Chapter 2
Chapter 2 1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took with me Titus also.
2 And I went by revelation, and communicated with them of the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately with them that were the chief, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.
In this chapter, Paul proceeds to justify and defend his immediate and extraordinary calling. And this whole chapter seems to depend on the last words of the former chapter, against which the adversaries of Paul might haply object on this manner: Though the churches of Judea glorify God for you, yet will not the apostles do it, because you teach otherwise than they teach. To this objection, Paul makes a double answer in this chapter. The effect and sum of the first is this: I went up to Jerusalem. I conferred with the apostles there. I had their consent and approbation. And the answer contains three parts. The first, of Paul's journey to Jerusalem, in the first verse; the second, of his conference with the apostles, in the second verse; the third, of the approbation which they gave him, from the third verse to the eleventh.
In his journey, I consider four things. The first is the manner of his journeying in these words: "I went up," or, "ascended to Jerusalem."
And this he speaks because Jerusalem was placed and seated upon a mountain and compassed with mountains (Ps. 125), or again in respect of the dignity and excellency of the place—as we in England are said to go up to London from all parts of the land because it is the chief city.
The second thing to be considered in the journey is the time when, in these words: "Then after fourteen years." Here two questions are to be demanded. The first is, of which of his journeys must this be understood? (For he made five journeys to Jerusalem.) The first, from Arabia; the second, when he and Barnabas were sent by the church of the Gentiles to carry alms to Jerusalem; the third, when he went to the Council at Jerusalem; the fourth, when he went up for the keeping of his vow; the last is mentioned (Acts 19:21). These words are not spoken of the first, for that was but three years after his conversion. Neither can they well be understood of the second, because Paul then was sent by the church, and therefore he went not by revelation. And they cannot well be understood of the third. For then Paul would here have mentioned the Council of Jerusalem, whereof he was a principal member, especially seeing he has occasion so to do, and it served much for his purpose. The fourth and fifth journeys were after a longer time than fourteen years. It is likely therefore, that this journey here mentioned and described by Paul is none of the five mentioned by Luke, but some other. The second question is, when these fourteen years must begin? Answer. It is uncertain. Some think, they must begin at his conversion, some three years after, when Paul sent first to Jerusalem. And either may be a truth. None must here take offence. For though circumstances of time and place, being things of less moment, cannot always be certainly gathered, yet histories for their substance and doctrines pertaining to salvation are plainly set down. And here we are put in mind to be content to be ignorant in some things, because the Spirit of God has more darkly expressed them, or again, because we cannot, by reason of our blindness, gather them.
The third point is concerning the companions of Paul in this journey, namely, Barnabas and Titus. And Paul takes them with him that they might be witnesses to the Jews of the doctrine he taught among the
Gentiles; and again, to the Gentiles of the consent that was between him and the rest of the apostles. For the law of God is that every matter shall be established by the testimonies of two or three witnesses. Hence we learn that if a question arise of the doctrine which is delivered in the public ministry, then the hearers that are able to judge must be witnesses, and the trial is to be made by them.
Thus says Christ in the like case, "Why ask ye me? Ask them that heard me" (John 18:21). Therefore great care and circumspection is to be had of things publicly delivered. Again, whereas Paul makes
Barnabas a Jew and Titus a Gentile his companions, we are taught to embrace with a brotherly love, not only the men of our own country, but also such as be of other nations, especially if they believe. For then they are all children of one Father and pertain all to one family.
And there is no difference of nations now. It is a fault therefore that men of one nation carry in their hearts a general dislike and hatred oftentimes of them with whom they deal and converse, and that because they are of such or such countries.
The fourth point is the cause of his journey, in these words: "and I went by revelation." Here we are taught that for the journeys we make, we are to have some good and sufficient warrant, though not a revelation, yet a commandment, or that which countervails a commandment, as when we travel by virtue of our callings. When
Noah had made the ark, he enters into it at God's commandment. He abides in it. And when the earth was in part dried, he presumes not to go out, till the Lord bade him. Here, three sorts of men are to be blamed. Pilgrims that travel to Jerusalem or other counties in the way of merit or religion. For they have no warrant. Secondly, travelers that go from country to country, and out of the precincts of the church, upon vain curiosity to see fashions. Such when they travel from their own countries, yet they travel not from their vices, but rather go deeper into them, and come home again with many bad
and corrupt fashions. The last are beggars and rogues that pass from place to place that they may live in idleness and upon the sweat of other men's brows.
Thus much of the journey; now follows the conference, in these words: "and I communicated," etc. Here generally I gather that conferences both private and public are laudable and to be maintained, especially when they tend to the maintenance of unity and consent in doctrine. The papists blame us Protestants for condemning conferences (as they say) and councils. But they do us wrong. Indeed the Council of Trent we reject and condemn. For in it, against all equity, the pope was both party and judge. In it there was no liberty to make trial of truth. For nothing was propounded but by the liking and consent of the pope. Again, the whole council consisted of such as were of the Italian faction, whose faith was pinned on the pope's sleeve. Nevertheless, we allow all Christian councils, lawfully gathered. And we desire there might be a General
Council for the trial of truth and for the staying of unsettled minds, these three caveats being remembered. One, that the council be gathered by Christian princes, to whom the right of calling a council belongs. The other, that the pope be no judge, but a party. The third, that Christ in His Word be the judge, and that the delegates in the council be but as witnesses, determining all things by the written
Word.
In this conference, we are first to consider the manner of conferring which was used. Paul says, "He communicated with them," that is, he laid down unto them and expounded the gospel which he preached; and this he did privately, that is, with the apostles, only by one, in plain and familiar manner, as one friend does with another.
Therefore for the maintaining of this conference, there was no assembly made, neither was there any disputation held. Only Paul
declares his doctrine, and they give assent. Hence it appears that Paul does not submit the truth of his doctrine to trial. For he was resolved of it, and he accursed him that taught otherwise; but his intent was to seek the approbation of the apostles, that he might stop the mouth of his adversaries.
The second point is the matter of the conference, and that is the gospel which Paul preached. Here the papist gathers that the church is the judge in all questions pertaining to religion and the word, because it is here the thing that is judged. I answer, first, that they gather amiss. For Paul does not here submit the gospel which he preached to the judgment of the Church of Jerusalem. And it is false which they teach. For the sovereign Judge of all questions and controversies in religion is Christ alone. The power to determine and resolve in cases concerning faith and good life is inseparably annexed to His person. And in it are we to rest. The principal voice of the Judge and the definitive sentence is the written Word. And the office of the church is no more but to gather, declare, testify, and pronounce this sentence. It is objected that when a question is propounded, the Scripture cannot speak, nor Christ in the Scripture, but the church only. I answer again that God ascribes to the written
Word a voice of speech (Rom. 3:19). And the Scripture speaks sufficiently to the resolving of any man's conscience in all matters pertaining to salvation. Again, they allege that the church is before the Scripture, and therefore it being most ancient, must be the judge.
I answer that the church was before the writing of the Word, but not before the Word which is written. For the church presupposes faith, and faith presupposes a word of God. Upon this our doctrine, they further upbraid us, that we will be tried by nothing but by the Scriptures, even as the malefactor5 that will not be tried by the quest but by the evidence. I answer, for the satisfying of our adversaries, we submit ourselves to the trial of the church and councils, so be it,
the three cautions before remembered be duly observed—especially, that all things be judged and tried by the written Word, and by reasons gathered thence.
Again, the papists hence gather that the Scriptures are to be approved by the church. Answer. Thus much we grant, yet so as we hold that the principal approbation of the word (whereby we are moved to believe and obey) is in the word and from the word, and not from the church. For the Scripture has his [its] evidence within itself, which is sufficient to make us to believe the word to be the word, though the church should say nothing.
The third point is concerning the persons with whom Paul conferred, namely, "with them that were the chief," that is, with them that were in price and account, as Peter, James, etc. Here we see what is the honor and worship8 that is due unto excellent men, namely, a precious and reverent estimation. Thus the name of David was in price in Israel for his virtues (1 Sam. 18:30). And thus with the papists are we content to honor the saints. Again, here the papists gather that they are heretics that after Paul's example will not go up to Rome, to Peter, and his successor, to have their doctrine and religion tried and examined. I answer, first, we are content to be tried by the writings of Peter, James, John, Paul, etc. And this is the commandment of God, in doubtful cases: "to the law and the testimony" (Isa. 8). Secondly, I answer, that we have a commandment not to go up to Rome at this day to have our religion tried. "Come out of Babylon my people" (Rev. 18). Thirdly, I answer, that the bishop of Rome is Peter's successor, not in teaching but in denying Christ. And the learned papists confess that for this succession, they have but a human faith grounded upon human history.
The fourth point is the end of the conference: "lest I should run," that is, lest I should preach or had preached in vain. These words of Paul are not simply to be taken. For the ministry of man and every sermon brings forth the fruit which God has appointed. And whether it be unto the hearers the savor of life or the savor of death, it is always a sweet savor unto God. The words therefore carry this meaning: Lest my preaching should be of less use and profit, or, again, lest I should preach in vain, in respect of that good which is looked for at the hands of an apostle. And this Paul speaks because a rumor went abroad that his doctrine in many things was contrary to the other apostles. And by this means, many were kept from receiving the gospel, and the faith of weak believers was quenched. Now then the end of the conference was to stay this false report, that the ministry of Paul might have passage, and that with greater profit.
Hence the papists gather that the doctrine of Paul was uncertain and unprofitable till it was approved by Peter. I answer that Paul sought the approbation of his doctrine at the hands of Peter and the rest, not because it was uncertain and unprofitable, but because it was slandered. And the slander was that he taught otherwise than Peter did. Not to cut off this slander, he uses means to manifest his consent with Peter, and therefore seeks approbation at his hand.
Again, when Paul says, "Lest I should run in vain," he gives us to understand that the ministry of the word is not a work of ease or pleasure, but a labor, nay, a continued labor, like to the running in a race. It were therefore to be wished that ministers of the gospel should so labor and walk in this calling that they might be able to say with Paul, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course," etc. (2 Tim. 4).
Thirdly, hence it appears that all believers should have a certain knowledge of their faith and religion. The procuring of this was the thing that Paul aimed at in this conference with the apostles at Jerusalem. We must not "be as children, carried away with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14). God's word requires faith in us. And faith presupposes certain knowledge. The first and second commandments require that we know God and His will, distinguish
Him from false gods, and His worship from false worship. Here comes the fault of our times to be considered. Most men among us do not know their religion, neither can they distinguish it from error and false religion—a foul negligence. We take pains to learn trades and occupations that we may have [means] wherewith to preserve this temporal life. What a shame then is it that we learn no better to know the doctrine of true religion whereby our souls are to be saved.
Lastly, here we learn that the office of the minister is not only to teach and preach, but also to study and to take care how by preaching he may do the most good.
3 But neither yet Titus, which was with me, though he were a Grecian, was compelled to be circumcised.
After the conference, follows the approbation which was given to Paul. It stands in four things. The first, that the apostles did not compel Titus to be circumcised (v. 3). The second, that they added nothing to his doctrine (v. 6). The third, that they gave him the hands of fellowship (v. 7). The last, that at his departure, they required of him nothing but the giving of alms (v. 16).
For the first, the words, "And Titus was not compelled to be circumcised," carry this sense: I, for my part was ready to circumcise
Titus, if there had been a meet occasion. False brethren would have
imposed a necessity upon us. Then I and Titus refused. And the apostles did not urge me to circumcise him.
Here it may be demanded how this text can well stand with Acts 16:3, for there Paul circumcises Timothy, a Grecian. And here he refuses to circumcise Titus, though he were a Grecian. I answer thus.
Circumcision was at this time a thing indifferent. From the first institution to the coming and especially to the death of Christ, it was a thing commanded, a sacrament, and a part of God's worship.
Again, after the planting of the church of the New Testament, it was utterly abolished, and a thing in respect of use, utterly unlawful. In the middle time, that is, while the gospel was in publishing to the world, and the church of the New Testament was yet in founding, it was a ceremony free or indifferent. It may be objected that the whole ceremonial law was abolished in the death of Christ. I answer, it was so, and circumcision was abolished in respect of faith and conscience; yet so as the use thereof was left to the liberty of the people of God for a while. Circumcision at this time was as a corpse that is dead, yet unburied, and only laid out; and so it must remain for a time, that it may be buried with honor. It may again be objected that baptism was come in the room of circumcision, and that therefore circumcision was but an idle and empty ceremony. I answer, it was not used as a sacrament at this time, or as a part of God's worship, or as a matter of necessity, but only as a free ceremony, and that only then, when it tended to the edification of men.
Being then a thing indifferent, it might as occasion served be used or not used. Therefore Paul condescending to the weakness of the believing Jews, circumcised Timothy. And that he might not offend the godly and hinder Christian liberty, he refused to circumcise
Titus.
Here a great question is answered, whether we may use things indifferent, as oft as we will and how we will? The answer is, no.
Things are not called indifferent because we may use them indifferently, nor not use them when we will and how we will, but because in themselves, or in their own nature, they are neither good nor evil, and we may use them well or ill, and we may again not use them well or evil. Furthermore, there be two things which restrain the use of things indifferent: the law of charity and the laws of men.
The law of charity is this: Things indifferent in the case of scandal cease to be indifferent and are as things moral, that is, either forbidden or commanded. Paul says, if to eat flesh be to the offence of his brother, he will eat no flesh while the world stands (1 Cor.
8:13). And though he circumcised Timothy, yet would he not circumcise Titus, lest he should offend the godly, and by his example hurt Christian liberty.
Likewise, the good laws of men, whether civil or ecclesiastical, tending to the common good and serving for edification, restrain the use of things indifferent, so that they which shall do otherwise than these laws command with a contemptuous or disloyal mind are guilty before God; yet here two cautions must be remembered. One, that the laws of men do not change the nature of things indifferent. For it is the property of God, by willing this or that, to make it good or evil.
Neither do they take away the use of things indifferent. For liberty granted by a sovereign power cannot be reversed by an inferior power. Therefore human laws do no more but temper and moderate the overcommon use of things indifferent. The second caution is that when the end of a law ceases, when there is no contempt of the authority that made the law, when no offence is given—[then] a thing indifferent remains in his free use without sin or breach of conscience.
Again, here we learn that a thing indifferent, when it is made necessary to salvation (as circumcision was), is not to be used. This conclusion serves to overthrow the popish religion. For it stands in the observation of things indifferent, as meats, drinks, apparel, times, etc. And the using or the not using of them is made necessary even in regard of man's salvation. For the abstinence from things that are by nature indifferent is made a part of God's worship and meritorious of eternal life. For example: to marry, or not to marry, is for nature a thing indifferent. And therefore when abstinence from marriage is made necessary (as it is in diverse orders of men and women), the nature of the thing is changed, which God has left free, and it is doctrine of devils which is taught.11
Here again we learn to make a difference of persons. Some are weak; some are obstinate. Weak ones are such as having turned unto God, and carrying in their hearts a purpose in all things to please God, nevertheless do sundry things amiss upon simple ignorance or bad custom, till they be better informed. Of these Paul says that he
"became all to all, that he might save some" (1 Cor. 9:22), and for their sakes he condescended to circumcise Timothy. And if we that have scarce a drop of mercy in us must thus bear with them that are weak, much more will God do it, who is mercy itself. The good shepherd "brings home the stray sheep upon his shoulders: he carries his lambs in his bosom" (Isa. 40:11). "He will not quench the smoking flax" (Isa. 42). "He spares them that fear him, as a father spares his child" (Mal. 3:17). This being always remembered that weak ones truly turn to God and carry in their hearts an honest purpose not to sin against His laws at any time wittingly and willingly. Obstinate persons are such as profess the faith and yet hold and practice bad things of willful ignorance and of malice. These persons are not to be borne with, nor to be respected. And in respect of them, Paul would not circumcise Titus.
Lastly, in that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, it may be demanded, whether recusants may be compelled to the exercises of religion? I answer, yea; for exercises of religion are not things indifferent, as circumcision was. Josiah made a covenant with the Lord, and "he caused all his subjects to stand to it" (2 Chron. 34:32).
The king at the marriage feast of his son says of the guests, "Compel them to enter in" (Luke 14:23). It is objected that men may not be compelled to believe. I answer: It is the commandment of God,
"prove the spirits" (1 John 4:1), and this commandment pertains to all persons. Therefore though men may not be compelled to believe, yet may they be compelled to come to the congregation, to hear our sermons, and therein the reasons and grounds of our doctrine, that they may try what is the truth and cleave unto it. For this is their duty.
4 For all the false brethren, that crept in: who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 To whom we gave not place by subjection for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Paul had said before that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.
Now he adds: "For all the false brethren," that is, though the false brethren did what they could to the contrary. Here then Paul sets down who were the cause that Titus was not circumcised, namely, certain persons at Jerusalem, and them he sets forth by two properties: "they are false brethren" and "they crept into the church."
Touching the first, by it we learn that the church of God upon earth, even when it is at the best, has wicked men and hypocrites in it. In Adam's family, there is Cain. In the ark, there is Ham. In Christ's family or school, there is Judas. In the church of Jerusalem, planted
and governed by the chief apostles, there be false brethren. The true sheep be often without, and wolves within. Therefore we may not so much as dream of a perfection of the church of God upon earth, so long as wicked men be mixed with true believers.
Again, these adversaries of Paul are called "false brethren" because they joined circumcision with Christ as a necessary cause of justification and salvation. Hence it follows that the Church of Rome is a false church because it joins works with Christ in the cause of our justification, and that as meritorious causes.
Their second property is that "they crept into the church," which I conceive on this manner. The church of God is as a sheepfold or house (John 10:1). Christ is the only door. Now pastors that teach
Christ aright are said "to enter in by this door." They which teach any other way of salvation are said to "climb in another way." And they which teach Christ, joining some other thing with Him in the cause of salvation, are said to "creep in"—because in appearance they maintain Christ; and yet, because they add something to Christ, they neither enter nor continue in the true church with any good warrant from God. In this they are like the serpent. Living creatures were all placed in Eden. And man was placed in the garden of Eden, called paradise, and so were not beasts. How then comes the serpent in?
Why, in all likelihood it crept in. And so do false brethren into the church. Hence I gather that false brethren are not true and lively members of the visible church, though they be members in appearance. For if they were in their right place, they should not be said to creep in. The true members of the church creep not into the mystical body, but are built and set upon the foundation by God. It may be alleged that they are baptized, and thereby made members of the church. I answer that faith makes us members of Christ and consequently of the true church. And baptism does but seal our
insition into Christ, and serves as a means of admission into the outward society of the congregation. And the outward washing does not make any man a member of Christ. Again, it follows hence that false brethren are not members of the catholic church. For the visible church is part of the catholic; and therefore they which are not real members of the true visible church are not members of the catholic.
Again, in that false brethren creep into the congregation, hence it appears that no man can set down the precise time when errors had their beginning. For the authors thereof enter in secretly, not observed of men. "The envious man sows his tares when men be asleep" (Matt. 13). It suffices therefore, if we can show them to be errors by the Word, though we cannot design the set time when they began. The time when a ship sinks, we often observe; but the time when it first drew water, we do not. Let the papists think upon this.
Paul, having thus declared who were the causes that Titus was not circumcised, goes on and shows how they were causes. The effect and sum of his declaration is this. They urged the observation of the ceremonial law as necessary. And hereupon we refused to circumcise
Titus. First, therefore, Paul sets down how they urged circumcision, and that by three degrees. First, "they come in privily." Secondly,
"they spy out their liberty." Thirdly, "they labor to bring them into bondage." Again, Paul sets down the manner of their refusal in three things. "We gave not place for an hour." We gave not place "by subjection." We gave no place "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
The first degree or step in their urging of circumcision was that "they came in privily"—that is, they joined themselves in fellowship with the apostles and in show pretended the furtherance of the gospel, and yet indeed meant nothing less though their fraud and
wickedness was not perceived. Here then the foundation they lay of all their naughty dealing is their dissembling, which Paul here notes and condemns. On the contrary, our duty is to be indeed that which we profess ourselves to be—and to profess no more outwardly, than we are inwardly, and to approve our hearts to God, for that which we profess before men.
The second step or degree is that they "spy out the liberty which Paul and the rest had by Christ"—that is, they confer with the apostles and inquire of them what liberty they have by Christ, in respect of the ceremonial law of God. And this they do, not of a mind desirous to learn, but for advantage sake. There be two kinds of spying: one lawful; the other, unlawful. Lawful, as when in just and lawful war, we inquire into the counsels and doings of our enemies (Num. 13:1).
Unlawful, when men pry into any thing or matter to find a fault.
Thus hypocrites spy faults in the persons and lives of men that they may have somewhat whereby to disgrace them (Matt. 7:4). Thus atheists spy into the Scriptures that they may confute them. Thus sundry hearers come to sermons that they may carp. Thus our enemies inquire into our religion that they may find (as they suppose) exceptions, untruths, and contradictions. And in the Church of Jerusalem, false brethren inquire how far Christian liberty extends that they may overthrow it. This kind of spying is a common fault; we must take heed of it and apply the eye of our mind to a better use. First, we are to be spies in respect of our own sins and corruptions, to spy them out. "Let us search our ways, and inquire, and turn again unto the Lord" (Lam. 3:40). Again, we are to play the spies in respect of our spiritual enemies that we may find out the temptations of the flesh, the world, and the devil. Thirdly, we must be as spies in searching out the Scriptures (John 5:39), that we may understand the words of the law of God and find comfort to our souls.
The third and last degree of urging is that the false brethren seek to bring the apostles "in bondage," that is, to bind them to a necessary observation of the ceremonial law. Here let us mark the practice and policy of the devil. Liberty from sin, death, and the ceremonial law is the treasure of the church. And therefore the devil seeks to overthrow it by holding men in bondage under abolished ceremonies. Thus at this day, they of the popish church are in bondage under a heap of human traditions, being indeed a yoke far heavier than that of the ceremonial law. Again, when men profess the name of Christ, the devil is content with it. And he endeavors with all his might everywhere to hold them under the bondage of sin and to hold them in his snare at his will. Thus under the name of Christianity, there be swarms of atheists, Epicures, libertines, worldlings, and profane persons. At this time, according to ancient custom, we celebrate the memorial of the birth of Christ. And yet no time so full of disorder as this. For the most that profess Christ, take and challenge16 to themselves a licentious liberty, to live and do as they list. And this kind of liberty is flat bondage. But they that are servants of Christ indeed should take heed of this bondage: "For being free from sin, they should be servants of" nothing but "righteousness" (Rom. 6:18). They that be of a corporation, stand for their liberties. What a shame then is it, that men should love bondage and neglect the spiritual liberty which they have by Christ.
Thus we see how the false brethren urged circumcision. Now let us come to Paul's refusal. The first point is that they "would not give place for an hour." It seems they were requested to use circumcision but once; but they would not yield so much as once, because their act would have tended to the prejudice of Christian liberty in all places.
Here we learn that we may not use the least ceremony that is in the case of confession before our adversaries, that is, when they seek to oppress the truth by face, or by fraud, and make ceremonies, signs,
and tokens of the confession of any untruth. Julian the emperor, sitting in a chair of estate, gave gold to his soldiers, one by one, withal commanding to cast frankincense, so much as a grain into the fire, that lay upon a heathenish altar before him. Now Christian soldiers refuse to do it. And they which had not refused afterward recalled their act and willingly suffered death.
Again, here we learn that we are not to yield from the least part of the truth of the gospel that God has revealed to us. This truth is more precious than the whole world beside. And heaven and earth shall rather pass than the least tittle of it shall not be accomplished. The commission of the apostles was to teach them to do all things which God had commanded. Therefore the union or mixture of our religion with the popish religion is but a dream of unwise politics. For in this mixture, we must yield and they must yield something; but we may not yield a jot of the truth revealed to us. "There is no fellowship of light with darkness" (2 Cor. 6). Colaquin thus a naughty pot here bemarred a whole pot of pottage21 (2 Kings 4:40). Christ says in the like case of the Pharisees: "Let them alone; they are the blind leaders of the blind" (Matt. 15:14). We may yield in things indifferent, but not in points of religion. In matters of this world, we may be indifferent and of neither side; but in matters of God, we may not.
There is no halting between two religions.
The second point is they gave no place "by way of subjection." The reason is the apostles were of highest authority, simply to be believed in their doctrine [Luke 10:16]. And they had extraordinary authority to punish them that rebelliously withstood them (Acts 5:5, 10; 13:8–
11; 2 Cor. 10:6). For this cause, they were not to stand subject to the judgment and censure of any man. They willingly suffered their doctrine to be tried; yet were they not bound to subjection, as other ministers of the New Testament are (1 Cor. 14:32; 1 John 4:1). It may