291. Vol. ii., p. 641.
292. Vol. iii., p. 758.
293. Christian Church, 8vo, 1747, p. 280.
294. The General Doctrine of Toleration, applied to Free Communion, p. 8. George Whitefield most warmly approved the communion of all God’s saints with each other. This, I must own, more particularly endears Mr. Bunyan to my heart. He was of a catholic spirit. The want of water (adult baptism), with this man of God, was no bar to outward Christian communion. And I am persuaded that if, like him, we were more deeply and experimentally baptized into the benign and gracious influences of the blessed Spirit, we should be less baptized into the waters of strife about circumstantials and non-essentials. For being thereby rooted and grounded in the love of God, we should necessarily be constrained to think and let think, bear with and forbear one another in love, and without saying, I am of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas; have but one grand, laudable, disinterested strife, namely, who should live, preach, and exalt the ever-loving, altogether-lovely Jesus most.
295. Vol. iii., p. 398.
296. He hesitated as to the propriety of publishing it, probably from the influence of the weighty opinion of Martin Luther. ‘The people are greatly delighted with allegories and similitudes, and therefore Christ oftentimes useth them; for they are, as it were, certain pictures which set forth things as if they were painted before our eyes. Paul was a marvelous cunning workman in handling allegories, but Origen and Jerome turn plain Scriptures into unfit and foolish allegories. Therefore, to use allegories, it is oftentimes a very dangerous thing’ [Com. on Gal. iv. 21]. Such instructions, from one he so much venerated, curbed his exuberant imagination, and made him doubly watchful, lest allegorizing upon subjects of such vast importance might ‘darken counsel by words without knowledge.’
297. Vol. iii., p. 739.
298. Even Dean Swift, in his popular Letter to a Young Divine, says, ‘I have been better entertained, and more informed by a few pages in the Pilgrim’s Progress, than by a long discourse upon the will and the intellect, and simple and complex ideas.’ Nothing short of extraordinary merit could have called for such a eulogy from so severe a critic.
299. Vol. iii., p. 166.
300. Within the Editor’s memory, polished writers hesitated to name our incomparable allegorist, on account of his humble name and education. Thus Cowper sang—