In light of Nine Marks‘ recent e-journal on unity and separation, and in light of recent discussions on my blog over the legitimacy of unifying around fundamentals of the faith, I thought I would share some lengthy excerpts from a sermon by the Puritan Thomas Manton (1620-1677).
I was directed to this sermon in this Sharper Iron thread. I did a quick Google search, and came across links to all of his works available online. And so I found the sermon online in volume 2 of his 22-volume complete works.
Without further comment, let me present these extracts from the sermon (all bolded emphasis is mine).
“A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent”
Phil. 3:15, “As many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”
I now come to the other part of the text [this is his second sermon on this verse]: —
1. As many as be perfect be thus minded: touto froneite, think the same thing with me–that is, forsaking all other confidences, cleave to Christ alone, whatever it cost you. Mind this, take care of this, be thus affected; let us actually perform that to which circumcision was designed; let us worship God in a spiritual manner, trusting Christ as the substance of all these ceremonial shadows, depending upon him for his renewing and reconciling grace, and adhering to pure Christianity, without mingling with it the rudiments of Moses.
2. If in anything ye be otherwise minded, know not the abolition of the ceremonies through weakness of faith, or an affected ignorance; yet having knowledge of so many saving truths, we hope in time God will reclaim you from your error. Well then–
[1.] Here is a difference or dissent supposed: “thus minded,” and “otherwise minded.”
[2.] Lenity [that is, leniency] expressed toward the dissenters: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you.”
Doct. That when God’s people are divided in opinion, all lenity and mutual forbearance should be used to prevent things from coming to an open rupture.
So sweet and mild was the discipline in the apostle’s days, that he would not compel men to do whatever he or others did conceive to be good, or to forbear what they did conceive to be evil, but, without force, leave them to God’s direction and illumination….
1. What lenity and forbearance should be used. Let us state it in these considerations: —
[1.] There may be, and often are, differences of opinion about lesser things in the church; partly because of different degrees of light. All barks that sail to heaven draw not a like depth of water. And partly because of the remainders of corruption in all. Inordinate self-love is not in all alike broken and mortified, and so their particular interests have an influence upon their opinions. And partly because of the accidental prejudices of education and converse, etc.
[2.] When these differences arise, we should take care they come not to a rupture and open breach. This is the course the apostle taketh here; he doth not by and by despair of the dissenters, and reject them as heretics, but beareth with them, hoping in charity God will at length reveal their error to them by the ministry of his servants, through the powerful operation of his Spirit, and not suffer them to run on in dividing courses from the rest of his people. So should we do in like cases. Partly because when these differences of opinion breed division and separations, the church is destroyed: Gal. 5:15, “For if ye bite and devour one another, take heed ye be not consumed one of another.”… Partly because the whole is scandalised: John 17:21, “That they may all be one, that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” Divisions in the church breed atheism in the world…. And partly because when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity. That is the reason why the apostle doth so often tell them, Gal. 6:15, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;” and gal. 5:6, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love;” and 1 Cor. 7:19, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God.” Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.
[3.] To prevent this open rupture, there must be all lenity used and mutual forbearance. We must not rigourously obtrude our conceits upon others, either by church-power, or private censure….
…for want of right stating of things, men fight with their friends in the dark; some think all things should be suffered; some nothing wherein to bear with our brethren. The one sort of Christians is for imposing on their brethren all things that have gotten the vogue and the favour of authority, and that not only on their practice, but their judgments too; and this in matters not fundamental or destructive to faith or worship, but in things controversial or doubtful among godly and peaceable men. But if it should not go so high, contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our brethren with everything we conceive to be right, is a breach of Christian love, and destroyeth the use of those differing gifts which Christ hath given to the church, and crosseth his mind in the frame of the scriptures, which are clear in soul-saving matters; in other things, especially matters of discipline and order, more dark and obscure. It is also contrary to the mild and gentle government of the apostles, who press in lesser matters a forbearance; as Paul, Rom. 14:1, “The weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations;” receive him, own him, but do not cast him out of the church, nor trouble him for doubtful things, but let him come to himself, for men will sooner be led than drawn.The other extreme is of them that will have all things to be tolerated, even blasphemy and fundamental errors, as if the scriptures were uncertain in all things. No; in things absolutely necessary to salvation, it is clear, open, and plain: “The law is a lamp, and a light,” Prov. 6:23 and Ps. 119:105. And in such a case we are not to “bid him God-speed,” 2 Jn. 10. In such cases of damnable heresy, the law of Christian lenity [the state or quality of being lenient] holdeth not; but if we agree in the principal articles of faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love, though we differ from one another in variety of rites and ceremonies and discipline ecclesiastical. If we agree in the substantials of worship, let us go by the same rule, do the same thing: though in circumstantials there be a difference, these are matters of less moment than separation, or the other division of the church….
…If you will not own yourselves weak, do the part of the strong meekly, hold forth your light, produce your reasons to convince others; but if you have nothing to produce but your obstinacy and ignorance, surely you are not only a weak, but a perverse brother. But what are the weak to do? Not to rend and cut off themselves from the rest of Christians, or be strange to them upon every lesser dissent, nor to raise troubles by your censures, but to be humble, teachable, diligent in the use of means, to lay aside obstinate prejudices, to examine how it cometh to pass that the rest of the godly and you differ; to leave room still for the discovery of God’s mind where your grounds are not clear and certain, and to count it no shame to retract that former practice which a future conviction disproveth.…
[After discussing the many ways the church is “one” listed in Eph. 4, he continues:] He is the common Father of all believers, through Jesus Christ. Some are weak, some strong, some rich, some poor, but they have all an equal interest in God. Now, for us, who are so many ways one, to be rent in pieces, how sad is that! All these places, and many more, show how every Christian should, as far as it is possible, be an esteemer and promoter of unity among brethren, and not only make conscience of purity, but of unity also, which, next to purity, is the great badge of Christianity….
…A grounded Christian beareth with the infirmities he seeth in others, and pitieth and helpeth them, and prayeth for them more than the weak, who are usually most censorious and addicted to the interest of their party and faction in the world, and make a bustle about opinions rather than solid godliness; but the grown Christian is most under the power of love and a heavenly mind, and so loveth God and his neighbour, is most sensible of his own frailty, hath a greater zeal for the welfare of his church and interest in the world, and seeth farther than others do….
…Consider how dangerous it is to reject any whom Christ will own for his. Will Christ admit him to heaven, and will you think him unfit for your communion here upon earth? Despise not the weak brother, for god hath received him, Rom. 14:3….
…Our endeavours after unity among the professors of Christianity ought to be earnest and constant: Eph 4:3, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I add this partly because many make fair pretences of peace and union, which their practice contradicteth; all cry out of the divisions, but every one keepeth them up; and partly, because when it is endeavoured we shall find difficulties and disappointments, but we must not rest in some careless endeavours, nor grow weary though we meet not with present success; and partly because the instruments of so great a good are usually sacrificed to the wrath of both parties. We must be content to digest affronts, reproaches, censures, and injuries, and love them that hate us: 2 Cor. 12:15, “Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am beloved of you.”
These quote come from this online version of Volume 2 of Thomas Manton’s complete works, edited by Thomas Smith (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), pages 67 – 78. Picture borrowed from this Thomas Manton page.
For those interested, here are a couple definitions:
Lenity:
“The state or quality of being lenient; mildness; gentleness of treatment; leniency.”
Disputacity:
“Proneness to dispute. [Obs.]”
I thankest thou for the enlightenment! 🙂
The KJVO proponents should be happy with the language, if not the point.
Don,
Respectfully, did you know that the only legitimate defense of the King James is not based on, for instance, the use of the -eth or -est endings found in older English? Did you know that we defend the KJV based on doctrinal and textual reasons? I thought I’d let you know.
Considering the length of Manton’s sermons and writings, I didn’t think an eclectic text proponent could enjoy them, since they prefer shorter readings. A little eclectic text humor so we could all laugh together, you know, in harmony.
By the way, when you read a modern version and you (singular) read the second person, personal pronoun “you,” can you always tell from the context and without referring to the original language whether it is plural or singular?
Kent,
I am aware of your KJVO position. I was just kidding and I hope you understood that.
Thank you for keeping your comment short as I was able to follow it all the way to the end. 🙂
Have a great day!
Hi Kent and Bob,
I just found this article on the web that has some sharp words for “fundamentalism” and some sharp words for Russell Moore who’s with the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’d like to know your thoughts after you’ve read his essay.
https://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/search?q=russell+moore
I often see moderns defending modern ethics with Puritan authors… which I don’t think they well consider the contradiction of. Like Manton would count it a liberty to go to the theater, or for women to wear pants, or for Christians women to wear make up, ad infinitum. Manton makes his point, but the application to modern issues which typically divide believers has few comparisons for historical contradiction. One might as well try to quote Bellarmine on the necessity of separating from Rome. The plain facts are, that the Puritans were such as modern Christians would not endure for one nano-second. We just print their books and then persecute those who teach the same as they did on such subjects. They build the sepulchres of the prophets…..
Charles
“Persecute”? Hardly. Sepulchres?? Um, no.
Many modern Christians would more than “endure” Puritans. We respect them. And you know one-hundred percent how they would conclude on modern cultural issues of discernment? None of us do, exactly. Theirs is a different age and world than ours. We do know that many Puritans stayed in their churches and did not separate over non-Scriptural matters which nevertheless rankled their consciences and irritated them (clerical vestments and the book of prayer, and the like). Who’s to say Manton wouldn’t side with us on some of these issues.
Blessings,
Bob
Hi Bob,
As for “persecute” …. was not talking of you, as I don’t know you, and what little I do know, you seem to be extremely brotherly and loving toward those who differ with you. Would to God you were not an exception.
As for the Puritans, it is not left to conjecture. Most people are ignorant of what their beliefs were about “worldly entertainments”….. those who have read them should know better, because they were not exactly backward to declare for their prohibition. I think it incredulous to believe that they would outlaw the stage, as they did under Cromwell, and then think the television lawful, simply because of the technology that delivers it…. for instance. I have plenty of quotes from the Puritans and their successors on such subjects, because I have written a book about it, so I “know whereof I affirm”. Consider a few:
“If you be so proud or rash as to reply, Why should I leave my sport for another man’s conceits of judgment? I will tell thee that which shall shame thy reply, and thee, if thou canst blush. 1. It is not some humorous, odd fanatic that I allege against thee, nor a singular divine; but it is the judgment of the ancient church itself. The fathers and councils condemn Christians and ministers especially, that use spectacula, spectacles, or behold state-plays, {T.V.}, and dicing. 2. Even the oldest cannons of our own church of England forbid dicing to the clergy, which is because they reputed it evil, or of ill report. 3. Many laws of religious princes do condemn them. 4. Abundance of the most learned, holy divines condemn them. 5. The soberest and learnedst of the papists condemn them. 6. And how great a number of the most religious ministers and people are against them of the age and place in which you live, you are not ignorant. And is the judgment of the ancient church, and of councils, and fathers, and of the most learned protestants and papists, and the most religious people, besides many ancient laws and cannons, of no force with you in such a case as this? Will you hold to a thing confessedly unnecessary, against the judgment of so many that account them sinful? Are you and your play-fellows more wise and learned than all these? Or is it not extremity of pride, for such unstudied, empty men to prefer their sensual conceits, before such a concurrent stream of wise and more ponderous judgments? Read but Dr. J. Reignold’s Treatise against Stage-plays, against Albericus Gentilis, and you will see what a world of witnesses are against you. And if the judgment of Voetinus, Amesius, and other learned men against all lusory lots (dice, ed.) be of no authority, at least it should move you that even Mr. Gataker and others, that write for the lawfulness of them in that respect, (as lusory lots), do yet lay down the rest of the requisites to make them lawful, which utterly condemn our common use of cards and dice, much more of gamesters: so that all the sober divines that ever I read or heard, condemn all these: and are you wiser than all of them?†Richard Baxter
“These infamous Spectacles are condemned by all kinde of sound learning, both divine and humane. Distinctions devised for their upholding and defense, may give some shallow and weake contentment to partiall, and sensuall affections, possest with prejudice: but how shall they be able to satisfie a conscience sensible of all appearance of evill? How can they preserve the inclinableness of our corrupt nature from the infection of these SCHOOLES OF LEWDNESSE, AND SICKNESS OF ALL SINNE, as, (to omit Divines, Councels, Fathers, Moralists, because the point is not directly incident) even a Politician calls them? Alas, are not our wretched corruptions raging and fiery enough, being left to themselves dispersed at their naturall liberty; but they must be united at these accursed Theaters, as in a hollow glasse, to set on fire the whole body of our naturall viciousness at once, and to enrage it further with lust, fiercenesse, and effeminatenesse, beyond the compasse of nature? Doth any man thinke it possible that the power of saving Grace, or the pure Spirit of God can reside in his heart, that willingly and with full consent feeds his inward concupiscence, with such variety of sinful vanities, and lewd occasions, which the Lord himselfe hath pronounced to be, an abomination unto him? how can any man, that ever felt in his heart the love or feare of so dreadfull a Majesty, as the Lord of Heaven and Earth, endure to be present, especially with delight and contentment, at Oathes, Blasphemies, Obscenities, and the abusing sometimes of the most precious things in the Book of God, (whereat we should tremble) to most base and scurill jests? Certainely every Child of God, is of a most noble and heroicke spirit, and therefore is most impatient of hearing any wrong, indignity, or dishonor offered to the Word, Name, or Glory of his Almighty Father.†Robert Bolton
“It were easy to show the unlawfulness of stage-playes, {T.V.}, by such arguments as would appear conclusive to those who already hate both them and their supporters: but it is not so easy to make it appear to those who chiefly frequent them, because they will both applaud and justify some of the very things that others look upon as the worst effects of the practice, and will deny the very principles on which they are condemned. The truth is, it is our having different views of the nature of religion that causes different opinions upon this subject. For many ages there was no debate upon it at all. There were players, {actors}, but they did not pretend to be Christians themselves, and they had neither countenance nor support from any who did. Whereas now, there are abundance of advocates for the lawfulness, some for the usefulness of plays, {T.V.}; not that the stage is become more pure, but that Christians are become less so, and have lowered the standard or measure requisite to attain and preserve that character.†John Witherspoon
“And what occasions these plays {T.V’s.} to be so much frequented, is the clergy making no scruple to be at these polite places. They frequent play houses, {watch T.V.}, they go to horse races, they go to balls and assemblies, they frequent taverns, and follow all the entertainments that the age affords; and yet these are the persons that should advise their hearers to refrain from them, but instead thereof they encourage them by their example. People are more apt to rely upon and believe their pastors rather than the scriptures. They think that there is no crime in going to plays {T.V.} and horse races, to balls and assemblies, for if there were, they think those persons who are their ministers would not frequent them….. Thus they are the means of giving that offense to the people of God which I would not for ten thousand worlds…. Woe unto the world because offenses, but woe unto that man by whom the offense cometh.
“The polite gentlemen of the age spend their time in following these diversions {T.V.} because the love of God is not in their hearts. They are void of Christ, and destitute of the Spirit of God, and not being acquainted with the delight that is in God and His ways, being strangers of these things, they run to the devil for diversions, and are pleased and delighted with the silly ones he shows them. My brethren I speak of these things, these innocent diversions, as the polite part of the world calls them, by experience. Perhaps none for my age have read or seen more plays {T.V.} than I have. I took delight in, and was pleased with them. It is true I went to church frequently, received the sacrament, and was diligent in the use of the forms of religion, but I was all this while ignorant of the power of God on my heart and unacquainted with the work of grace. But when God was pleased to shine with power upon my soul, I could no longer be contented to feed on husks, or what the swine did eat. The Bible then was my food; there, there only I took delight. Until you feel this same power, you will not abstain from the earthly delights of this age. You will take no comfort in God’s ways, nor receive any comfort from Him, for you are void of the love of God, having only the form of godliness while you are denying the power of it; you are nominal Christians when you have not the power of Christianity.
“The polite gentlemen say, ‘are we to be always upon our knees; would you have us to be always at prayer, and reading or hearing the word of God?’ My dear brethren, the fashionable ones who take delight in hunting are not tired of being continually on horse back after their hounds, and when once you are renewed by the Spirit of God it will be a continual pleasure to be walking with and talking with God, and telling what great things Jesus Christ hath done for your souls. Until you can find as much pleasure in conversing with God as these men do of their hounds, you have no share in Him; but when you have tasted how good the Lord is, you will shew forth His praise; out of the abundance of your heart your mouth will speak.†George Whitefield
So are you willing to affirm that if such men said such things in the Calvinistic churches of the day, so utterly intolerant of any dissent on such subjects, that they would be graciously entertained or endured? That is either insincere, or to be grotesquely uniformed of the state of such churches. Try it some time… go tell people at your church that it is their having a completely different view of the nature of religion that makes them endure, let alone enjoy, such things as these men denounced in such plain terms. This is what Witherspoon said. Or tell them that if they were born again they would no more go to the theater than they would run their head into a furnace like Whitefield. Are you telling me you/they would not be persecuted? The hypocrisy and blindness of this is immense… it is indeed just as the Pharisees who built the sepulchres of men whose spiritual heirs they hated and persecuted.
I don’t say things one third this severe, and for the most part say nothing at all about it, and yet when people even FIND OUT what I believe they cannot endure it. You are the legalist, pharisee, fanatic, et. al., seeing not that they have the spirit of Laud, not of Owen.
Charles
Forgot to include the quote from Witherspoon:
“It were easy to show the unlawfulness of stage-playes, by such arguments as would appear conclusive to those who already hate both them and their supporters: but it is not so easy to make it appear to those who chiefly frequent them, because they will both applaud and justify some of the very things that others look upon as the worst effects of the practice, and will deny the very principles on which they are condemned. The truth is, it is our having different views of the nature of religion that causes different opinions upon this subject. For many ages there was no debate upon it at all. There were players, {actors}, but they did not pretend to be Christians themselves, and they had neither countenance nor support from any who did. Whereas now, there are abundance of advocates for the lawfulness, some for the usefulness of plays; not that the stage is become more pure, but that Christians are become less so, and have lowered the standard or measure requisite to attain and preserve that character.†John Witherspoon
Hey Bob,
Its been quite a while since I posted this, and while I know you said you were busy, yet it appears that you are becoming appreciative of the difficulty involved. Plainly the Puritans would not be welcome in our churches, and if you still think otherwise, I simply renew the invitation to try saying some of the things that they said in ANY “Reformed” baptistic church, and see what happens to you. The best you will get is to be esteemed persona non grata, which is exactly what they would do to anyone else. Even were his name John Owen. I am grieved how modern men will not face their sin in this regard.
Charles
Charles.
the puritans were no doubt great men of faith, but there are a lot of things I would not have tolerated from them in our church. So, as long as Christ is welcomed in my church, I will be happy. Sometimes people are trapped by the culture and day that they are in, and I believe this is what happened to the Puritans and believe if they were here today, their outlook would be different than what they were facing while here in the 1600 and 1700’s.
Just a thought.
Charles,
Truth be told, I have been busy with my new job and am temporarily without internet at home. And the last 2 weekends have been very busy for me with various projects or company.
Seth makes a good response above here. I would add, that just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it is Scripturally mandated. Is anything inherently wrong with the medium of stage-plays and television? Is it sinful to watch anything? Certainly not, yet that is the implication of some of the quotes you provide. The 2nd commandment certainly doesn’t forbid art of any kind.
Now as to what we will permit and allow, that is a question we much approach with the Bible in mind. Principles inform our decision on this point. Sure we can decide to not watch any TV or movies. That is logical and a good safe moral position. It is not the only decision one can make and stil avoid sin, however.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
PS I agree with Seth and think that many of the Puritans would be okay with some of our modern churches. And we can’t know for sure how they would act if they lived in our day, rather than their own. Remember some of these Puritans persecuted Baptists or non-conformists, and some were for state-church systems, with enforced morality, etc.
Hi there Seth,
Well… I think that there is one thing you are leaving out of the picture. And that is the fact that WE can do this same thing in OUR age, just like they might in theirs. When we think that we are the only ones that have not been influenced by culture, and that we can therefore stand as the objective judges of all other ages of Christians in their united testimony against certain evils, then I think our cause is doubtful at best, and delusional at worst. As Job said to his persecutors… “Doubtless ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you”… i.e., that our age considers itself to be the end all of biblical discernment as it chucks the world down its gullet. But narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Charles
[…] defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at […]
[…] defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at […]
[…] Plainly we cannot preach the gospel with others where there is disagreement over a doctrine which is foundational to salvation. This prevents us joining with Roman Catholics who believe in salvation through the sacraments rather than salvation through faith alone, in Christ alone, although this would not prevent us acting as co-belligerents on certain pro-life issues which do not require us coming together as Christians. It will prevent some of us joining with those who preach annihilation because the fear of judgment is diluted if not removed altogether. This subject demands much fuller treatment but I touch on it in passing to establish the ground-rule of conscience. In short it is this: we must allow freedom of conscience to other Christians on any issue where the breach does not affect the eternal destiny of a soul or as the Puritans put it, freedom of conscience in things indifferent [6] […]