West Port Experiment

CHAP. VII. General Grounds Leading to Unity.

But now, it may be more difficult to speak particularly about what is actually the duty at such a time when a Church lies under rents and divisions. For though the general principle is granted, yet often it is difficult to determine the particular cure, and still more difficult sincerely to follow it. It is always easier to prescribe rules to others than to follow them ourselves, especially in such a case when spirits are in the heat and fervor of contention, whereby they are somewhat drunk with affection for their own side and prejudice against the other, and distracted, as it were, with a sort of madness in pursuing their adversaries, as that great and meek Divine Melanchthon expressed it, so that it is hard to bring affections that are in such a temper into captivity to the obedience of light.

And though we will not undertake to be particular and fully satisfying in this, wishing and hoping that it may be more effectually done by someone else, yet, having come this far, we shall, in an abstract manner, consider some things in reference to it and endeavor to set forth what we conceive to be the duty, especially of the Ministers of the Gospel who have an interest in such a Church; as also what may be required of others who may possibly think themselves less concerned therein. We shall keep this order: we shall lay down some general grounds, which we suppose to be granted; we shall premise some preparatory endeavors agreeable to the same; we shall speak negatively of what ought not to be done, or ought to be forborne; positively of the healing means called for in reference to several sorts of division, with some questions arising thereupon; and lastly, we shall consider the grounds that press the serious and condescending application of these or other healing means in such a case.

CHAP. I. How heresie, schism and division differ, together with the several kinds of division.

ernible, which makes us the more unwilling and less confident to undertake to speak anything in reference thereto. Yet seeing we have in providence been led to the former purposes without any previous design; and now, having this occurring to us before we close, we shall endeavor shortly to speak a word in reference thereto in a general, abstracted manner, without descending to any particulars which may be dangerous to be touched upon, but shall give some general hints concerning the same, which we are induced to upon these considerations:

1. Because such divisions are as really scandalous and hurtful to the Church as either scandals in practice or doctrine are.

2. Because the Word of God has as fully discovered and abundantly condemned the offensiveness of this as of any of the former.

3. Because there is such a connection among these sorts of scandals that often one is not without the other. Hence we see:

4. That contention and offenses, and the woe that follows them, are joined together, Matthew 18:1–3, etc.

5. Divisions and corrupt doctrine, or heresies, are knit together, 1 Corinthians 11:18–19, so that seldom is there corrupt doctrine but it has division with it; and never is there division but it has offense, as in the Epistles to those of Corinth and Galatia is clear. Hence dogs and evil workers, that is, the spreaders of corrupt doctrine, are also called the concision, Philippians 3:1–2, etc. And in experience we often find that a spirit of division waits upon delusion, and oftentimes does take up and prevail even over those who have been preserved from the delusion. As in a great storm some places have great and dreadful blasts and drops, which yet may be kept free from the violence of the tempest; even so, this deluge of error has showers of divisions waiting upon it, which often may affect those who are preserved from the violence of delusion itself; which makes that the speaking something to this does not impertinently follow upon the former.

CHAP. X. Whether at all times a publick debate be necessary with such persons upon these points.

Assertion 1. We say that there are some times and cases in which public debates are not altogether to be avoided. I will not say that every person is bound to accept such a challenge, lest thereby truth be wronged; neither is it always the ablest man who manages such a business best. But in general, such debate is necessary in these and similar cases: 1. When errors appear to be new among the people. 2. When those who promote them become insolent, as if they dared to bring their deeds openly into the light. 3. When, through forbearance and silence, people are in danger of thinking highly of such insolent boasters and of their opinions. In these and similar cases, I say, there is some necessity for public debate for the Church’s edification, as may appear from Titus 1:9–11. “There are many,” says the Apostle, “who are unruly and vain talkers,” such as vainly boast of their own ability to maintain their opinions, “whose mouths must be stopped,” lest they gain advantage to seduce others. And this is given as the reason why ministers should be qualified with ability to convince gainsayers, because sometimes the insolence and vanity of such persons makes this necessary. Upon this ground we find our blessed Lord Himself, and Stephen and Paul, frequently disputing even in assemblies and synagogues. This does not imply that every minister must dispute at all times, even in such a case; sometimes the matter may be referred and committed to others. For if truth is maintained and error refuted, the gainsayer’s mouth may be stopped, though every minister does not personally do it.