Which Puritan writings should we avoid?

[alexanderjames]

I have heard several times now of readers saying there are certain Puritans who are not helpful or should be avoided.

Obviously within the more extensive grouping of people deemed Puritans, there are several with unorthodox views - I'm thinking of John Milton towards the extreme end, and Richard Baxter on the other end (with his tendency towards neonomianism). So clearly we would be wary of their theological views.

However, people who say to avoid reading certain Puritans rarely give their names. So I am putting this question out to you all - are there any Puritan writings you would advise to steer clear of?

 

[Logan]

Perhaps you are referring to the disclaimer I put on the works for Puritan Search? I think that in general when you have a large body of Christians writing, you're always going to run into some odd views on at least some things. The same with the collection of Puritans we put out recently: you're going to have your Beekes, Fergusons, Pipers, Chandlers, Frames, Lloyd-Joneses, Sprouls, MacArthurs, etc.

Would you avoid any of those? Maybe on some topics, maybe not on others. My admonition was to just read with discernment. The label "puritan" doesn't mean "infallible" or "perfect theology".

 

[alexanderjames]

Thank you both for your insight.

Perhaps you are referring to the disclaimer I put on the works for Puritan Search?

I actually didn't have this in mind, but good points made.

My question comes from a variety of sources, and I would assume such opinions are based on Puritan writings which are available in print today (or have been in the past few decades.)

Among these, I can recall the most warnings being about Richard Baxter (as mentioned in the OP). I've also come across warnings about preparationism and the tendency to cause believers to lack assurance of salvation in reading certain authors. A couple of names I have heard in relation to the latter are Joseph Alleine (likely the 'Alarm to the unconverted') and Matthew Mead (probably for his 'Almost Christian..').

I'm very keen to hear the views of well-read members of the Board on this topic.

 

[Polanus1561]

Thank you both for your insight.

I actually didn't have this in mind, but good points made.

My question comes from a variety of sources, and I would assume such opinions are based on Puritan writings which are available in print today (or have been in the past few decades.)

Among these, I can recall the most warnings being about Richard Baxter (as mentioned in the OP). I've also come across warnings about preparationism and the tendency to cause believers to lack assurance of salvation in reading certain authors. A couple of names I have heard in relation to the latter are Joseph Alleine (likely the 'Alarm to the unconverted') and Matthew Mead (probably for his 'Almost Christian..').

I'm very keen to hear the views of well-read members of the Board on this topic.

as with all authors, being able to discern helps you enjoy authors more. E.g presbyterians reading baptists, preparationism for puritans is a possible one. It involves also detaching yourself from the contexts of the authors in their day and audience. Spurgeon's sermons is not a good way to write sermons in my opinion, but I do not approach it as a strict sermon and thus I can enjoy it.

 

[davejonescue]

Sorry, I deleted my comment, unfortunately it sounded more like an advertisement than being related to the topic. also, thank you for bringing up preparationism, it is a term I have never heard of before.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I disagree with the assertion that the Puritans are guilty of "preparationism."
William Perkins does a good job in his Cases of Conscience, and Ames after him, of explaining biblical preparation, and other Puritans generally follow the same views.
Everyone I've seen criticize the Puritans on this point simply doesn't believe in preparation for conversion, which makes them the ones in error, not the Puritans.
As for what to avoid, Baxter's soteriology stinks, and independency in church government stinks. There are also plenty of books from the Puritan era written by laymen expressing erroneous theological views, and they were often responded to by other authors. The Antinomians Crispe and Saltmarsh would probably be called Puritans by some.
As far as Puritan works from actual ordained ministers, especially presbyterian writers, of the era, it's quite hard to go wrong. The vast majority of works are of high quality.

 

[MyCrows]

I disagree with the assertion that the Puritans are guilty of "preparationism."
William Perkins does a good job in his Cases of Conscience, and Ames after him, of explaining biblical preparation, and other Puritans generally follow the same views.
Everyone I've seen criticize the Puritans on this point simply doesn't believe in preparation for conversion, which makes them the ones in error, not the Puritans.
As for what to avoid, Baxter's soteriology stinks, and independency in church government stinks. There are also plenty of books from the Puritan era written by laymen expressing erroneous theological views, and they were often responded to by other authors. The Antinomians Crispe and Saltmarsh would probably be called Puritans by some.
As far as Puritan works from actual ordained ministers, especially presbyterian writers, of the era, it's quite hard to go wrong. The vast majority of works are of high quality.

Sometimes preparationism comes off as sounding like preparatory work on the sinners behalf. I've heard it presented in ways that were off putting to me, almost like a "clean up your act, and then seek God in his mercy".

Do we tell a drunk that he must stop drinking in order to come to Christ? If it is presented as a precondition to be met by the sinners prior to seeking Christ's mercy I think it wrong.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Sometimes preparationism comes off as sounding like preparatory work on the sinners behalf. I've heard it presented in ways that were off putting to me, almost like a "clean up your act, and then seek God in his mercy".

Do we tell a drunk that he must stop drinking in order to come to Christ? If it is presented as a precondition to be met by the sinners prior to seeking Christ's mercy I think it wrong.

Yes, I would tell a drunk that.
But, just to be clear on the meaning, the point isn't that he should first go to A.A. meetings and go a year without drinking, and then start going to church, or believe in Christ.
The point is that he can't come to Christ and keep drinking to excess. Christ said "repent and believe," and "a drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven."
That's actually a different point though from what the Puritans mean by preparation.
The point of preparation, from a Puritan perspective, is that one who is converted is normally laboring under the conviction of sin. Ordinarily, one is first slain by the law and then made alive by the gospel.
That's why they called it "legal preparation." The point is not that one can merit Christ by good works before conversion, which is a Roman Catholic idea they were very opposed to, or that one should put off believing in Christ until he has attained some measure of repentance. I don't think any puritan would hesitate to tell a sinner he must believe in Christ today, and repent today.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Here is the quote from Perkins in all of its glory. Ames, Van Mastricht, and Rutherford say substantially the same thing.
"What must a man doe, that he may come into Gods fauour, and be saued?

FOr answer to this question, some Ground must be laid down before hand. For it is to be considered, and remembred in the first place, how and by what meanes, God that saueth brings a man to saluation.

In the working and effecting of our sal∣uation, there are two speciall works of God: the giuing of the first grace, and after that the giuing of the second. The former of these two workes, hath X. seuerall acti∣ons. I. God giues man the outward meanes of saluation, specially the Ministerie of the word: and with it, he sends some outward crosse, to breake and subdue the stubbernnesse of our na∣ture, that it may be made plyeable to the will of God. II. This done, God brings the minde of man to a consideration of the Lawe, and therein generally to see what is good, and what is euill, what is sinne, and what is not sinne. III. Vp∣on a serious consideration of the Law, he makes a man particularly to see and know, his own pe∣culiar and proper sinnes. IV. Vpon the sight of sinne, he smites the heart with the spirit of feare, whereby when man seeth his sinnes, he makes him to feare punishment and hell, and to dispaire of saluation, in regard of any thing in himselfe.

Now these foure actions, are indeed no fruits of grace, but are onely workes of preparation going before grace; the other actions which follow, are effects of grace."

 

[MyCrows]

Yes, I would tell a drunk that.
But, just to be clear on the meaning, the point isn't that he should first go to A.A. meetings and go a year without drinking, and then start going to church, or believe in Christ.
The point is that he can't come to Christ and keep drinking to excess. Christ said "repent and believe," and "a drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven."
That's actually a different point though from what the Puritans mean by preparation.
The point of preparation, from a Puritan perspective, is that one who is converted is normally laboring under the conviction of sin. Ordinarily, one is first slain by the law and then made alive by the gospel.
That's why they called it "legal preparation." The point is not that one can merit Christ by good works before conversion, which is a Roman Catholic idea they were very opposed to, or that one should put off believing in Christ until he has attained some measure of repentance. I don't think any puritan would hesitate to tell a sinner he must believe in Christ today, and repent today.

I agree with your reasoning completely. There is no salvation apart from repentance and faith in Christ, both of which are saving graces wrought by the Spirit.

But in regards to the proposed saying to our unsaved friend about his drunkenness, you mean one thing and I hear another. Probably a defect in the hearer.

 

[B.L.]

With discernment none should be avoided, though not all are equally edifying or worth commending.

Case in point -- I just started nibbling through William C. Watson's book "Dispensationalism Before Darby: Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth-Century English Apocalypticism" and there are quotes throughout by "Puritans" who espouse views that would prohibit them from joining the Puritan Board. Perhaps if I can find the time I'll pull together a list of names and views worth researching further.

 

[py3ak]

Avoid is a strong term, and it depends on your purpose in reading. But I think there are some broadly within the Puritan camp who can safely be deprioritized by the general reader, whether because of idiosyncrasies, excessive difficulty in expression, or exaggerations in their emphases. My list of people to whom a little exposure was enough would include:

Thomas Adams
Robert Bolton
"Roaring" John Rogers of Dedham
Joseph Mede
Peter Sterry

 

[Logan]

My list of people to whom a little exposure was enough would include:

Thomas Adams

My wife was not a fan of Adams either, but I found him quite enjoyable. Some really clever turns of phrase. But I guess I'd put him more in the category of entertainment for me than edification!

 

[greenbaggins]

A lot will depend on one's theological convictions. For example, if you are not an historicist in your interpretation of Revelation, you will find most Puritan commentaries on Revelation to be less helpful than some others. If you are historicist, then you will find Puritan works on Revelation much more helpful. Similarly, if one takes Song of Songs to be about both marriage as type and Christ-church or Christ-believer as antitype (or maybe more properly, the one a symbol for the other), instead of being only about the antitype and not about marriage at all, then one might find Puritan works somewhat incomplete. If, however, one agrees with the Puritans that it is an allegorical book, then the Puritans will be much more helpful to you. Even if one disagrees with the Puritans on these two particular issues (as I do), that does not mean that they should be avoided at all costs. I don't read much Baxter, I admit, because I do not trust his theology.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I don't read much Baxter, I admit, because I do not trust his theology.

 

[py3ak]

My wife was not a fan of Adams either, but I found him quite enjoyable. Some really clever turns of phrase. But I guess I'd put him more in the category of entertainment for me than edification!

I'm not a fan of the ornamentation. Elaborate prose can be beautiful (Browne, Hooker, Addison, Johnson), but Adams' style seemed like a trick.

 

[arapahoepark]

A few previously mentioned like Alliene and Meade should be taken in their contexts regarding warnings. They have other sermons and writings that sound far less legalistic and quite the opposite. I don't think they are necessarily hyperbolic but preached to the situation(s) they saw and applied the appropriate antidote.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Everyone I've seen criticize the Puritans on this point simply doesn't believe in preparation for conversion, which makes them the ones in error, not the Puritans.

This observation is long overdue.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I think we should discern error in any man as no man is perfect or exempt from stumbling especially the Puritans, though there is much to be commended in their writings:

2Co 10:12 KJV For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

From WCF 1:

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

 

[greenbaggins]

The point on preparation depends entirely on the definition of the term, of which there are two main definitions on offer. The utmost in clarity is required, since one version of preparationism is legalistic, and the other is not. In my opinion, the Auchterarder Creed needs to be remembered and believed (see Ferguson's book The Whole Christ for a complete and trenchant exposition of the entire Marrow Controversy):

"It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ."

Repentance, while necessary and always concomitant with faith, is nevertheless not instrumental in our coming to Christ. So if preparationism means repentance must come before union with Christ, or is in any way instrumental to coming to Christ, then we are on the wrong side of the Marrow controversy, not a place we want to be.

However, if by preparationism we mean what the Puritans usually meant, namely, conviction of sin by confrontation with the law (the pedagogical use of the law), then we should say "full steam ahead." Where I live, in the Midwest of the USA, we have a huge problem with people not thinking that they need Jesus, because of what we call "Midwestern nice." This is generally "You're good, I'm good, we're all good. Why do we need Jesus?" The Puritan definition of preparationism would be absolutely essential in such a context, because people do have to believe that they need a Savior before they will put their trust in Him.

 

[alexmacarie]

As an aside, I’d be interested to see any Puritans who took the Song of Solomon to be speaking of natural marriage.

One divine has said that if anyone thinks the Song of Solomon is about natural marriage, not only does he not know much about spiritual marriage, but he doesn’t know much about natural marriage either. Make of that what you will, but for what it’s worth James Durham has a great chapter illustrating this point in his commentary.

 

[davejonescue]

As an aside, I’d be interested to see any Puritans who took the Song of Solomon to be speaking of natural marriage.

One divine has said that if anyone thinks the Song of Solomon is about natural marriage, not only does he not know much about spiritual marriage, but he doesn’t know much about natural marriage either. Make of that what you will, but for what it’s worth James Durham has a great chapter illustrating this point in his commentary.

Which to me is odd, because I always thought marriage in particular is an allegory of Christ and the church Ephesians 5:32.

 

[alexmacarie]

Which to me is odd, because I always thought marriage in particular is an allegory of Christ and the church Ephesians 5:32.

I think it’s because there’s so much in the Song of Solomon that just can’t apply to natural marriage (one of Durham’s main points in his “key” to the book.)

 

[Charles Johnson]

The point on preparation depends entirely on the definition of the term, of which there are two main definitions on offer. The utmost in clarity is required, since one version of preparationism is legalistic, and the other is not. In my opinion, the Auchterarder Creed needs to be remembered and believed (see Ferguson's book The Whole Christ for a complete and trenchant exposition of the entire Marrow Controversy):

"It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ."

Repentance, while necessary and always concomitant with faith, is nevertheless not instrumental in our coming to Christ. So if preparationism means repentance must come before union with Christ, or is in any way instrumental to coming to Christ, then we are on the wrong side of the Marrow controversy, not a place we want to be.

However, if by preparationism we mean what the Puritans usually meant, namely, conviction of sin by confrontation with the law (the pedagogical use of the law), then we should say "full steam ahead." Where I live, in the Midwest of the USA, we have a huge problem with people not thinking that they need Jesus, because of what we call "Midwestern nice." This is generally "You're good, I'm good, we're all good. Why do we need Jesus?" The Puritan definition of preparationism would be absolutely essential in such a context, because people do have to believe that they need a Savior before they will put their trust in Him.

While Ferguson's book certain gives the impression that there is a "good side" and "bad side" to the Marrow Controversy, I think that's reductionistic. Taking a look at the footnotes of Ferguson's work, one notes that he did not consult any primary sources from the anti-marrow side.
Having read Hadow's sermon against the Marrow, he makes some valid points, and he shows familiarity with Rutherford's writings against the Antinomians.
As to the Auchterarder Creed, I'm sure their intentions were good, but one does have to forsake sin to come to Christ.
Our confession even says it is repentance by which one "turns to God."
"By [repentance] a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments."

 

[Ed Walsh]

I have heard several times now of readers saying there are certain Puritans who are not helpful or should be avoided.

I imagine few will agree with me, but one of the scariest books I have ever read was Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.
But I plan to read it again.

 

[alexanderjames]

I imagine few will agree with me, but one of the scariest books I have ever read was Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.
But I plan to read it again.

I have been focusing on Edwards recently, and making a start on this famous treatise. I don’t think you are alone in your assessment.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I imagine few will agree with me, but one of the scariest books I have ever read was Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.
But I plan to read it again.

I have been focusing on Edwards recently, and making a start on this famous treatise. I don’t think you are alone in your assessment.

Brothers there are two study guides on Edward's work that you might find helpful:
1. Reading Religious Affections by Biehl
2. Signs of the Spirit by Storms

 

[alexmacarie]

While Ferguson's book certain gives the impression that there is a "good side" and "bad side" to the Marrow Controversy, I think that's reductionistic. Taking a look at the footnotes of Ferguson's work, one notes that he did not consult any primary sources from the anti-marrow side.
Having read Hadow's sermon against the Marrow, he makes some valid points, and he shows familiarity with Rutherford's writings against the Antinomians.
As to the Auchterarder Creed, I'm sure their intentions were good, but one does have to forsake sin to come to Christ.
Our confession even says it is repentance by which one "turns to God."
"By [repentance] a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments."

You’ll notice that an apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ precedes the turning from sin, and as faith precedes repentance, the true order is that one must come to Christ first in order to truly repent for He is exalted a “Prince and a Saviour to give repentance” and so there’s no where else to get repentance unless we come to Christ for it.

Forsaking sin always follows coming to Christ by faith, because without faith it is impossible to please God or repent in any way that is acceptable to Him.

 

[Charles Johnson]

You’ll notice that an apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ precedes the turning from sin, and as faith precedes repentance, the true order is that one must come to Christ first in order to truly repent for He is exalted a “Prince and a Saviour to give repentance” and so there’s no where else to get repentance unless we come to Christ for it.

Forsaking sin always follows coming to Christ by faith, because without faith it is impossible to please God or repent in any way that is acceptable to Him.

What does the confession mean when it calls repentance turning to God?

 

[Ed Walsh]

What does the confession mean when it calls repentance turning to God?

Hi Charles,

If you don't mind a longish answer, here is the answer by A. A. Hodge from his Commentary on the Confession of Faith.

CHAPTER XV
OF REPENTANCE UNTO LIFE​

Section I.—Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
Section II.—By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

These Sections teach the following truths:

1st. That as to the grounds of it, true evangelical repentance rests upon (a) a true sense of the guilt, pollution and power of his own sinfulness, and of his own sinful deeds; and (b) a true apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.

2d. That as to the essence of it repentance consists (a) in true hatred of sin and sorrow for his own sin; (b) in an actual turning from them all unto God; (c) in a sincere purpose and practical endeavour to walk with God in the way of his commandments.

3d. That as thus defined this true repentance is an evangelical grace, like faith freely given to us by God for Christ’s sake, as well as a duty obligatory upon us.

4th. It should therefore be diligently proclaimed from the pulpit by every minister of the gospel.

1st. The grounds of repentance are (1) a true sense of sin. That spiritual illumination and renewal of the affections which are effected in regeneration brings the believer to see and appreciate the holiness of God as revealed alike in the law and in the gospel (Rom. 3:20; Job 42:5, 6); and in that light to see and feel the exceeding sinfulness of all sin, and the utter sinfulness of his own nature and conduct. This sense of sin corresponds precisely to the actual facts of the case, and the man apprehends himself to be just as God has always seen him to be. It includes (a) consciousness of guilt—i. e., exposure to merited punishment, as opposed to the justice of God. Ps. 51:4, 9. (b.) Consciousness of pollution, as opposed to the holiness of God. Ps. 51:5, 7, 10. And (c) consciousness of helplessness. Ps. 51:11; 109:21, 22.
The grounds of repentance are (2) a bright apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. This is necessary in order to true repentance: (a.) Because the awakened conscience echoes God’s law, and can be appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by divine justice itself; and until this is realized in a believing application to the merits of Christ, either indifference will stupefy or remorse will torment the soul. (b.) Because out of Christ, God is a consuming fire, and an inextinguishable dread of his wrath repels the soul. Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29. (c.) A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the gift of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is the most powerful means of bringing the soul to genuine repentance for sin as committed against God. Ps. 51:4. (d.) This is proved by the examples of repentance recorded in Scripture. Ps. 51:1; 130:4, and by the universal experience of Christians in modern times.

2d. As to its essence true repentance consists (1) in a sincere hatred of sin (Ps. 119:128, 136), and sorrow for our own sin. Sin is seen to be exceeding sinful in the light of the divine holiness, the law of God, and especially of the cross of Christ. The more we see of God in the face of Christ, the more we abhor ourselves and repent in dust and ashes. Job 42:5; Ezek. 36:31. Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of. 2 Cor. 7:10. “By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20), and hence “the law is our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” Gal. 3:24.
The essence of repentance consists (2) in our actual turning from all sin unto God. This is that practical turning or “conversion” from sin unto God which is the instant and necessary consequence of regeneration. It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with sincere sorrow, humiliation and confession, and a turning unto God as our reconciled Father in the exercise of implicit faith in the merits and assisting grace of Christ. This is marked by the meaning of the Greek word used by the Holy Spirit to express the idea of repentance, namely, “a change of mind,” including evidently a change of thought, feeling and purpose, corresponding to our new character as the children of God. If this be sincere, it will of course lead to the (3) element of practical repentance, namely, a sincere purpose of, and a persevering endeavour after, new obedience. Acts 26:20.
By these marks it may be seen that repentance unto life can only be exercised by a soul after and in consequence of its regeneration by the Holy Spirit. God regenerates, and we, in the exercise of the new gracious ability thus given, repent. Repentance and conversion, therefore, are terms applying often to the same gracious experience. The scriptural usage of the two words differs in two respects: (1.) Conversion is the more general term, including all the various experiences involved in our commencing the divine life. It especially emphasizes that experience as a turning unto God. Repentance is more specific, giving prominence to the work of the law upon the conscience, and especially emphasizing the experiences attending the new birth as a turning from sin. (2.) Conversion is generally used to designate only the first actings of the new nature at the commencement of a religious life, or the first steps of a return to God after a notable backsliding (Luke 22:32); while repentance is a daily experience of the Christian as long as the struggle with sin continues in his heart and life. Ps. 19:12, 13; Luke 9:32; Gal. 6:14; 5:24.

There is a false repentance experienced before regeneration, and by those never regenerated, which arises simply from the common operations of the truth and Spirit upon the natural conscience, exciting simply a sense of guilt and pollution, leading neither to the hatred of sin, nor to the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, nor to the practical turning from sin unto God. The genuineness of true repentance is proved (a) by its being conformed perfectly to the requirements and teachings of Scripture, and (b) by its fruits. If genuine, it infallibly springs from regeneration and leads to eternal life.
3d. As thus defined, repentance is, like faith, an evangelical grace, given to us for Christ’s sake, as well as a duty obligatory upon us. What is here said of repentance is equally true of every characteristic experience of the subject of regeneration and sanctification. Christ is the Vine; we are the branches. But we are also free, accountable agents. Every Christian duty is, therefore, a grace, “for without him we can do nothing.” And equally every Christian grace is a duty; because the grace is given to us to exercise, and it finds its true result and expression only in the duty.
That it is thus a gift of God is evident—(1.) From its nature. It involves true conviction of sin; a holy hatred of sin; faith in the Lord Jesus and his work, which faith is God’s gift. Gal. 5:22; Eph. 2:8. (2.) It is directly affirmed in Scripture. Zech. 12:10; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25.
4th. That it should be diligently preached by every minister of the gospel is (1) self-evident from the essential nature of the duty. (2.) Because such preaching was included in the commission Christ gave to the apostles. Luke 24:47, 48. (3.) Because of the example of the apostles. Acts 20:21.