also we are Called in one Body. In a word that for the future we Eunite and Joyn with one heart and spirit in the origional Desighn of our being set off into a preceint, namely to have a pious and Learned minesstry settled and the ordinances administred among us, and that goverment in the Church attended and Conformed to by us which is agreeable to the Constitution of the Newengland Church gathered out of the word of god. And where in we and you Differ in Judgment with Respect to What a pious and Learned minisitry is or what the Constitution of the Newengland Churchis are, we are Ready to Eunite and Joyn with you in sending to well Constituted Churchis of Christ as we are Directed in the word of god to Come and give us What Light and assistance they shall be Directed to in this matter. We wish your health and happyness in time and forever more. Signed By us In behalf of the Rest of the Precinct Benja. White Benji. Washburn Amos Keith James Keith

APPENDIX TWO Petition of the Separates of Massachusetts to the General Court, June 7, 1749

It is not known how much of this petition was written by Backus, but he was probably its principal architect. It was he who called the conference of Separates which met in Attleboro on May 24, 1749, "to confer about petitioning the [General] Court for to set us free from the oppression of being forced to pay to the support of a worship that we can't in conscience join with." As Backus went on to say in his diary entry under that date, "And we had considerable clearness in sending and we drew a petition and sent copies around to the saints in various parts of the governments, and it fell to my lot to carry a copy down to the Cape." He describes the disposition of the petition, which was presented to the General Court by Elder John Paine of Rehoboth and Elder Samuel Peck of Rehoboth, as follows : "This petition was given in to the General Court June 7, 1749, and it was brought upon trial in the house of representatives a few days after. And after considerable contention upon it, they chose a committee to confer upon it, and so sent it up to the Council. And they declared nonconcurrence, and so there was nothing further then acted upon it. . . . It cost about seven pound older tenor, and there was about £2.0 left. The number that signed the petition was about a hundred and eighty three." The manuscript from which the following text is taken is in the Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Archives (located in the Massachusetts State House), XII, 626. The only changes in transcription here have been to lower superscript letters and to change y" to the. To His Excellency William Shirley Esqr. Captn. Generali Governour in Chief In & Over His Majesties Province of Massachusetts Bay in New England, the Honl. His Majesties Council with the House of Representatives in Generali Court Assembled May 1749. The Representation & Petition of John Pain & Samuel Peck of Rehoboth in the County of Bristoll in the Province And others of the Inhabitants of sd. Province: Many of Whome are Free Men of this Province and all of them Lege Subjects to His Royall Majesty King George the Second whom we Pray GOD long to Preserve. We whose Names are hereunto Subscribed humbly Sheweth that GOD hath [given] to every Man an Unalianable Right in Matters of His Worship to [act] for himself as

486

Appendix Two

his Consciance reseves [receives] the Rule from GOD & hath Blessed [those] that hath appeared to stand uprightly for the Liberty of Consciance in all Ages and Perticularly our fore Fathers who left their Pleasant Native Land for an [empty] houlling Wilderness full of Savage Men & Beasts that they might have Liberty of Consciance & they found the Marcifull & Faithfull GOD was not a Wilderness [to them] but drove out the Saviges & Planted Chhs. [Churches] & Colonies: Also gave them Favour in the Sight of their Kings & Queens so that their Majesties granted to & in their Subjects in this Province with a Charter in which among other great Favours Liberty of Consciance is granted to all Christians except Papists. Notwithstanding this Liberty granted to us which wee Desire to Bless GOD for [&] Pray that we may rightly Improve the Same; Yet therr is some Laws called Ecclesiastical Laws which are so Understood by them that have the Execution of the Same that [if we?] Pass not under the Denomination of Churchmen or of the Church of England or AnnaBaptists or Quakers or do not Worship on the Sabbath with the [major] Part of the Town or Precinct whare We Live which we Cannot in Consciance do; Yet they by these Laws Imprison Some & put some in the Stock & also take away Some of our Goods & Chatties to maintaine their Minnesters which we Should [have] to serve GOD and honnour the King with; & this Notwithstanding we meet [?] in our severall Towns & worship God in Spirit & in Truth and In joy Him [in His] Ordinances & have the Gospell of our Deer Lord Jesus Christ Preached to us without their Charge or Coast [Cost] & as these Oppressions being Still carried on among us; Your Honnours Petitioneurs humbly Pray that your Honours [be] the happy Instruments in the Hand of GOD of Onbinding these Heavy Burdens & letting the Oppressed goe free by Enacting Universali Liberty or forbidding the Execution of s[ai]d Ecclesiasticall Laws that are or may be to the Debarring of any in this Province of the Liberties granted by GOD & tollerated by our King and we as in Duety Bound Shall ever Pray John Paine Samuel Peck [and 181 others]

APPENDIX THREE Isaac Backus' Draft for a Bill of Rights for the Massachusetts Constitution, lyjg

On August 8, 1779, Backus received a letter from his friend, Noah Alden, Elder of the Baptist Church in Bellingham, stating that he had been elected to represent his town at the forthcoming constitutional convention. "The view I have of the matter is that it is essentially necessary that in the first place there should be a Bill of Rights ascertaining what are the natural civil and religious rights of the people and a form of government predicated upon said Bill of Rights perfectly agreeable thereto and never no laws afterward made repugnant unto said Bill of Rights. But as I am sensible that the delegates will not be all of my mind and the work is great and my gifts small and I am inexperienced in a work of this sort, dear brother, I pray you to favor me with your mind on the subject — especially what are the rights of the people and how that Bill of Rights ought to be drawn." Backus replied by sending Alden the following draft incorporating his ideas on the subject. Alden's letter to Backus is among the Backus Papers at Andover Newton Theological School as is his own copy of this draft which is here reprinted. His original letter to Alden has been lost.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS, OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, IN NEW-ENGLAND.

1 All men are born equally free and indépendant, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. 2 As God is the only worthy object of all religious worship, and nothing can be true religion but a voluntary obedience unto his revealed will, of which each rational soul has an equal right to judge for itself, every person has an unalienable right to act in all religious affairs according to the full persuasion of his own mind, where others are not injured thereby. And civil rulers are so far from having any right to empower any person or persons, to judge for others in such affairs, and to enforce their judgments with the sword, that their power ought to be exerted to protect all persons and societies, within their

488

Appendix

Three

jurisdiction from being injured or interrupted in the free enjoyment of this right, under any pretense whatsoever. 3 The people of this State have the sole, exclusive, and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same. 4 As all civil rulers derive their authority from the people, so they are accountable to them for the use they make of it. 5 The great end of government being for the good of the governed, and not the honor or profit of any particular persons or families therein, the community hath an unalienable right to reform, alter, or new form their constitution of government as that community shall judge to be most conducive to the public weal. 6 It being essential to civil freedom that every elector of officers should give his vote with an unbiased mind, whoever shall make use of any sort of bribery, or party influence, either to get into office, or to keep himself in place thereby seeks to rob the freemen of their birthright and ought to be looked upon as an enemy to liberty, and not to be trusted with any public office. Elections ought to be free and frequent. 7 Every member of civil society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expenses of that protection, and to yield his personal services, when necessary, or an equivolent thereto: but no part of any man's property can justly be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: and no man ought to be compelled to bear arms, who conscientiously scruples the lawfulness of it, if he will pay such equivolent; nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good. 8 In all prosecutions for criminal offences, a man hath a right to be heard by himself and his council, to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and a speady public trial, by an impartial jury of the country, without whose consent he cannot be found guilty. Nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can any man be justly deprived of his liberty, except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of his peers. 9 The people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation

B I L L OF RIGHTS

489

for them, and whereby an officer or messenger may be required to search suspected places, or seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted. 10 In all controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the parties have a right to trial by jury, which ought to be held sacred. 1 1 The people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained. 12 The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 13 A frequent recurrence to the first principles of government, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industery, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the great blessings of government and liberty; and the people have a right to assemble together, to consult about these great concerns, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legisliture for a redress of grievances, by address, petition or remonstrance. Bill of Rights. 1779·

THE WORKS

OF ISAAC

BACKUS

ENDNOTES BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

GLOSSARY

THE WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS

This bibliography lists in chronological order the major books, tracts, sermons, etc. which Backus published during his lifetime. The titles given are taken directly from the title pages and maintain the original punctuation and capitalization. However, only those parts of the titles have been italicized which constitute the most effective short tide to define the work. Since Backus often incorporated a second work or polemical tract as an appendix to these publications, italics have been used to enable the reader to pick out both tides. This list does not include the petitions and broadsides which Backus signed and probably wrote for the Grievance Committee of the Warren Association, nor works for which he wrote an introduction. It is based upon previous bibliographies compiled by Milton V. Backman for his doctoral dissertation, Thomas B. Maston for his study of Backus' ideas, and the usual scholarly bibliographies for the period. All but two of the works on this list can be found either in the John Carter Brown Library in Providence or the Brown University Library. The second edition of Backus' Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach (1792) is in Widener Library at Harvard, and Backus' compilation of the hymns of Wallin, Stennet, and Watts (1762) is located in the New York Public Library. The Boston Public Library has a curious edition of Backus' history with a title page indicating that it was printed in London, but evidently the unbound pages were shipped to London from Boston and the new title page added there when the pages were bound for sale.

1754

All true Ministers of the Gospel, are called into that Work by the special Influences of the Holy Spirit. A Discourse Shewing the Nature and Necessity Of An Internal Call To Preach the Everlasting Gospel. Also Marks by which Christ's Ministers may be known from others, and Answers to sundry Objections: Together with some Observations on the Principles and Practices of many in the present Day concerning these Things. To which is added, Some short Account of the Experiences and dying Testimony of Mr. Nathaniel Shepherd. Boston, 1754·

1756

A Short Description Of the difference between the Bond-woman and the Free; As they are the two Covenants, with the Characters and Conditions of each of their Children: Considered in a Sermon Delivered at Middleborough, Wherein is particularly shewn, that none are proper Subjects of the special Ordinances of the Gospel-Church, but real Saints. Boston, 1756.

494

WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS

1762

Evangelical Hymns and Songs; In Two Parts: The First, composed on various views of the Christian Life and Warfare; The Second, in Praise of the Redeemer. Boston, 1762.

1763

Spiritual Ignorance causeth Men to counter-act their doctrinal Knowledge. A Discourse From Acts xiii.27. Providence, 1763.

1764

A Letter To the Reverend Mr. Benjamin Lord, of Norwich; Occasioned by some harsh Things which he has lately published against Those who have dissented from his Sentiments about the Ministry, the Church, and Baptism. Providence, 1764.

1766

Family Prayer not to be neglected. A Discourse, Wherein is Opened The Nature of Prayer in general, And The Warrant for Family Prayer in particular: With Answers to sundry Excuses for the Neglect thereof; And Addresses to several Sorts of Persons. Newport, 1766.

1767

True Faith will produce good Works. A Discourse Wherein are opened The Nature of Faith, and its powerful Influence on the Heart and Life; together with the contrary Nature and Effects of Unbelief: And Answers to various Objections. To which are Perfixed [sic] A brief View of the present State of the Protestant World, with some Remarks on the Writings of Mr. Sandeman. Boston, 1767.

1768

A Fish caught in his own Net. An Examination of Nine Sermons, from Matt. 16.18. Published last year, by Mr. Joseph Fish of Stonington; Wherein He labours to prove that those called Standing Churches in New-England, are built upon the Rock, and upon the same Principles with the first Fathers of this Country; And that Separates and Baptists are joining with the Gates of Hell against them. In Answer to which; Many of his Mistakes are corrected; The Constitution of those Churches opened; the Testimonies of Prophets and Apostles, and also of many of those Fathers are produced, which as plainly condemn his plan, as any Separate or Baptist can do. Boston, 1768.

1769

Gospel Comfort, under heavy Tidings. The Substance Of A Sermon, delivered at Middleborough, February 5, 1769, Upon hearing of the Death of a godly Mother. To which is added, Some Memories of her Life. Providence, 1769.

1770

A Short Description Of the difference Between The Bond-woman and the Free, As they are the Two Covenants. With the Characters and Condition of each of their Children. The Second Edition corrected. To which is now added, An Answer To Mr. Frothingham's late Letter, concerning Baptism. Boston, 1770.

WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS

495

1770

A Seasonable Plea for Liberty Of Conscience, Against some late Oppressive Proceedings; Particularly in the Town of Berwick, In the County of York. Boston, 1770.

1771

The Doctrine Of Sovereign Grace Opened and Vindicated: And Also The Consistency and Duty of declaring Divine Sovereignty, and Mens Impotency, while yet we address their Consciences with the Warnings of Truth, and Calls of the Gospel. Providence, 1771.

1771

A Letter To a Gentleman In The Massachusetts General Assembly, Concerning Taxes to support Religious Worship. N.p., 1771.

1772

Evangelical Ministers described, and distinguished from Legalists. A Sermon, The Substance of which was delivered October 30. 1771. At The Ordination of Mr. Asa Hunt, To the Pastoral Charge of the Third Baptist-Church in Middleborough. (Published at their request.) Boston, 1772.

1772

A Reply To a Piece wrote last Year, by Mr. Israel Holly, Pastor of a Church in Suffield; Entitled "The New-Testament Interpretation of the Old, relative to Infant Baptism." Wherein Another short Attempt is made toward bringing that Controversy to a happy Issue. Newport, 1772.

1773

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. Boston, 1773.

1773

An Appeal To The Public For Religious Liberty, Against the Oppression of the present Day. Boston, 1773.

1773

The Sovereign Decrees of God, Set In A Scriptural Light, And Vindicated against the Blasphemy contained in a late Paper, entitled, On Traditionary Zeal. In a Letter to a Friend. Boston, 1773.

1777

A History Of New-England, With particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists. Containing The first principles and settlements of the Country; The rise and increase of the Baptist Churches therein; The intrusion of Arbitary [sic] Power under the cloak of Religion; The Christian Testimonies of the Baptists and others against the same, with their Sufferings under it, from the Begining [sic] to the present Time. Collected from most authentic

496

WORKS OF ISAAC BACKUS

Records and Writings, both Ancient and Modern. Vol. I. Boston, 1777· 1778

Government And Liberty Exposed. Boston, 1778.

Described

And Ecclesiastical Tyranny

1779

The Substance Of An Address To An Assembly in Bridgewater, March 10, 1779, Previous to the Administration of Baptism. Published by request. Providence, n.d.

1779

Policy, As Well As Honesty, Forbids The Use Of Secular Force In Religious Affairs. Boston, 1779.

1780

An Appeal To The People Of The Massachusetts State Against Arbitrary Power. Boston, 1780.

1781

Truth Is Great, And Will Prevail. Boston, 1781.

ιγ8ζ

The Doctrine Of Universal Salvation Examined and Refuted. Containing, A concise and distinct Answer to the Writings of Mr. Relly, and Mr. Winchester, upon that subject. Providence, [1782].

1783

A Door Opened For Equal Christian Liberty, And No Man Can Shut It. This proved by plain Facts. Boston, 1783.

ι784

A Church History Of New-England. Vol. II. Extending from 1690, to 1784. Including A concise View of the American War, and of the Conduct of the Baptists therein, with the present State of their Churches. Providence, 1784.

1785

Godliness Excludes Slavery. Boston, 1785. [A discussion of spiritual, not chattel, slavery.]

1786

The Testimony Of The Two Witnesses, Explained And Improved. Providence, 1786.

1787

An Address To The Inhabitants of New-England, present Bloody Controversy therein. Boston, 1787.

1787

An Address To The Second Baptist Church, In Middleborough, Concerning The Importance Of Gospel Discipline. Middleborough, 1787.

1787

The Atonement Of Christ, Explained and Vindicated, Against Late Attempts to exclude it out of the World. Boston, 1787.

1789

The Doctrine Of Particular Election And Final Perseverance, Explained And Vindicated. Boston, 1789.

Concerning the

WORKS OF I S A A C BACKUS

497

1790

The Liberal Support Of Gospel Ministers, Opened And Inculcated. Boston, 1790.

1791

The Infinite Importance Of The Obedience of Faith, And Of A Separation from the World, Opened And Demonstrated. Second Edition [of True Faith will produce good Works], corrected and improved. Boston, 1791.

1792

The Nature and Necessity Of An Internal Call To Preach The Everlasting Gospel; With Marks to distinguish the Ministers of Christ from all Deceivers. The Second Edition Improved. Boston, 1792.

1792

The Kingdom. Of God, Described By His Word, With Its Infinite Benefits to Human Society. Boston, 1792.

1793

The Testimony Of The Two Witnesses, Explained And Vindicated, With A Few Remarks Upon The Late Writings of Dr. Hemmenway And Dr. Lathrop. The Second edition, improved. Boston, 1793.

1796

A Church History Of New-England Extending from 1783 Containing An Account Of The Religious Affairs Of The And Of Oppressions Therein On Religious Accounts; With ular History Of The Baptist Churches In The Five States England. Vol. III. Boston, 1796.

1803

Gospel Comfort for Mourners. A Sermon, Delivered at Middleborough, February 5, 1769, Upon Hearing Of The Death Of A Godly Mother. To Which Is Added, Some Memoirs Of Her Life. The Second Edition. With A Short Account Of His Wife. Boston, 1803.

1804

An Abridgment Of The Church History Of New-England from 1602 to 1804. Containing A View Of Their Principles And Practices, Declensions And Revivals, Oppression And Liberty, With A Concise Account Of The Baptists In The Southern Parts Of America And A Chronological Table Of The Whole. Boston, 1804.

1805

A Great Faith described and inculcated. A Sermon On Luke VII.9. Boston, 1805.

to 1796. Country, A ParticOf New-

ENDNOTES

PAMPHLET ι . A Discourse Showing the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Everlasting Gospel ι . August Herman Francke (1663-1727), a leading figure in the German Pietist movement within the Lutheran Church, was a friend of Philip Spener and professor of theology at Halle University. A correspondent of Cotton Mather, he was widely admired by New Lights like Backus for his evangelical pietism. 2. John Erskine (1721-1803), a friend of George Whitefield and a correspondent of Jonathan Edwards, he was pastor of a Presbyterian church near Glasgow and leader in the Church of Scotland. His works were widely read by New Light Calvinists in America for their evangelical temper. 3. John Davidson (i549?-i6o3), a friend of John Knox and minister of the Church of Scotland, vigorously opposed the efforts of James VI to introduce prelacy in Scotland; John Ker succeeded him in the pastorate at Prestonpans near Edinburgh. 4. Joseph Fish (1706-1781) was a graduate of Harvard, 1728, and the Standing minister in North Stonington, Connecticut, from 1732 to 1781. Though he sympathized with the New Light movement within the Standing Order during the Great Awakening, he vigorously opposed the Separates and Separate-Baptists whom he attacked in several tracts. His prolonged debate with Backus is noted in the Introduction. 5. John Flavel (ca. 1630-1691) was reputedly a graduate of Oxford and served as rector of Bromsgrove parish in England from 1650 to 1662. Because of his Puritan sympathies and his refusal to conform to the Church of England, he was ejected from his living in 1662. His vigorous Calvinistic works were very popular among New England ministers. 6. James Allin (1692-1746/47), Harvard, 1710, was ordained as the Standing or parish minister in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1717 and remained there until 1744. Backus misspelled his name "Allen." The dispute mentioned by Backus is also described in John Pierce, Reminiscences of Forty Years (Boston, 1837) pp. 27-30.

PAMPHLET 2. A Short Description of the Difference Between the Bondwoman and the Free 1. This is a reference to the practice introduced into the New England Congregational churches in the later seventeenth century with the active support of the Reverend Solomon Stoddard of Northampton (Harvard, 1662). Backus and most other New Lights (including Jonathan Edwards) opposed the practice. See Stoddard's Doctrine of Instituted Churches Ex-

ENDNOTES

499

plained and Proved (London, 1700) which is generally considered to be the first public statement of this practice by a New England minister. 2. Peter Clark (1693/94-1768) was a graduate of Harvard, 1 7 1 2 , and pastor of the Standing church in Salem Village (now Danvers), Massachusetts, from 1 7 1 7 to 1768. His book A Defense of the Divine Right of Infant Baptism (Boston, 1752) was one of the many responses to the rise of the Separate-Baptist movement following the Great Awakening. Though it raised few points which had not already been thrashed over in the controversies on this subject in the seventeenth century, it was important because it was a reply to John Gill's The Divine Right of Infant Baptism Examined and Disproved (London, 1749) and Gill was the most learned of the eighteenthcentury English Baptists. Gill, though a Seventh Day Baptist, was considered by Backus and most Separate Baptists in America to be the leading authority on antipedobaptism and they considered that Gill in his subsequent reply to Clark in 1754 had clearly won the dispute. 3. This is a reference to those Baptists who practiced open communion with pedobaptists or persons not immersed as adults. Because many of the Separate-Baptists who had formerly been baptized as infants in the Standing churches were reluctant to submit to a second baptism by immersion (even though they came to acknowledge the unscriptural practice of infant baptism), a considerable number of Baptist churches in Rhode Island and the bordering towns of Connecticut and Massachusetts did admit such persons to full membership or communion. Backus himself, as noted in the Introduction, practiced open communion from 1 7 5 1 to 1755, but thereafter devoted his life to promoting closed communion among the Baptists. PAMPHLET 3. A Fish Caught In His Own Net 1. The best examination of the Cambridge Platform of 1648 and the Saybrook Platform of 1708 which Backus discusses here as the ecclesiastical constitutions of Massachusetts and Connecticut respectively is to be found in Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York, 1893). 2. A Letter from the Associated Ministers of the County of Windham (Boston, 1747). 3. For this and the other "persecutions" of Separate Baptists mentioned below see Isaac Backus, A History of New England, ed. David Weston (Newton, Mass., 1 8 7 1 ) , II, 96-99. 4. A Letter from the Associated Ministers of the County of Windham (Boston, 174 7). 5. This book was written by Micaiah Towgood (1700-1792), an English Presbyterian minister. It appeared in Boston in 1767. PAMPHLET 4. The Sovereign Decrees of God 1. No copy of this anonymous broadside is known to exist. It was prob-

500

ENDNOTES

ably written by an Anglican minister in Rhode Island and published in Providence in 1773. 2. John Norton (1606-1663) succeeded John Cotton as pastor of the First Congregational Church of Boston in 1652. It is not known from which of Norton's many tracts Backus took this quotation. 3. The seventeenth article of the Thirty-Nine Articles which form the basic creed and discipline of the Church of England is entitled "Of Predestination and Election." Backus, like the Puritans, interpreted this article in Calvinistic terms, but its purposely vague phraseology permits less specific interpretation. PAMPHLET 5. An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty 1. By "we" Backus does not mean an editorial first person but the members of the Warren Baptist Association as representatives of the Baptists of Massachusetts. 2. Backus is pointing out that some Congregational ministers at this time were virtually Unitarian in their doctrines yet the law permitted them to be parish ministers while it prohibited good Calvinists who were antipedobaptists from being so chosen. 3. Mather was specifically referring here to a letter written by Governor Joseph Dudley to the justices of Essex County in 1 7 1 1 / 1 2 instructing them not to uphold the laying of religious taxes upon those persons claiming to be Episcopalians in the town of Newbury. See Susan Reed, Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691-1740 (Urbana, 111., 1914) pp. 165-166. 4. In this respect, as in many others, the Baptists of Massachusetts had more religious freedom at this time than those in the Anglican colonies or in England itself. 5. Discussions of these cases can be found in Backus' A History of New England, ed. David Weston (Newton, Mass., 1871) II, 141, 144, 152, 156159, as well as among the Backus Papers, Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Center, Mass., and in the official records of the colony. 6. This committee was essentially the same as the Grievance Committee which had been first appointed by the Warren Baptist Association in 1769 and on which Backus served as a leading figure for forty years. During this period it was the principal agency for the Baptists in waging their fight against compulsory religious taxation. 7. The town of Boston, by special dispensation in the laws, was never divided into parishes and never laid any ecclesiastical taxes for the support of its Standing churches. Hence the churches of all denominations in Boston operated upon the kind of voluntaristic principle which Backus and the Baptists sought for the whole colony. PAMPHLET 6. Government and Liberty Described 1. Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler (Yale, 1745) was the rector of St.

ENDNOTES

501

Johns Episcopal Church in Elizabethtown, N. J. The book he wrote advocating that an Anglican bishop be sent to the American colonies was entitled An Appeal to the Public in Behalf of the Church of England in America (New York, 1767). Charles Chauncy (Harvard, 1 7 2 1 ) was pastor of the First Congregational Church of Boston; his answer to Chandler was entitled An Appeal to the Public Answered in Behalf of the Non-Episcopal Churches in America (Boston, 1768). Chandler answered this with An Appeal Defended or the Proposed American Episcopate Vindicated (New York, 1769). To this Chauncy rejoined with A Reply to Dr. Chandler's Appeal Defended (Boston, 1770) and Chandler replied again with An Appeal Farther Defended (New York, 1 7 7 1 ) . For a full discussion of the issues involved see Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre (New York, 1962). 2. No compulsory religious taxes were laid for the support of the Congregational churches in Massachusetts Bay until 1638, and as Backus points out in his History, this first law was opposed by John Cotton and many others of that day, I, 79-80. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony, whom Backus refers to here as "the first planters of the country," did not pass any laws for compulsory religious taxes until 1657. Hence it was eighteen years after the first planters came before any compulsory religious taxes were laid in their part of New England. 3. I.e., henceforth the ecclesiastical regulations governing compulsory religious taxes would be imbedded in the state constitution rather than in statutes and hence far less easy to amend or repeal.

PAMPHLET 7. Policy As Well As Honesty 1. For a good discussion of the Canterbury separation and the Separate movement which followed it see C.C. Goen, Revivalism and Separatism in New England (New Haven, 1962). 2. Elisha Callendar (Harvard, 1 7 1 0 ) was ordained pastor of the First Baptist Church of Boston in May, 1718, by both Increase and Cotton Mather. See Nathan E. Wood, History of the First Baptist Church of Boston (Philadelphia, 1899), PP· 201-203.

PAMPHLET 8. An Appeal to the People 1. Backus refers to Roger Williams here, but of course Williams did not become a Baptist until 1639, three years after his banishment from Massachusetts Bay. And he remained a Baptist for less than six months. Thereafter he belonged to no church. 2. Backus may be indicating here his belief that Article Three was concocted primarily by Unitarians who denied the divinity of Christ. Or at least he may have been trying to make Trinitarian Congregationalists think so.

502

ENDNOTES

3. A reference to what Backus called the Pepperell Riot. See Pamphlet 6, Government and Liberty Described, pp. 361-364, and Backus, A History of New England, ed. David Weston (Newton, Mass., 1871) II, 220-222. 4. John Gill was the publisher of The Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser in Boston. The letter Backus refers to here was signed "Irenaeus, a Member of the Convention," whom Backus identifies in his diary as the Rev. Samuel West, Standing minister in the town of Dartmouth.

PAMPHLET 9. Truth Is Great and Will Prevail 1. This incident, which Backus usually referred to as the Pepperell Riot, is also mentioned in Government and Liberty Described, pp. 361-364, above, and at greater length in Backus' A History of New England, ed. David Weston (Newton, Mass., 1871) II, 220-222. 2. John Gill was editor, with Benjamin Edes, of the Boston Gazette and Country Journal from 1756 to 1775; Gill then edited the Boston Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser from 1776 to 1785. It is the latter paper to which Backus refers here. 3. Nathaniel Willis was publisher of the Boston Independent Chronicle and Universal Advertiser from 1776 to 1820. For a more detailed description of this newspaper controversy see Backus, History, II, 223-227. 4. From the Backus Papers, Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Center, Mass., it is possible to obtain some glimpse into this obscure incident. Here, in Backus' hand, are the results of the council held in Chelmsford on October 19, 1780. At this council Nathan Crosby and Josiah Simonds were censured for erroneous doctrines (whether they were Sandemanians or Universalists is unclear) and presumably they are the brethren mentioned in this tract as having subsequently established a separate congregation in Chelmsford. Unfortunately their side of the case has not been preserved for there is no known copy of the tract they published in 1781 entitled Remarks on a Council at Chelmsford which Backus cites below. 5. Robert Sandeman was an associate of John Glas, the Presbyterian minister who founded the Glassite sect in Scotland in 1730. Sandeman brought Glas's views to America, founding several churches in New England in the 1770's. His followers were known as Sandemanians or Kissites (the latter term deriving from their greeting each other with the Christian kiss of charity). PAMPHLET 10. A Door Opened for Christian Liberty 1. For a discussion of the ramifications of the Balkcom case see W.G. McLoughlin, "The Balkcom Case (1782) and the Pietistic Theory of Separation of Church and State," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 24 (April, 1967), 267-283.

ENDNOTES

503

PAMPHLET 12. The Doctrine of Particular Election and Final Perseverance 1. Some bibliographies have listed another version of this tract under the title The Answer to Mr. Wesley on Election and Final Perseverance, but there is no evidence that such a tract ever appeared. The title seems to have been taken from an advertisement for the tract reprinted here. No other edition or revision of it is referred to by Backus. APPENDIX ONE 1. Apparently what the writers meant to cite here was I Peter, i, 20 and iii, 17; I Peter i, 4 and 15. But the manuscript as originally written before marking over reads "2nd of peter 20" and this text (I Peter, ii, 20) is more in keeping with the text of the letter. The markover was evidently a mistake. It is probable that the writers meant to mark over the second citation which would be more appropriate if it was I Peter ii, 4 and 15. The jumbled and inaccurate citation is in keeping with the generally bad style and grammar of this letter.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

(The citation is given as Backus wrote it and is followed by a full citation according to modern form. Where the author can be identified from the text but is not cited in the footnote, the author's name is given first in brackets. ) [Backus, Isaac], An Appeal to the Public: Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty against the Oppressions of the Present Day. Boston, 1773. [Backus, Isaac], Discourse on policy and honesty: Isaac Backus, Policy As Well As Honesty Forbids the Use of Secular Force in Religious Affairs. Boston, 1779. [Backus, Isaac], Internal Call: Isaac Backus, A Discourse Showing the Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach the Gospel. Boston, 1754· [Backus, Isaac], History, or my history: Isaac Backus, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians Knoum as Baptists. Boston, 1777. Volume II was published in 1784 and volume III in 1796. [Backus, Isaac], A reply [to Fish's Examiner examined] : Isaac Backus, A Discourse Concerning the Materials, the Manner of Building, and Power of Organizing the Church of Christ . . . Together with an Address to Mr. Joseph Fish, A.M. Boston, 1773. The Baptism of Infants a Reasonable Service, Founded upon Scripture, and Undoubted Apostolic Tradition,firstprinted in London and lately reprinted in Boston: Micaiah Towgood, The Baptism of Infants a Reasonable Service. Boston, 1765. Baptist history: see Isaac Backus, A History of New England . . . Beckwith, George, of Lyme, first letter [against lay-ordination] : George Beckwith, The Invalidity and Unwarrantableness of Lay-Ordination. New London, 1763. Beckwith, George, of Lyme, second letter against lay-ordination·. George Beckwith, A Second Letter on the Subject of Lay-Ordination. New London, 1766. Bishop of Gloucester's Sermon: see [Warburton], Bishop of Gloucester's Sermon . . . Bishop of Landaff's sermon before said society: see Landaff, Bishop of, sermon . . . Boston Gazette (1777, 1778, 1781): The Boston Gazette and Country Journal. Printed by Benjamin Edes. Boston News-Letter, February 7, 1771 : The Massachusetts Gazette and the Boston News-Letter. Published by Richard Draper.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

505

Burnet's translation of Lactantius' history of persecutors, 1687: see Lactantius' history of persecutors. Cann's Bible, margin of: The Holy Bible . . . with Marginal Notes Showing that Scripture Is the Best Interpreter of Scripture. With [John] Canne's Preface and Marginal Matter. London, 1700. Chandler's appeal, or Appeal to the public: Thomas Bradbury Chandler, An Appeal to the Public in Behalf of the Church of England in America. New York, 1767. Chauncy against Chandler: Charles Chauncy, The Appeal to the Public Answered in Behalf of the Non-Episcopal Churches in America. Boston, 1768. Chauncy, Volume of Twelve Sermons, 1765, or [Chauncy], His 12 sermons: Charles Chauncy, Twelve Sermons of the Following Seasonable and Important Subjects. . . . Boston, 1765. Chauncy, Funeral Oration for Mr. Mayhew: Charles Chauncy, A Discourse Occasioned by the Death of Jonathan Mayhew, D. D. Boston, 1766. Chauncy's answer to Chandler, or reply to Chandler's defence: Charles Chauncy, A Reply to Dr. Chandler's Appeal Defended. Boston, 1770. Chauncy's Thoughts on the state of religion in New-England: Charles Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New-England. Boston, 1743. Christian History: Thomas Prince, Jr., ed. The Christian History. 2 vols. Boston, 1 7 4 3 - 1 7 4 5 . Chronicle, February 10, 1780: see Independent Chronicle. Clark, of Salem, answer to Gill, or Clark against Gill: Peter Clark, A Defense of the Right of Infant Baptism, Being a Reply to Dr. John Gill's Book Entitled Divine Right of Infant Baptism Examined and Disproved. Boston, 1752. Cleaveland, John [attacks Mayhew] : John Cleaveland, An Essay to Defend Some of the Most Important Principles . . . Against the Injurious Aspersions Cast on the Same by Jonathan Mayhew, D.D. Boston, 1763. Cooper's election sermon: Samuel Cooper, A Sermon Preached Before His Excellency John Hancock, Esq., Governor, the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, 1780. Mr. Cottons answer to Mr. Ball: Solomon Stoddard, The Defects of Preachers Reproved. Boston, 1747. Cotton, John, The bloody tenet washed, 1647: John Cotton, The Bloudy Tenent Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb. London, 1647. Cruden's Concordance at the word circumcision: Alexander Cruden, A Complete Concordance of the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. London, 1738. Davidson to John Ker in Fulfilling of the Scripture: see Fulfilling of the Scripture.

5O6

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

Dickinson's Dialogue, or Dialogue on Infant Baptism: Jonathan Dickinson, A Brief Illustration and Confirmation of the Divine Right of Infant Baptism. Boston, 1746. Discourse on policy and honesty: see [Isaac Backus], Discourse on policy and honesty. Discourse on the Privileges of the Church of Christ, Newport, 1750: Ebenezer Frothingham, The Articles of Faith and Practice with the Covenant That is Confessed by the Separate Churches of Christ in General in This Land. Newport, [R.I.?] 1750. Dyche's dictionary: Thomas Dyche, A New and General English Dictionary. 4th ed. London, 1744. Ecclesiastical History: see Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. [Edwards], On a right to sacraments: Jonathan Edwards, Misrepresentations Corrected and Truth Vindicated . . . Concerning the Qualifications Necessary to Lawful Communion in the Christian Sacraments. Boston, 1752. Edwards on the will, or Treatise of the will: Jonathan Edwards, A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency . . . Boston, 1754. Edwards, Trial of the Spirit preached at New Haven, 1741: Jonathan Edwards, The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. Boston, 1741. Edwards' thoughts on the work, 1742: Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion. Boston, 1742. Eliot's life: see [Cotton Mather], Mr. Eliot's life. Erskine, John, Sermon before the Synod at Glasgow, 1750: No such sermon separately published can be found. Backus evidently was quoting from some other source or some compilation. Eschol: see [John Owen], Eschol. Examiner examined: see [Joseph Fish], The Examiner examined. Exposition of the new-testament: see [John Gill], Exposition of the new-testament. Fear of Man: see Francke, Fear of Man. First principles of the oracles of God: see [Thomas Shepard], First principles of the oracles of God. Fish, Joseph [The Church of Christ] : Joseph Fish, The Church of Christ a Firm and Durable House. New London, 1765. [Fish, Joseph], The Examiner examined: Joseph Fish, The Examiner Examined. Remarks on a Piece Wrote by Mr. Isaac Backus of Middleborough . . . New London, 1771. [Fish of Stonington], Sermon at Mr. Vinal's Ordination at Newport: Joseph Fish, Love of Christ As a Necessary Qualification in a Gospel Minister. Newport, [R.I.]? 1747. Flavel's Works, vol. I: John Flavel, The Whole Works of the Reverend Mr. John Flavel. 6th ed. Glasgow, 1754.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

507

Francke, Fear of Man, or treatise against the fear of man: August Hermann Francke, Nicodemus or a Treatise Against the Fear of Man. Boston, 1744. [Frothingham, Ebenezer], Discourse on the Privileges of the Church of Christ: Ebenezer Frothingham, The Articles of Faith and Practice . . . Confessed by the Church of Christ. Newport, [R.I.]? 1750. Fulfilling of the Scripture, Boston ed. : Robert Fleming, The Fulfilling of the Scripture. Boston, 1743. Gill on 1 Peter v, 3: It has been impossible to locate a sermon by Gill preached on this text; it may be part of a collection of sermons or Backus may simply be referring to Gill's comments on this text in his Exposition of the New Testament, 3 vols. London, 1746-1748. Gill's on the place, or Exposition of the new-testament: John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament. 3 vols. London, 1746-1748. Gill's paper of Feb. 8, 1781: The Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser. Published by John Gill. Gloucester, Bishop of, Sermon before said Society: see [Warburton], Bishop of Gloucester's Sermon . . . Goddard, Edward, Esq. late of Framingham, letter published in 1753: [Edward Goddard], A Letter to a Gentleman Containing a Plea for the Rights of Conscience in Things of a Religious Nature. By a Dissenting Protestant. Boston, 1753. Gordon's geography: Patrick Gordon, Geography Anatomized or the Geographical Grammar. London, 1754. Guide to Fellowship: see Owen's guide to church fellowship and order. Hill, John, Sermons: John Hill, Sermons on Several Occasions. 3rd ed. London, 1755. His 12 sermons: see Chauncy, Volume of Twelve Sermons. History: see [Isaac Backus], History. Huntington's address, 1783: Joseph Huntington, Demonstration of the Duty and Importance of Infant Baptism. Norwich, 1783. Hutchinson's history, or Mr. Hutchinson's history of the Massachusetts, vol. I: Thomas Hutchinson, The History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. 2nd ed. London, 1760. Independent Chronicle of December 3, 1778, and February 10, 1780: The Independent Chronicle and the Universal Advertiser. Published in Boston by Edward Powars and Nathaniel Willis. Internal Call: see [Isaac Backus], Internal Call. Lactantius' history of persecutors: Lactantius, A Relation of the Death of the Primitive Persecutors. Gilbert Burnet, trans. Amsterdam, 1687. Landaff, Bishop of, sermon before said society: John Ewer, Bishop of Landaff, A Sermon Preached Before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. London, 1767. Ledger, May 22, 1780: Independent Ledger and American Advertiser. Published in Boston by Edward Draper and John W . Folsom. Letter of advice [from Baptist brethren in England] from an assembly of

5O8

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

fifteen churches met at Burton in Gloucestershire, Aug. 16, 1765: It has been impossible to locate this document. Letter to Governor Jencks from Peter Thatcher, John Danforth, Joseph Belcher, October 27, 1 7 2 1 , called "Committee of the Association." It does not appear that this letter was ever published by itself, but Backus printed it in 1784 in the second volume of his History, pp. 99-102. [Locke, John], On toleration: John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration. 3rd ed. Boston, 1743. Lord of Norwich, Sermon at Mr. Hart's ordination: Benjamin Lord, Christ's Ambassadors Furnished with His Own Means. Providence, 1763. Magnolia: see [Cotton Mather], Magnolia. Massachusetts history: see Hutchinson's history. [Mather, Cotton], Mitchell's life: Cotton Mather, Ecclesiastes: The Life of the Reverend and Excellent Jonathan Mitchell. Boston, 1697. [Mather, Cotton], Mr. Eliot's life: Cotton Mather, The Life and Death of the Renowned Mr. John Eliot. London, 1691. [Mather, Cotton], Magnolia: Cotton Mather, Magnolia Christi Americana. London, 1702. [Mather, Cotton], Dr. Increase Mather's life: Cotton Mather, Parentator. Memoirs of the Remarkahles in the Life and Death of the Ever-memorable Dr. Increase Mather. Boston, 1724. [Mather, Cotton], Ratio Disciplinse, 1726: Cotton Mather, Ratio Disciplinée, Boston, 1726. Dr. Mather's Sermon from Hag. ii, 6, 7, in 1 7 1 5 : There is no record of Cotton Mather's having published a sermon from this text in 1 7 1 5 or in any other year. Mather, Increase, Life of: see [Cotton Mather], Dr. Increase Mather's life. [Mather, Increase], a vindication of the order of the churches in New-England: Increase Mather, A Vindication of New-England from the Vile Aspersions Cast Upon That Country by a Late Address of a Faction There Who Denominate Themselves of the Church of England. Boston, 1688. Mayhew, John, of Boston [on divinity]: Jonathan Mayhew, Two Sermons on the Nature, Extent and Perfection of the Divine Goodness. Boston, 1763. Ministers of Windham, letter to their people: see Windham, letter . . . Mitchell's life: see [Cotton Mather], Mitchell's life. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Dublin edition, vol. I, or Mosheim: Johann Mosheim, An Ecclesiastical History Ancient and Modern. A. Maclaine, trans. London, 1765. The Dublin edition of 1787 is an abridgement. My history: see [Isaac Backus], History. New-England chronology: see [Thomas Prince], New-England chronology. On Traditionary Zeal, Providence, 1773: No copy of this tract or broadside is known to exist.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

509

Original of evangelical churches: see Owen on the nature of evangelical churches. [Owen, John], Eschol: John Owen, Eschol: A Cluster of the First Canaan Brought to the Bonds. 7th ed. Boston, 1744. Owen on the 130th Psalm, Edinburgh edition, 1749: John Owen, A Practical Exposition of Psalm CXXX Wherein the Nature of the Foregiveness of Sin Is Declared. London, 1669; Edinburgh, 1749. Owen, on the nature of evangelical churches: John Owen, An Enquiry into the Original Nature . . . and Communion of the Evangelical Churches. London, 1681. Owen's guide to church fellowship and order: John Owen, A Guide to Church Fellowship and Order, London, 1692. Orthodoxy and Charity United: see Watts, Orthodoxy and Charity united. Paine's view of the churches, 1752: Solomon Paine, A Short View of the Difference Between the Church of Christ and the Established Churches of the Colony of Connecticut. Newport, [R.I.?] 1752. Parsons' sermons on Acts, xvi, 33: Jonathan Parsons, Infant Baptist from Heaven. Boston, 1767. Patillo's Sermons, 1788: Henry Patillo, Sermons. Wilmington, 1788. Ρayson s sermon, or Payson's election sermon, Boston, May 27: Phillips Payson, A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council and the Honorable House of Representatives of the State of Massachusetts. Boston, 1778. Pemberton's sermon, with preface by Dr. Sewall, Mr. Prince, and Mr. Foxcroft: Ebenezer Pemberton, All Power in Heaven and Earth Given Unto Jesus Christ. Boston, 1756. Phipps against Newton; reprinted at Philadelphia, 1783: Joseph Phipps, The Original and the Present State of Man. Philadelphia, 1783. Porter of Bridgewater's sermon at the ordination at Freetown, 1747: John Porter, Superlative Love to Christ a Necessary Qualification of a GospelMinister. Boston, 1748. [Prince, Thomas], Christian History, vol. II: Thomas Prince, Jr., ed. The Christian History. Boston, 1745. [Prince, Thomas], New-England chronology: Thomas Prince, A Chronological History of New-England in the Form of Annals. 2 vols. Boston, 173&-1755· Providence Gazette·. The Providence Gazette and Country Journal. Printed by John Carter. Ratio Discipline : see [Cotton Mather], Ratio Disciplinse Remarks on a council at Chelmsford, or Remarks: No copy of this tract is known to exist. Reply to Chandler's defence: see Charles Chauncy. Reply to Fish: see [Isaac Backus], A reply. Robbins' sermon, or Robbins' Ordination-Sermon, 1760: Philemon Robbins, A Sermon Preached at the Ordination of the Reverend Mr. Chandler Robbins. Boston, 1760.

5 IO

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GLOSSARY

Rollins' ancient history: Charles Rollin, The Ancient History of the Egyptians . . . London, 1749. [Shepard, Thomas], first principles of the oracles of God: Thomas Shepard, The First Principles of the Oracle of God. Boston, 1747. Shepard, sum of the christian religion: There is no record of a book by Thomas Shepard with this title. Stiles on the christian union: Ezra Stiles, A Discourse on the Christian Union. Boston, 1761. Stiles' election sermon, May 8, 1783: Ezra Stiles, The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor. New Haven, 1783. Stoddard, the defects of preachers reproved, 2nd ed.: Solomon Stoddard, The Defects of Preachers Reproved. Boston, 1747. Sufferers Mirrour: It has been impossible to locate this work. Thoughts on the Work: see Edwards, thoughts on the work. Toleration: see [John Locke] On toleration. Treatise against the Fear of Man: see Francke, Fear of Man. Treatise of the will: see Edwards on the will. Trial of the Spirit: see Edwards, Trial of the Spirit preached at New Haven, 1741. Vindication of the order of churches: see [Increase Mather], vindication of the order of the churches in New-England. Warburton's alliance between church and state, 3rd ed.: William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, The Alliance Between Church and State. London, 1736. [Warburton], Bishop of Gloucester's Sermon before the society, February, 1766: William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, A Sermon Preached Before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. London, 1766. [Watts], Letter of Dr. Watts in which he mentioned Mr. Edwards' Sermon on the Trial of the Spirit: It has not been possible to find this letter. Watts, Miscellaneous thoughts: Isaac Watts, Miscellaneous Thoughts in Prose and Verse. Elizabethtown, [N.J.?] 1746. Watts, Orthodoxy and Charity united: Isaac Watts, Orthodoxy and Charity United. Boston, 1749. West's election sermon at Boston, May 29, 1776: Samuel West, A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in New England. Boston, 1776. Wetmore of Stratford, election sermon at Hartford, May 13, 1773: Izrahiah Wetmore, A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable General Assembly of the Colony of Connecticut. New London, 1773. Williams, Roger [Reply to The Bloudy Tenent Washed . . . by John Cotton]: Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tennent Yet More Bloudy. London, 1652. Windham, letter by sixteen ministers to their people, 1744: A Letter from the Associated Ministers of the County of Windham. Boston, 1745.

INDEX

INDEX Aaron, 1 1 5 , 120, 154, 274, 275, 318η, 320, 4 1 5 , 445 Abel, 1 1 5 , 468 Abraham 79, 135, 1 4 1 , 146, 149, 154, 155, 158, 301, 415. 445, 467, 470 Abrahamic covenant, 8, 33-35, 130-165, (esp., 1 4 8 - 1 5 1 , 1 5 9 ) , 180-183, 263, 284-285, 3 1 7 , 467. See also Covenant of Works, Circumcision, Infant baptism Adam, 136, 143, 291, 310, 409, 410, 412, 413, 453, 456-457 Adams, John, 12, 386 Adams, Samuel, 1 2 Address to the Inhabitants of New England, 50η, 440-446 Address to Joseph Fish, by Isaac Backus, 168 Agent for the Baptists of New England (Isaac Backus), 12, 304, 352, 360, 368, 383, 394, 396 Alarm to the Unconverted, by Joseph Allen, 1 5 3 Alden, Noah, 47η, 386, 487 Alden, Samuel, 476 Allen, Ethan, 52, 53 Allen [Allin], James, 123, 498 Allen, Joseph, 153 American destiny, 57-58 "Americanus," 462 Amos, 1 1 3 Anabaptists and Anabaptism, 7, 18, 23, 1 3 1 , 168, 173, 179, 276η, 325, 394, 395, 420, 486. See also Baptists, Munsterites Andros, Gov. Edmund, 372 Angels, 225, 275, 409 Anglican Church, 20, 23, 27, 43η, 67. Backus on, 176-177, 2 1 5 , 290, 302, 306, 3 1 9 , 346, 3 5 1 , 380, 420, 423, 452, 486 Anglican episcopate in America, 17, 346-347, 3 5 1 , 359, 380, 417, 501 Anti-Catholicism, 49, 52, 81, 106, 242η, 26in, 274, 316, 437, 455. See also Catholicism, Papists Antichrist, 32, 68, 81, 106, 107, 2 1 1 , 355

Anticlericalism among the Separates and Baptists, 67, 176, 184, 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 , 2 1 0 , 230-231, 239η, 242n, 256; Backus calls established clergy mercenary, 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 , 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 , 324, 377, 395, 4 1 5 ; hireling ministry, 194, 256 Anti-institutionalism among the Separates and Baptists, 34, 35, 169, i g i , 208-211 Anti-intellectualism among the Separates and Baptists, 16, 17, 18, 29-30, 32, 252-254. See also Enthusiasm, Learned ministry Antinomianism, 5, 29, 61, 169, 356 Antioch, church at, 1 0 1 , 1 3 5 Antipedobatism, see Baptists, Baptism Anti-urbanism among Separates and Baptists, 399, 421, 441, 443 Appeal to the People, 386-396 Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, 40-45, 303-343, 361, 399 Apollos, 89 Apostasy, 187-188, 459 Apostolic succession, 274, 276η, 379, 423-424 Argument in Defense of the Exclusive Right Claimed by the Colonies to Tax Themselves, by M.P., 462 Ark, 275, 414 Arminianism, 14, 15, 30, 3 1 , 33; Backus opposes, 52-61, 63, 74, 132, 290302, 399, 441 Arminianism and free will, Backus on, 403-404, 445, 448, 457 Article Two of Mass. Constitution ( 1 7 8 0 ) , 386-387 Article Three of Mass. Constitution ( 1780), 14, 48-49, 386-396, 398, 399, 421, 428, 432-433, 440 Asa, 7 1 Ashby, Mass., 3 6 1 Ashfield, Mass. and Ashfield Lav/, 40, 326-332, 340, 343, 379, 382 Associations, among the Baptists, see Warren Baptist Association, Philadelphia Baptist Association Atheists, 37, 368; infidelity, 382

514

INDEX

Atonement, 453-454.

143-144,

153,

160,

448,

See also Election

Attleboro, Mass., 49, 122, 124, 253, 485; persecution of Baptists in, 336, 428429, 4 3 1 - 4 3 2

Awakening, see Great Awakening Babcock, Stephen, 277 Babel, Tower of, 261 Babylon, 72, 79, 81, 182, 216, 274, 373, 416,

451

Babylonian captivity, 81, 182, 277 Backsliding (falling from grace), 60-61, 142, 4 5 8 - 4 5 9 Backus, Elijah, 13 Backus, Elizabeth (Isaac's mother), 168, 494; imprisoned, 188-189 Backus, Isaac, 419, 479, 498, 499; career, 2-16; his contributions, 1, 16-64; h i s t h e o l o g i c a l v i e w s , 25-35, 39,

50» 5 2 - 6 1 ,

62, 66-67,

130-131,

290-291, 448-449 (see also Calvinism); democratic aspects of his thought, 2 9 - 3 1 , 102-105, 273, 281,

313-316, 429, 438; o n h i s t o r y a n d t h e

rising glory of America, 51, 52, 64, 169, 436, 441, 443, 471; his optimism

a n d n a t i o n a l i s m , 57-59, 60, 436, 441,

471; his conservatism, 60-61, his tour of N.C. and Va., 448, 452; his works listed, 493497. See also Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, and John Locke for his views on their work Backus, Judge Joseph, 52, leads a separation in Norwich, Conn., 196 Backus, Samuel (Isaac's father), 2 Backus, Samuel, J r . (Isaac's brother), 7, imprisoned, 168 Backus, Susanna Mason (Isaac's wife), 9, 497 Baldwin, Thomas, 56 Balkcom, Elijah and the Balkcom Case, 443,

291, 441-446;

49, 428-429, 4 3 1 - 4 3 2 , 440, 502

Balaam, 96, 297 Baptism (antipedobaptism), 7-10, 25, 33-38,

277,

60,

319,

130-165,

413-414,

257-271,

415,

276-

457-460,

466

Baptists (and Separate-Baptists), 1, 10, 168-170, 372, 428, 466; g r o w t h

of,

14, 51; against federalism, 15; suspected of Toryism, 169; as social revolutionaries, 190, 377, 433 Barnabas, 256

B a s t a r d s , 275, 299, 333η

Bean Hill Separate Church, Norwich, Conn., 5 Becker, Joseph, 336 Beckwith, George, 207, 218 Bellingham, Mass., 24, 47η, 327, 333 Benevolence of the deity, 30-31, 32, 52-53, 56, 57-59, 60, 93, 162; God's love, 76 Berwick, Me., 495 Bible, licensing the, 5 1 Bill of Rights, Mass. Constitution, 43η, 47-48,

3 86,

392,

4

i 9 , 487-488;

U.S.

Constitution, 50; English Bill of Rights, 43η; Va. Bill of Rights, 4748

Bishops, Methodist, 464 Blood of the Lamb, 143, 365, 455, 470 Boardman, Richard, 463

Bond-woman and the Free, 25, 33, 130165

Bookburning, 235 Boston, voluntarism in, 335, 347, 357358, 373, 377, 392, 396, 421, 500 Boston Tea Party, 40 Bowdoin, James, 15 Bradford, William (lawyer), 428, 431432 Bradford, Gov. William, 184, 416η Brainerd, David, 177 Brown University (Rhode Island Coll e g e ) , 10-11, 268

Buell, Samuel, 205 Bunyan, John, 107 Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, 203, 234 Caiaphas, 301 Cain, 115, 119, 337, 468 Callendar, Elisha, 501 Calvin, John 1, 108, 306 Calvinism, 1, 11; wane of, 14; English,

18; B a c k u s o n , 31, 33, 39, 50, 52-61,

fatalism, 53, 290-291, 299 Cambridge Platform, 23, 35, 38, 183290-302;

184, 186, 198, 255, 499

Camp meetings, 15, 60 Canaan, 77, 79, 149, 156, 276, 299, 465 Canterbury, Conn., Separates in, 204206, 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 , 216, 253-254, 378, 379,

501. See also Ministerial selection Capernaum, 82 Carpenter, William, 122, 128 Catholicism, 37, 49, 67, 153, 189, 196, 265η, 393, 399, 422, 424, 465.

See

also Papists, Anti-Catholicism Certificate system for tax exemption, 25, 27,

347,

40, 387,

45-54,

304,

419-420,

325-326,

339,

428, 4 3 1 - 4 3 2 , 440

INDEX C h a n d l e r , J a m e s , 398, 399, 416η, 422 C h a n d l e r , D r . T h o m a s , 351, 359, 500 Charles I , 206 Charters o f Mass., 13, 17, 20, 23, 36, 67, 196, 243, 305. 306, 321, 325, 328η, 3 4 0 , 3 5 5 , 356, 417, 421, 4 3 3 ,

486

C h a u n c y , Charles, 360, 399, 405, 424, 501; opposes G r e a t A w a k e n i n g , 203, 204, 250η; opposes disestablishment, 346-347, 368, 381, 408; opposes A n glican episcopate, 351-352. 354, 359, 380, 406; defends M a y h e w ' s t h e o l ogy, 229η C h a u n c y , Charles ( P r e s i d e n t o f H a r v a r d ) , 220, 261, 337 C h e l m s f o r d , Mass., 331-332, 365, 398399, 410-412, 502 C h e l s e a , Mass., 358 Chesterfield, Mass., 343 Christian liberty, 42, 46, 143 Christian nation o r c o m m o n w e a l t h , 1, 3 5 , 3 9 , 4 5 , 5 0 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 61, 4 3 6 ; P r o t estant nation, 37, 347; B a c k u s favors,

369, 371, 400, 429.

See also Govern-

ment C h u r c h a n d state, B a c k u s on, 34-54, 61, 169-170, 237-243, 305-343, 419-421, 428-438; S e p a r a t e s o n , 20-25; i n I7th-c. N e w E n g l a n d , 189-190, 196; respective roles of, 194-199, 368-383, 386-396; E b e n e z e r F r o t h i n g h a m on, 36, 39, 100η, 168, 494; S o l o m o n P a i n e on, 36, 39, 168, 205-206, 208209, 214, 253, 257η, 277 C h u r c h o f E n g l a n d , see A n g l i c a n i s m Church membership a n d a GospelC h u r c h , B a c k u s on, 4, 8, 9, 38, 145151, 158-159- 179-183, 186-190, 207, 217, 219, 249η, 2 7 5 , 3 7 8 , 4 2 4 C i r c u i t Riders, 59 C i r c u m c i s i o n as t h e t y p e of b a p t i s m , 3436, 130-165 ( e s p . , 137, 146, 147, 150, 152, 156-158), 178, 271, 284,

317, 413, 465, 468. See also Abra-

hamic covenant Civil covenants ( c o n t r a c t s ) , 241, 244fr C i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e b y Baptists, 40, 41, 46, 61, 304-305, 333-343, 428 Civil magistrates, 38, 39, 40, 43η, 306, 391. See also S e p a r a t i o n o f c h u r c h a n d state, V o l u n t a r i s m , Religious taxes Civil sword, 44, 3 7 4 - 3 7 5 , 382, 396 C l a p , T h o m a s , 209, 229η Clark, P e t e r , 153-154, 1 5 5 , 255η, 4 9 9 Classical ( p r e s b y t e r i a n ) authority, 199,

5 1 5

205-206, 410. See also C o n g r e g a t i o n al a u t o n o m y C l e a v e l a n d , B e n j a m i n , 212 C l e a v e l a n d , E b e n e z e r , expelled f r o m Y a l e , 208-209 C l e a v e l a n d , J o h n , expelled f r o m Y a l e , 208-209, 22gn, 246 C l e a v e l a n d , J o s i a h , 208 C l e r i c a l ordination, 67, 100 C o d d i n g , E l i j a h , 360 Cogswell, J a m e s , 204 C o k e , T h o m a s , 463 C o m m i t t e e of S a f e t y , 363 C o m m o n g r a c e , 413 C o m m u n i o n , closed, 9-10, 33, 130, 466; open, 9, 25, 33, 66, 130, 277, 499. See also Lord's s u p p e r C o n a n t , Silvanus, 433 C o n d i t i o n a l election, 457 C o n g r e g a t i o n a l a u t o n o m y vs. Classical authority, B a c k u s on, 10-12, 23, 3738, 66-68, 183-200, 205-206, 264, 284, 398, 423, 466 C o n g r e g a t i o n a l i s m , 3, 11, 12, 13, 66-

67, 321, 386, 482. See also Standing

Order Congress, 12, 47, 360, 382-383, 391392, 436, 437 C o n g r e s s i o n a l chaplains, 50η Consociations, 183, 197, 205-206. See also Saybrook Platform, Congregational a u t o n o m y C o n s t a n t i n e , 44, 315, 416 Constitution, Mass., 13, 43η, 46, 484 9 , 3 4 6 , 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 , 368-383, 386-396, 398, 405, 4O8, 421, 422, 428-432, 437, 445, 487 Constitution, U . S . , B a c k u s and, 15, 42, 291 C o n v e r s i o n ( r e g e n e r a t i o n ) a n d experim e n t a l religion, B a c k u s o n , 31-32, 5 3 - 5 9 , 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 90-92, 106, 144146, 151-152, 433, 179-180, 249η, 273, 413, 433, 445 C o n v i c t i o n o f sin, 135 C o o p e r , S a m u e l , 398, 399, 416η, 422 C o r e , gainsaying o f , 454. See also Korah, 468 C o t t o n , J o h n , 44, 169; opposes w r i t t e n sermons, 236, 322η C o t t o n , J o s i a h , 337, 378 C o r d i n g t o n , G o v . of B a r b a d o s , 177 Corinthians, 193, 198 Councils, f o r ordination, 67, 184-185, 205-206 C o v e n a n t b r e a k i n g , 241, 247® Covenant theology (covenant o f grace

5i6

index

and covenant of works), 33-35, 88, 93, 130-165, 1 8 0 - 1 8 1 , 264, 275, 284, 408-413, 466. See also Abrahamic covenant, Circumcision Cranmer, 322 Crosby, Nathan, 502 Cushing, Caleb, 1 2 Cutter v. Frost, 440 Cutter, Gershom, 440 Cyprian, 154, 416 Cyrus, 338 Damnation of infants, 53, 56, 265, 290. See also Hell Danforth, John, 336 Danger of an Unconverted Ministry, by Gilbert Tennent, 28, 67; quoted, 200201 Daniel, 95, 148, 3 1 3 Davenport, James, 2, 199, 200, 215, 220, 233-234 David, 72, 78, 96, 99, 1 1 4 , 152, 1 6 1 , 163, 238, 244, 275, 276, 301, 350, 414. 455 Davidson, John, 109, 498 Davis, Daniel, 3 6 1 Davis, John, 327-328, 330η Declaratory Act, 339, 444 Declension in religion, 204 Dedham Case, 388 Deism, 17, 47-48, 52-53, 54, 58, 59, 305. 346, 403, 429 Democratic aspects of Evangelical Calvinism and New Light movement, 3 0 - 3 1 , 37, 61, 68, 273, 281, 3 1 3 316, 429, 438 Denison, Thomas, 276η Depravity, 1, 42, 56, 290, 305 Determinism, see Fatalism Devil (Satan), 8, 36, 42, 60, 82, 96, 97-98, 1 1 3 , 124, 142, 143, 144, 199, 200, 218η, 220, 28ο, 286, 294, 3°5, 310, 404, 410, 454, 470 Dickinson, Jonathan, on baptism, 156η, igon, 269, 270, 2 7 1 , 274, 284 Diotrephes, 184 Dipping (immersion), 261-262, 268270, 337, 466; of dogs, 363. See also Baptism, Immersion Disestablishment, 1, 17, 33, 54-61, 63, 306, 346, 429. See also Separation of church and state, Standing Order, Religious taxes Disestablishment and the Mass. Constitution, Backus on, 14, 43η, 48-49, 54-61, 63, 306, 346, 352-353, 386-

396, 398, 399, 405, 408, 421-422, 428-432, 437, 440, 445, 487 Disinterested benevolence, 42 Dismissal of ministers, 67, 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 Dispensations, 1 1 5 Dissenters, 43η, 177, 380. See also Baptists, Quakers, Sandemanians, et al. Distraint for non-payment of religious taxes, see Religious taxes, Persecution Doctrine of Particular Election, 59-60, 448-471 Doctrine of Sovereign Grace, by Isaac Backus, 57 Door Opened for Equal Christian Liberty, 49, 50, 428-438 Dudley, Joseph, 500 Dunster, Henry, 258, 261, 337 Ecclesiastical laws, 3, 4, 19-20, 26, 486; Backus' opposition to, 6-7, 3 6 54, 66, 1 3 1 , 3 1 3 - 3 1 6 , 372-383· See also Separation of church and state, Religious taxes, Certificate system, Voluntarism Eden (Paradise) 143, 306 Educated ministry, see Learned ministry Edwards, Jonathan, 54, 290, 407, 449, 498; Backus admires and quotes, 14, l6, 3 1 , 36, 42, 56, 57, 78η, 201, 210, 2 2 1 , 23in, 279η, 404, 413, 424; favors a learned ministry, 1 1 0 - 1 1 2 Efficacious grace, 293-302 Egalitarian aspects of New Light, Separate, and Separate-Baptist movements, 1, 3 0 - 3 1 , 52, 82, 103-105, 169, 207, 2 1 7 , 272, 281, 290, 466 Egypt, 79, 86, 1 5 2 Elders, 207, 226-227 Election (Predestination), 2, 10, 56, 390-402, 413, 448-471; optimistic view of, 57-58, 59-60, 1 4 1 ; conditional, 457; unconditional, 459-460; particular, 293-302, 448-471. See also Atonement, Predestination Elijah, 109, 470 Eliot, John, 177, 219, 258 Elisha, 109, 1 1 5 Embary [Embury], Philip, 463 Emotionalism, see Enthusiasm Empiricism, 55-56. See also Locke, John English Baptists, 266η. See also Gill, John Enlightenment, 1, 16, 39. See also Rationalism, Jefferson Enoch, 75

INDEX 5 1 7 Enthusiasm, religious, 3, 5, 31, 60, 106, 169, 202, 204, 252, 280, 407, 424

Fish Caught

in His Own Net, 25, 35-

40, 168-287

Ephesus, church at, 84, 89, 198, 206, Fish, Joseph, 35-36, 110, 168-282, 285, 338η, 494, 495, 498 284 Episcopacy, 274. See also Bishops, An- Fitch, Gov. Thomas, 169, 207η glican Church, Anglican episcopate Fitch, Rev. James, 276 Five Principle Baptists, 10 in America Flavel, John, 111, 498 Erskine, John, 85η, 498 Fletcher, John, 462 Esau, 146 Established churches, 8, 13, 17, 33, 43η, Fletcher, Samuel, 361-362 53. 131» 346· See also Standing Or- Flood (Deluge), 310-311 Fobes, Joshua, 476 der, Disestablishment Establishment of religion in the U.S., 15 Footwashing, 271 Essay Concerning Human Understand- Foreknowledge, divine, 455-456. See ing, by John Locke, 16, 55-59 also Fatalism, Predestination "Form Evangelicalism, 37, 52, 56, 59, 132, of Discipline . . . 463 155, 448 Foster, Isaac, 282-288 Evangelical Calvinism, 1, 16, 28, 33, Fox, George, 467 Foxcroft, Thomas, 229η 52-59. See also Calvinism, Baptists Francke, August Herman, 66, 79, 114η, Evans, Caleb, 462 178, 2i8n, 246η, 251, 286, 498 Everett, Joshua, 122, 125 Exemption from religious taxes, see Tax Free communion, 277. See also Communion, open exemption, Religious taxes, Certificate system, Baptists, Quakers, et al. Freedom of Religion, see Liberty of conscience, Separation of church and Exeter, R.I., Separated convention in, state 9 Freedom of the will, 1, 53; Backus on, Exhorters and exhorting, 4, 5, 101, 202, 56, 58-59, 132. 290-302, 403-404, 407. See also Itinerant preachers 441, 445, 448, 457. See also ArminExperimental or experiential religion, ianism, Deism, Unitarianism 17, 28, 30, 37, 53, 73, 106. See also Free grace, 452. See also Covenant of Conversion grace Ex tempore preaching, 235-237, 377. Freemasons, 37 See also Written sermons Freewill, see Freedom of the will Ezekiel, 78, 80, 83, 87, 88 Freewill Baptists, 14, 53, 57 Friends, Society of, see Quakers False teachers of religion, 90-94 Frost v. Cutter, 440 Family prayer, 266, 494 Frothingham, Ebenezer, 25; on church Fast days, 51 and state, 36, 39, loon, 168, 494 Fatalism (Determinism), 53, 56, 59, Further light, 32-33, 53, 61, 108, 262. 290, 299-300, 403, 454-455 See also New Lights Fear of God, 93, 132, 143, 162, 359, 375; God's love, 76 Galatians, 135, 143 Feast of Tabernacles, 72, 276 Gambling, 51 Federalist party, 50 General Baptists, 10 Finney, Charles G., Backus and, 17, General redemption, 53, 56, 60-61, 448, 59 454 Finley, Samuel, 188 Gentiles, 147, 149, 150, 153, 158, 176, First Amendment to the American Constitution, 50 First Baptist Church in America, 355, 418

First Baptist Church of Boston, 18 First Baptist Church of Middleboro, 10, 57 First Great Awakening, see Great Awakening, First

263, 264, 402, 445

George II, 485 George III, 12, 17, 22, 290, 304, 306, 327, 383, 395. 423 Gideon, 114 Gill, John, 33, 36, 53, 130, 155η, 192, 194, 255n, 284, 499 Glas, John, 502

5 i 8

i n d e x

Gloucester, B i s h o p of, q u o t e d , 176, 177, 375-376 G o d d a r d , E d w a r d , 243η G o d f a t h e r s , 154 G o d ' s love, 76. See also F e a r o f G o d , Benevolence Goliath, 114 G o o l d , T h o m a s , 18 G o s p e l C h u r c h , see C h u r c h m e m b e r ship G o v e r n m e n t , B a c k u s o n , 42-47, 350366, 433η, 429, 438. See also S e p a ration o f c h u r c h a n d state, Christian nation, S o c i a l c o n t r a c t

Government

and Liberty Described,

by

I s a a c B a c k u s , 46η, 346-366, 368 G r a c e , see C o v e n a n t of g r a c e Grace Abounding, b y J o h n B u n y a n , 107 G r e a t A w a k e n i n g , F i r s t , 1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 5 7 ; alters Calvinism, 52-61, 19g, 290; leads t o Revolution, 307 G r e a t A w a k e n i n g , S e c o n d , 1, 2, 15, 17, 33, 53, 448, 4 4 9 G r e e n , T h o m a s , 440 Grievance Committee of Warren Baptist Association, 12, 13, 40-41, 46, 304, 346, 387, 405, 428, 500

Guide to Church Fellowship b y J o h n O w e n , 228

and Order,

H a l f w a y c o v e n a n t , 8, 19, 220, 264, 378 H a r v a r d C o l l e g e , 11, 14, 30, 53, 54, 67, 74, 105, 169, 186, 187, 217, 258, 261, 337, 377, 418 Haverhill, Mass., 277, 326 H e a t h e n , 153, 156, 171, 176, 263, 267, 364, 406 H e a v e n , 162, 255, 263, 265η, 279, 297, 310, 351, 410 H e b r e w s , 105 H e l l , B a c k u s on, 31-32, 39, 70, 91, 132, 161, 162, 265η, 279, 288, 290, 293, 454, 456 H e m m e n w a y , Moses, 497 H e n r y , P a t r i c k , 388 H e r e s y , 43η, 53, 455 H e r v e y , 241 Hezelciah, 71 Hide, Jedidiah, 5 " H i e r o n y m o u s , " 368-369 H i g h e r law, 305, 306 Hill, J o h n , 237η H i n g h a m Riot, 429, 4 3 4 - 4 3 5 H i r e l i n g ministry, 194, 256. See also Anticlericalism, V o l u n t a r i s m History of New England, by Isaac Backus, 43η, 6 4

Holly, Israel, 25; o n c h u r c h a n d state, 36, 39, 168, 495 H o l y o k e , E d w a r d , 187 H o o k e r , T h o m a s , 258, 260, 378 Hopkinsians, 53, 56 H o v e y , J o h n , 214 H u b b a r d , N e h e m i a h , 361, 362 H u b b a r d , W i l l i a m , 189 H u n t , Asa, 495 H u n t i n g t o n , N a t h a n i e l , 212 H u n t s t o w n , Mass., 326 H u t c h i n s o n , L i e u t . - G o v . T h o m a s , 36, 169; q u o t e d , 185, 189, 243 H y p e r - C a l v i n i s m , 53, 58, 290-291 Hypocrites i n t h e c h u r c h , 155η, i6i, 243, 255, 280, 324, 341 Illiterate p r e a c h e r s , 407. See also E x horters, L e a r n e d ministry Immersion, 34, 130, 135, 415. See also Dipping I m p r i s o n m e n t for n o n p a y m e n t o f religious taxes, see P e r s e c u t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t o f gifts, 118, 191, 207, 226, 242, 281, 317, 437 I n a b i l i t y of m e n to save their souls, 300. See also F r e e d o m of the will I n a l i e n a b l e rights, see Natural rights I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f c h u r c h e s a n d parishes, 6, 24, 27, 378 Indians, A m e r i c a n , 37, 104, 177, 269, 356, 371 Individualism ( r i g h t of individual j u d g m e n t i n r e l i g i o n ) , 1, 30, 34, 35, 47, 49; in relation to E v a n g e l i c a l C a l v i n ism, 53, 55, 58-59, 61, 68, 174, 273, 281, 306, 307, 332, 381, 414, 423, 429 Inevitablity, 300. See also F a t a l i s m I n f a n t b a p t i s m , 7-9, 25, 33, 60, 130165 ( e s p . 146-148, 153-154, 160), 257-272, 277, 282-288, 317, 415416, 457, 465. See also B a p t i s m I n f a n t d a m n a t i o n , see D a m n a t i o n of I n fants Infidelity, 382. See also Atheists, D e i s m , Unitarianism Inquisition, 293, 406 I n t e r n a l o r I n w a r d C a l l t o p r e a c h , 5, 28, 66-128 ( e s p . 72-73, 78, 80, 8487, 100), 251 I n t o l e r a n c e , see P e r s e c u t i o n I p s w i c h , Mass., opposes religious taxes, 372 I r e n a e u s , 269 " I r e n a e u s " ( S a m u e l W e s t ) , 368 Irresistible grace, 56, 293

INDEX 5 1 9 Isaac, 115, 138, 141, 146 Knox, John, 498 Korah, 454, 468 Isaiah, 105 Ishmael 115, 138, 141, 146, 158, 164 66, Israel, 3 4 - 3 5 , 7*. 77. 79. 80, 82, 86, Laity, rights of, vis-à-vis clergy, 37, 176, 217-218. See also Priesthood 138, 139, 146, 152, 159, 265, 276, Laity and lay ordination. Backus on, 284, 301, 322, 323, 359, 373, 404, 414 33. 37. 66-128, 176, 205-207, 217Itinerant preachers, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 20, 218, 226-227, 373, 464-465 419, 424. See also Exhorters Laken, Capt. Nathaniel, 362-363 Lancaster, Mass., 361 Jacob, 115, 138, 146, 163, 301 Landaff, Bishop of, 417η, 463 James I, 322 Lathrop, 497 James VI, 498 Latimer, 322 Japheth, χ 15 Jefferson, Thomas, l , 16, 37, 47, 50, Latter days, see Millennium Lay exhorters, see Exhorters 52, 61, 346-347. 429 Jehosophat, 71 Lay ordination, 66-128, 100, 205-207, Jehoiada, 81 217, 226-227, 373, 464-465 Jehovah, 80, 291, 298, 402, 403, 410 Laying on of hands, 10 Jencks, Gov. Joseph, 335, 343 Law of God, 136, 140. See also CoveJeremiah, 81, 87, 89, 152 nant of Works Jerusalem, 79, 140, 156, 320 Lawrence, Dr. Ephraim, 361-363 Jesuits, 189, 245, 394, 395 Lawyers, 421, 441, 443 Jewish church, ceremonies, and legalLearned ministry, Backus on, 20, 29ism,

149.

38, 79, 131, 153,

154.

136-137,

144-147,

180, 255, 271, 285,

315, 320, 415

Jews, 38, 81, 87, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156,

158,

172,

256, 263, 264, 274,

283, 284, 316, 320, 323,

354, 360,

364, 373, 436; and death of Christ, 301, 402, 455

Joab, 337 Job, 148, 161, 260 John, 82, 87, 157, 161, 207, 225, 374 John the Baptist, 155 Johnson, Col. Richard M., 51 Jones, Samuel, 49η Joshua, 72, 77, 79, 276 Josiah, 71 Joseph, 299, 420 Judas, 113, 337 Judging others' hearts, 215-224 Judgment, 144 Julian, 315 Keith, Amos, 484 Keith, James, 484 Ker, John, 109, 498 King Jesus, 437, 444 Kingdom of Christ, 281 Kingdom of God, 79, 263 Kissites, 502 Knollys, Hansard, 276η Knowing Christians, 215-224. See Visible saints

241,

31, 66-128 189,

191,

(esp.

75, 102-105), 169,

208-211,

230-231,

250-

251, 268, 281, 358, 377, 407, 418

Ledoyt, Biel, 287 Lee, Ann, 57, 60 Lee, Jesse, 448 Lee, Richard (Baptist exhorter), 429, 434-435 Lee, Richard Henry, 388 Legal teachers, 93 Leland, John, 1, 50, 51; compared to Backus, 51η Letters Concerning Toleration, by John Locke, 16, 40, 43, 44, 368 Letter to a Gentleman in the Massachusetts General Assembly, by Isaac Backus, 41η Letter to the Rev. Mr. Benjamin Lord, by Isaac Backus, 168 Levites, 182, 415 Lexington, Battle of, 13, 307 Liberty of conscience, Backus on, 17, 20, 23, 24, 35, 67, 272, 305, 306, 316,

321, 333, 422, 483, 486. See also Religious liberty License to preach, 5, 31, 109, 110, 197, 205, 207

also

Licentiousness, vs. Liberty, 350, 454 Limited atonement, see Predestination, Election Locke, John, 16-17, 28, 29, 49; Backus and, 291;

34,

35,

37, 40-44, 46, 55-59,

psychology of,

297,

305-306,

520

INDEX

347-348, 357, 368, 376, 429, 449. See also Rationalism Lord, Benjamin, 2, 3, 5, 7, 35, 168, 190η, 283, 494

"Lording it over" the brethren,

184-188,

205-207, 2 1 7 , 224-235, 281, 374

Lordsday, 266. See also Sabbatarianism Lord's supper, 9-10, 145, 147, 148, 157, 158-159,

187,

215,

270-271,

414,

424.

221,

260,

268,

See also Communion, Church membership Lot, 1 5 1 , 1 5 2 Luther, Martin, 81, 108, 200, 395

Madison, James, l , 47, 50, 346, 429 Magistrates, duties of, 19, 38, 39, 40, 43η,

ígi,

195,

3°6,

313-316,

322,

341, 374-376, 379, 382, 391, 396. See also Separation of church and state Mahomet, 394-395 Manning, James, 11, 12, 268η Mansfield, Conn., Separates in, 2 1 3 - 2 1 4 , 276η

Marks of the beast, 374, 376 Marriage, Separate ministers prosecuted for performing, 206; Baptists, 325 Marsh, Thomas, imprisoned for exhorting,

213,

257η

Martha, 470 Mary, 470 Mason, George, 47, 50 Mason, Susanna, 9 Massachusetts Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, 14-15 Mather, Cotton, 70, 196, 203, 204, 243, 258, 276η, 3i8n, 3 2 1 , 340-341, 390, 424, 498, 501

Mather, Eleazar, 220 Mather, Increase, 36, quoted, 185, 186, 187, 373-374, 378, 396, 501 Matthias, 226 Mayhew, Jonathan, 229η Means, use of in conversion, 91-92, 153 Mediator (Christ), 144 Membership, 8-9. See also Church membership, Covenant, Visible saints Mendon, Mass., 333 Mennonites, 18 Mercy seat, 414 Merriman, John, 197 Methodism,

14, 53, 59-60, 63, 448-

471. See also Wesley, John Micah, 120

Middleboro, Mass., 6, 10, 378η, 386, 433 Midianites, 468 Miles, John, 276 Millennium, Backus on, 32, 60, 84, 107, 132,

162,

290,

307,

400,

424-425,

429, 438, 468

"Milton" (Samuel Stillman), 368 Ministerial duties, 191, 224-237

M i n i s t e r i a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , 20-21, 28-33, 54,

66-121

(esp.

73,

80,

102-103,

110-112,

117),

205-206,

208-211,

226,

98-100, 183-193,

250,

275,

242η, 252, 358,

373,

423, 479. See also Learned ministry Ministerial selection by parish and church, 20, 49; in Canterbury, Conn., 204-205, 216,

388, 392, 398; Backus on, 6, 8, 24,

26-27, 49, 1 3 1 , 204-208, 216, 242η, 252,

3 5 8 , 3 7 3 , 386-388, 398, 433

Ministerial support, salaries, 37-39, 1 9 1 192, 237-243, 317-343, 405, 4 3 7 438, 445. See also Religious taxes, Voluntarism Ministerial taxes, see Religious taxes Ministry, see Ordination, Voluntarism, Itinerants Miracles, 78, 96, 97, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 Missions, Baptist, 51; Anglican, 176; Puritan, 177 Mitchell, Jonathan, 36, 186, 188, 216, 2 2 1 , 258-260, 261, 378

Mobbing of Baptist preachers, 361-365, 393, 405, 434-435 Montague, Mass., 343 Mormons, 37, 52 Moses, 70, 79, 80, 86, 89, 96, 113, 115, 120,

136,

146,

157,

159, 238,

271,

313, 459 Mount Sinai (symbol of covenant of works), 136, 144 Munsterites, 35, 131, 168, 261, 291, 337, 372, 393, 394, 465· See also Anabaptists National and provincial churches, 131, 183, 189, 199, 244, 264, 284

National covenant, 33, 43η National debt, see Public credit Natural rights and natural law, 17, 37, 42-43, 49, 50, 53, 58-59, 305-316, 328

Nature and Necessity of an Internal Call to Preach, 25, 27-32, 6 5 - 1 2 8 Nebuchadnezzar, 297 Neo-Edwardsianism, see Hopkinsians, Hyper-Calvinism

INDEX New birth, 123, 160. See also Conversion N e w covenant, see Covenant of grace New Hampshire, 407, 408 New Lights, 3, 27, 2 8 ; rebellion against the Standing Order, 4, 5, 291, 424; in Titicut, Mass., 6 ; and infant b a p tism, 9; Gospel o f love and, 31; and Calvinism, 52-56; view o f conversion, 3 1 - 3 2 , 53-59. See also Separates, Baptists, Evangelical Calvinism Newton, Sir Isaac, 29, 58 New York, 423 Nicodemus, 285 Noah, 75, 79, 115, 148, 151, 152, 272 Nonconformity, 43η. See also Dissenters Norcott, J o h n , 258 Norton, John, 299, 378, 500 Norton, Mass., 122 Norwich, Conn., 1, 52; Separates' church i n , 5; Separates imprisoned in, 188 Nova Scotia, 448 Nun, 72 Oakes, Urian, 186 Oaths of office, Backus on, 50, 399, 422, 429, 436, 437. See also Anti-Catholicism Officers i n the church, 182, 217, 226227

Old Baptists, 10 Old Covenant, see Abrahamic Covenant of works Old Lights, 4, 27, 31, 32, 54, 169 Old Testament, 140 Omniscience of God, 310 Onesimus, 286

On Traditionary Zeal,

290-302

Oral vs. Written narrations o f conversion, Backus on, 169, 178, 186, 187188, 218-220, 378

Ordinances, church, 154 Original sin, 410, 453 Orthodoxy, required for settled ministers, 67 Owen, John, 36, 171, quoted, 186, 222, 228,

230,

232,

245,

246-249,

404,

413, 433 Owning the covenant, 159 Oxford, 322 Paine,

Elisha,

208; imprisoned,

257η

Paine, J o h n , 257η, 485

5 2 I

Paine, Robert Treat, 12, 368, 428, 431432 Paine, Solomon, 25; on church and state, 36, 39, 168, 205-206, 208-209, 214,

253. 257n, 2 7 7 Paine, Thomas, 42, 52 Palmer, Elihu, 52 Palmer, J o h n , imprisoned, 257η Paper money, 441, 443. See also Public credit Papists and Papacy, 23, 75, 81, 106, 1 7 1 , 2i8n, 243, 261, 275, 337, 369,

399, 408, 422, 486. See also Catholicism, Anti-Catholicism Parish system i n N e w England, 6 , 8 , 24, 26-27, 49,

131,

245, 358,

386-

388, 392, 398

Parker, Isaiah, 362 Parliament, 17, 306, 339, 357, 423 Parsons, Jonathan, 278η Passover, 146, 159, 284 Paul ( t h e apostle), 79, 90, 93, 94, 96, 102,

103,

111,

113,

130,

146,

147,

153,

182,

193,

198,

206, 210,

225,

226, 228,

231,

242,

244, 263,

265,

267,

272,

273,

283,

271,

294,

301

Payson, Phillips, defends establishment, 346-347, 353, 3 5 4 ,

357,

358,

368

Peck, Samuel, 485 Pedobaptism, see Infant baptism Pemberton, Ebenezer, 229η Pentecost, 148 Pepperell Riot, 347, 361-365, 3 9 3 , 4 0 5 , 502

Perfectionism, 1, 5, 169, 464 Persecution,

3, 44, 81, 188, 237-238,

352, 358; of Rogerenes, 52; of Protestants, 153-154; in N.Y., 342; b y Puritans, 176, 321, 324, 340-341, 3 5 5 - 3 5 6 , 417η, 4 3 5 - 4 3 6 ; o f Separates, 6-7, 20-21, 23, 24, 38, 188, 205-206, 212, 257, 486; of SeparateBaptists, 12, 14, 41-44, 168, 325343,

361-365,

379,

380,

393,

428, 4 3 1 - 4 3 2 , 434-435, 44°·

421,

See also

Religious taxes Perserverance, 56, 161, 452 Peter, 83, 113, 137, 148, 176, 207, 210, 226, 256, 275, 316, 333, 410

Petitions, 21,

against

22-23,

religious

3 9 , 46,

398,

taxes, 20, 405,

485-

486

212,

Pharisees, see Scribes and Pharisees Pharaoh, 96, 301, 404, 457 Philadelphia Baptist Association, 11, 12 "Philanthropos," 368 Philistines, 414

522

INDEX

Phinehas, 152, 154 Pietism, in Germany, 66, 498; in America, l , 4, 5, 7, 9, 17, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 34, 429; and "further light," 32; Backus and, 43, 47, 48, 60, 61, 67 Pike, Leonard, 3 3 1 Pilate, 402 Pilmoor, Joseph, 463 Piscataqua, 268 Plainfield, Mass., 379 Plunging in baptism, see Dipping Plymouth colony and the Pilgrams, Backus on, 18, 32-33, 44, 107-108, 184, 2 1 7 , 243, 261, 262, 316, 4 1 6 417, 501. See also Robinson, John Policy As Well As Honesty, 47η, 368383 Pomeroy, Benjamin, 2 Porter, John, 232η Powers, Nicholas, 337 Precinct, see Parish system Predestination, 1, 56, 57-58, 290-302, 448-471, 500. See also Election Predestination Calmly Considered, by John Wesley, 457 Preparatory work in soul winning, 92 Presbyterianism, 38, 52, 54, 176, 1 8 3 188, 205, 359, 464 Priesthood of all believers, 5, 19, 30, 37, 66, 82, 102-105, 156, 273, 281, 415. See also Egalitarianism, Individualism, Laity, Improvement of gifts Prince, Thomas 184, 2 1 7 , 229η, 256 Princeton College, 1 1 , 188, 277 Proctor, John, 339 Promises of God, 77, 145, 301 Protestants, 103, 106 Protestant ethic, 441 Providence, Divine, 301, 306, 416 Providence, R.I., see Rhode Island and Providence Psychology and Lockean empiricism, Backus on, 55-59, 297-300. See also Locke Psychology of religion, see Locke Public credit, 382, 433, 440-446 Public schools, Backus on, 50 Pure church, 187. See also, Church membership, Oral narration, Voluntarism Purgatory, 159, 265η, 445 Puritanism, 1, 7, 8, 18, 25, 29, 30, 33, and Abrahamic covenant, 1 3 1 - 1 6 5 Pursuit of happiness, 299, 429, 438. Quakers, 12, 17, 204; tax exempt, 20,

22, 23, 27, 387, 417η; persecuted, 436, 486. See also Dissenters Qualifications for the ministry, see Ministerial qualifications Quebec Act, 1 7 Queen Anne, 380 Rahab, 1 5 1 Railery, sin of, 7 1 Randall, Benjamin, 57 Rates, see Religious taxes Rationalism, 37, 43, 47-48, 52, 58, 290, 298, 403. See also Deism, Enlightenment, Freedom of the will, Unitarianism, Locke Redemption, see Conversion Election, Atonement Reformation, English, 106, 144, 316, 465; Luther's, 395 Regeneration, see Conversion, Election, Covenant of grace Rehoboth, Mass., 9 Religious liberty, 43η, 52 317-343, 358, 4O6, 431-432. See also Liberty of conscience, Separation of church and state, Persecution Religious taxes, 6, 7, 13, 20-25, 27, 36-39, 42-44, 44-54, 188-199, 2 3 7 243. 304-314, 3 1 7 - 3 4 3 , 356-358, 368-383, 386-396, 418, 428-438, 440, 445, 475-484; tithes, 43η. See also Disestablishment Ecclesiastical laws Reprobation, see Predestination, Election, Depravity Republican Party ( Democratic-Republican Party), 50, 61. See also Jefferson Resurrection, 2 7 1 , 456 Reuben, 469 Revivalism, 17, 35, 54, 57, 440, 448. See also Great Awakening Revolution, American, Backus and, 12, 13, 17, 30, 60, 305, 339-340, 356357, 382, 383, 405, 433, 443-444, 467; Wesley on, 461-462 Revolution, Puritan, 206 Rhode Island and Providence, Backus on, 5, 39, 290, 293, 336, 337, 343, 355-356, 369, 374, 405, 407, 418, 422 Ridley, 322 Rcbbins, Chandler, 2 1 7 Robbins, Philemon, 197-198, 277 Robinson, John, 18, 32, 33, 107-108, 262 Rogerenes, 52

INDEX Roman Empire, 394 Sabbatarianism, 49-50, 52, 244, 266η, 369, 433 Salem, Mass., First Congregational Church in, 184 Samaritans, 1 5 3 Saltonstall, Gurdon, 114η, ig6 Salvation, see Conversion Samuel, 81, 82, 1 1 0 Sandemanians, 14, 53, 408, 4 1 1 , 494, 502. See also Dissenters Satan, see Devil Saul, 96, 240η, 301, 455 Savoy Declaration of Faith, 185 Saybrook Platform, 1 1 , 18; Backus on, 38, 114η, 196-197, 205, 499 Seamans, Job, 360 Seasonable Plea for Liberty of Conscience, by Isaac Backus, 4 1 Science and religion, 29, 34; Lockean sensational psychology, 55-59 Scribes and Pharisees, 70, 86, 90, 91, 139, 200, 2 1 0 267 394 Second Great Awakening, see Great Awakening, Second Second Treatise on Government, by John Locke, 16 Separate movement, Backus on, 168178, 199-202, 204-206, 244-251, 485-487 Separate-Baptists, 9, 10, 168-170; growth of, 14, 15, 18; on church and state, 17, 20-25, 33, 36-39 54-6i. See also Baptists Separates, 4-8; and antipedobaptism, 8 - 1 1 , 168-178; on church and state, 17, 19-24, 477-484; petitions of, 22, 485-487; reasons for separation, 199202, 204-206, 2 1 5 , 244-250. See also Canterbury, Conn., Mansfield, Conn., Windham, Conn., Persecution, New Lights Separation of church and state, 1, 7, 12, 1 3 - 1 4 , 20-27; Backus on, 19-25, 26-54, 62, 168-170, 188-200, 2 3 7 243, 3 1 3 - 3 1 6 , 3 1 7 - 3 4 3 , 368-383, 398-425, 428-438, 475-484. See also Disestablishment, Voluntarism, Grievance Committee, Religious taxes Separatists, 18. See also Pilgrims, Plymouth Sermons, see also Written sermons Settled ministers, 6. See also Standing Order, Anticlericalism Seventh Day Baptists, 10 Sewall, Joseph, 229η

523

Shakers, 14, 53, 56 Shattuck, Simeon, 362 Shays's Rebellion and public credit, Backus on, 50, 61, 291, 382, 433, 440-446 Shem, 1 1 5 Shemaiah, 8 1 Shepard Thomas, 222, 255 Shepheard, Nathaniel, 1 2 1 - 1 2 8 , 493 Shepherd, Isaac, 128 Shirley, Gov. William, 485 Short View of the Difference Between the Church of Christ and the Established Churches, by Solomon Paine, 36 Simonds, Joseph, 502 Simony, 373, 396, 437 Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, by Jonathan Edwards, 3 1 Six Principle Baptists, 10, 53 Slaves and slavery, 1 5 138, 139, 177, 3 1 1 , 373, 444 Smith, Adam, 29 Smith, Chileab, 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 Smith, Ebenezer, 329-330 Smith, John, 253-254 Smith, Hezekiah, 277-278 Smith, Matthew, 252-253 Snow, Joseph, 5 Sodom, 334 Social contract, 42-43 305-316, 423η. See also Government Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Backus on, see Anglican Church Solomon, 7 1 , 154, 214, 216, 235, 260, 278, 313, 395, 457 Sons of Liberty, 12, 17, 36, 40, 169, 350 Soul saving, 57, 83-84, 90-92, 98, 1 1 8 . See also Conversion, Covenant of grace Sovereign Decrees of God, 58, 290-302 Sovereign election, see Election Spaniards, 70-71 Spener, Philip, 498 Stamp Act, 36, 40, 169, 339 Standing Order, 3, 4, 7, 13, 19, 23, 26, 28, 29; based on Abrahamic covenant, 1 3 1 - 1 6 5 ; Backus rebels against, 33, 36, 38, 44-54, 60, 66, 175, 183-190, 291, 304-305, 333, 338, 346, 386396; settled ministers, 6. See also Disestablishment, Separation of church and state, Congregationalism, Established churches Stiles, Ezra 52, 318η, 464-465

524

INDEX

Stillingfleet, Edward, 232 Stillman, Samuel, 15, 346, 368, 407 Stocks, 23, 81, 486 Stoddard, Solomon, opposes written sermons, 235 498 Stoddardeanism, Backus on, 19, 131, 414, 424

Stonington,

Conn.,

Separates and

Turks, 153, 337 Typology, Backus' use of, 7, 34, 115, 130-131,

146,

148,

156,

157,

158,

274» 275» 369, 373, 414. 415

Unconverted ministry, Backus on, 2021,

28-29,

112-113,

54>

116,

66-121 120),

(esp.

200-204,

loo, 228;

S e p a r a t e - B a p t i s t s in, 9, 168-170, 214,

and hireling ministry, Backus attacks,

252, 277

20-21,

Strawbridge, Robert, 463 Suffolk Resolves, 391 Sunday Service in North John Wesley, 463 Symonds, Samuel, 372 Swansea, Mass., 276η

176,

28-29,

184,

54> 66-120,

191-192,

194,

120-121, 200-204,

228, 230-232, 239η, 242n 253, 256,

America, by

324, 377, 395, 4 * 5 Uncovenanted mercy, 265 Unitarianism, 14, 52, 54; Backus attacks, 229η, 307, 346, 399, 408-410,

Taxation No Tyranny, by Dr. J., 462 Tax dodger, 420 Taxes, see Religious taxes, Persecution Tax exemption, 7-8, 20, 21, 27, 45η, 48, 304, 347, 420, 475-484. See also Certificate system Temple of Solomon, 79, 147, 276, 285 Tennent, Gilbert, 28, 54, 67, 200 Tertullian, 415 Testimony of the Two Witnesses, by Isaac Backus, 50η Thatcher, Peter, 336 Theater-going, Backus on, 51 Theocracy, see Puritans Thomas (the apostle), 470 Timothy, 109, 116, 226 Tithes, 43η. See also Religious taxes Titicut, Mass., 6, 19-25, 28, 66, 130,

Universalism, 14, 53, 57, 502 "Universal Redemption," by John Wesley, 452

475-484

Titus, 116 Toleration Act of 1689, 17, 20, 23, 36 Toleration in New England, 43η, 304. See also Tax exemption, Certificate system Tongues, speaking in, 78-79, 104 Toryism, 169, 383; Baptists suspected o f , 360, 363, 395, 398-399. 408, 423

Towgood, Micaiah, 499 Tracy, Isaac (Isaac Backus'

uncle),

168, 189

Treatise on the Fear of Man, by August Francke, 79η Treaty of Paris, 429 Trial of the Spirit, by Jonathan Edwards, 78η Trinitarian Congregationalists, 399-400, 501 True virtue, 42 Truth Is Great and Will Prevail, 49, 397-425

421, 441, 500-501

Vane, Sir Henry, 319η Varnum, James Mitchell, 49, 428, 431432 Virgin Mary, 333 Virginia, Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in, 47, 346-347 Virginia, bill for a general assessment tax for religion, 388 Virginia, Declaration of Rights, 47 Visible saints (and "real saints"), 8, 38,

147,

151-152,

179-180,

249η,

7 3 , 413· See also Church membership, Oral narrations, Knowing Christians 2

V o l u n t a r i s m , 20, 21, 23, 35, 36, 37-39, 42-46, 243,

61,

250,

368-383,

68, 306,

131

192-194

316-343,

386-396,

416η,

351,

237358,

428-438;

pure church, 187; hireling ministry, 194, 256. See also Ecclesiastical laws, Separation of church and state, Church membership Warburton, 3 7 5 - 3 7 6 Ward, Ebenezer, 253 Warren Baptist Association, 10-12, 40, 49, 304, 346-347, 360, 364, 398, 410, 419, 420, 500

Washburn, Benjamin, 484 Washington, George, 388 Watts, Isaac, 78η, 2i8n; against written sermons, 236, 379 Wesley, John, 56, 57 59-60, 448-471. See also Methodism West, Samuel, 346; defends establishment, 368, 502

INDEX West Cambridge, Mass., 440 West Indies, 443 Western lands, 437 Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, 42, 50, 54, 103 Westward movement, 448 W e t m o r e , 379η

Wheelock, Eleazar, 2 Whiskey Rebellion, 61 White Benjamin, 484 White, Esther, 189 White, William, 343 Whitefield, George, 2, 54, 67, 203, 250η, 253η, 424

Whitgift, 322 Willard, Samuel, 267 Williams, Roger, 1, 17, 18, 20, 33, 34, 37» 42, 44, 306; quoted, 322, 347348, 355, 369, 3 9 1 , 399, 422, 501 Wilson, John, 185 Winchester Elhanan, 57, 496

525

Windham, Conn., Separates in, 5, 204206, 208-209

Windham Consociation, 187, 262 Winslow, Edward, 108, 262 Winthrop, John, 42, 319η, 377 Woods, Lieut. Col., Henry, 362, 364 Woodstock, Conn., Baptists in, 286-287 Woodward, Samuel, 196 Wright, Eliphalet, 25 Wright, Lydia, 362 Wright, Richard, 463 Written sermons, 169, 235-237, 377, 379, 498 Yale College, 11, 30, 54, 67, 74, 16g, 207, 20&-209

Yantic, Conn., 13 Zeal, religious, see Enthusiasm Zechariah, 157 Zephaniah, 81 Zion, 141, 152, 294, 457, 467

T H E JOHN HARVARD LIBRARY The intent of Waldron Phoenix Belknap, Jr., as expressed in an early will, was for Harvard College to use the income from a permanent trust fund he set up, for "editing and publishing rare, inaccessible, or hitherto unpublished source material of interest in connection with the history, literature, art (including minor and useful art), commerce, customs, and manners or way of life of the Colonial and Federal Periods of the United States . . . In all cases the emphasis shall be on the presentation of the basic material!' A later testament broadened this statement, but Mr. Belknap's interests remained constant until his death. In linking the name of the first benefactor of Harvard College with the purpose of this later, generous-minded believer in American culture the John Harvard Library seeks to emphasize the importance of Mr. Belknap's purpose. The John Harvard Library of the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press exists to make boo\s and documents about the American past more readily available to scholars and the general reader.