West Port Experiment

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

CHAP. XII. Concerning what ought to be done by private persons, when Church-officers spare such as are scandalous.

We come now to the last question proposed: namely, supposing that Church-officers should be defective in trying and censuring scandalous persons, what is the duty of private Christians in such a case? And whether, notwithstanding this, they ought to continue in the communion of such a Church, or to separate from her?

This question has troubled the Church and been the occasion of many evils in many ages. The devil thereby, under the pretense of indignation at offenses, has caused them to abound in the Church, as Church histories and the writings of the Fathers concerning the Novatians, Donatists, and such like fully demonstrate. And although we have great ground to acknowledge God’s mercy in the sobriety of His people among us, so that we have unity with purity, yet, seeing that this topic follows in order, we shall answer briefly by laying down these grounds.

First, it cannot be denied that such a case may occur, and often actually does occur, in which Church-officers are defective in exercising discipline upon scandalous persons. This may arise from negligence, unfaithfulness, faintheartedness, or from some other sinful infirmity at best, as may be gathered from the second and third chapters of Revelation.

Second, though this be true, yet possibly it is not always their fault when it is charged upon them. Suppose, 1. That no private person, or possibly even the complainant, has admonished such persons as are counted scandalous, nor has presented sufficient proofs of their scandal to any Church judicatory. Or it may be that many are counted scandalous who cannot legally and judicially be found to be such; for it is easier to assert a scandal than to prove it, even often when it is true. And because it is rather a ground of irritation than edification when a process is entered upon and not convincingly made out, therefore often, as a matter of duty, some processes are forborne. Sometimes also Church-officers may be faithfully dealing with persons to recover them from scandals, and yet not find it fit for edification to proceed to high censures. In such cases Church-officers cannot reasonably be blamed; and those who complain should examine their own consciences, whether they have discharged themselves and done their duty, and have laid the matter at the officers’ door, before they account it the officers’ fault. It is most unbecoming for persons to charge others while being defective in their own duty, which necessarily comes before that of the officers. If it were as difficult and weighty a task to calumniate and groundlessly charge Church-officers with this as it is faithfully to follow private admonition, there would not be so much of the one and so little of the other.

And if the matter be rightly considered, it will not be easy to charge them with gross defects; and if the defects are not gross, the matter is not so much to be stumbled at, since they are subject to infirmity in the exercise of discipline as in other things. For such a gross defect must arise upon one of these accounts: either, 1. Because scandalous persons, after refusing private admonitions, were complained of to them, and evidence of the fact was offered, and Church-officers refused to put the matter to trial; or, 2. Because when they did try it, they determined such a thing to be no scandal or not to be proven, or, supposing it to be proven, they did not censure it; or, at least, because when scandals were open, obvious, and palpable, they did not take notice of them. Now, is it probable that such a Church judicatory will frequently be found that will fail grossly in any of these ways? And if they do, then there is opportunity to convict them by an appeal to a superior court, which in that case is a duty. If it be said that their failing and neglect is carried on in some concealed manner, so that there is no opportunity for such legal complaints, we answer: 1. We suppose that if the things are that gross, and the facts so clear and frequent as to give just ground for complaint, then there will also be opportunity for such proof. 2. If it be so carried on and not acknowledged, then it may be their sin before God; but it is not to be accounted a proper Church-offense in the sense formerly mentioned, seeing they could not be judicially convicted of it even before the most impartial judge. And as in such a case we cannot account a private brother ecclesiastically scandalous, although the general course of his conduct may be dissatisfying to us, so ought we not to account Church-officers such. For there is a great difference between that which may be offensive to a person’s private judgment, and possibly lead him in a Christian way to desire satisfaction, and that which is to be proclaimed as a public Church-scandal.

Third, upon the supposition that the defect be real, yet private professors are to continue in the discharge of the duties of their stations, and not to separate from the communion of the Church, but to count themselves discharged by holding fast their own integrity. It is true, such a defect cannot but be grievous to those who are conscientious; and, if it becomes scandalously excessive, it may give occasion to them to depart and go where that ordinance of discipline is more vigorously exercised. Concerning that there is no question, provided it is done in a proper manner. Yet, I say, that can be no ground for withdrawing from the ordinances of Christ, as though either they or their consciences were polluted by the presence of such others.

For, 1. That there were such defects in the Church of the Jews cannot be denied, and this appears particularly in the case of Eli’s sons, who by their misconduct made the ordinances of the Lord contemptible. Yet it can in no way be proved either that it was allowable for the people to withdraw, or that it was sinful for them to join in the ordinances. If it be said that there was only one Church then, and therefore none could separate from the ordinances in it, we answer: 1. This confirms what has been said, namely, that the joining of scandalous persons in ordinances does not pollute those ordinances to others. For if it did, the Lord would not have laid such a necessity upon those who were conscientious, that they must either partake of polluted ordinances or have none; and if it did not pollute them then, some reason should be given to show why it does so now. 2. If there is a unity of the Church now, as well as then, the consequence must still hold; because, wherever believers communicate, those many who communicate anywhere are one bread and one body, as the Apostle speaks in 1 Corinthians 10:17, compared with chapter 12:13. And so by communicating anywhere, we declare ourselves to be of the same visible Church and body politic with those who communicate elsewhere, even as by baptism we are baptized into one Church, and into communion with all the members of the body wherever they may be. Therefore, if this be considered, it will not be enough to avoid pollution, if the objection be true and well grounded, to separate from one society or one particular congregation, unless there be a separation from the whole visible Church; for the Jews likewise might have separated from particular synagogues, or have chosen times for their offerings and sacrifices distinct from others.

The famous John Cotton of New England, in his Holiness of Church-Members, page 21, grants: 1. That there were many scandalous persons in the Church of the Jews. 2. He says that this was through the priests’ defect, for they ought not to have been retained. And, 3. Though he says that this will not warrant the lawfulness of admitting scandalous persons into the Church, yet he asserts that it may establish the continuance of their Church-state notwithstanding such a toleration. And if so, then it approves continuing therein and condemns separation therefrom; and consequently, a Church may remain a Church, having the ordinances in purity and warrantably to be communicated in, notwithstanding the former fault. 3. What has been observed from learned writers, in paralleling the constitution of the Church under the Gospel with that under the Law in essential things, overthrows this objection; for separation now is as impossible upon this ground as formerly.

Fourth, this defect is to be observed in several of the primitive Churches, as we may particularly see in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Yet it is never found that any upon that account withdrew, or were reproved for not doing so, even when the officers were reproved for their defect. Indeed, on the contrary, those who kept themselves pure from these scandals, though continuing in that communion, are commended and approved, and exhorted to continue as formerly. Now, if continuing in communion in such a case is in itself sinful, and personal integrity is not sufficient for professors where the defect is sinful in the officers, even though in other personal things and duties of their stations they were approvable, how can it be thought that the Faithful and True Witness should so sharply reprove the one, and so fully approve the other at the same time?

Fifth, the nature of Church-communion confirms this: for the scandalousness of one person has no more influence to make another guilty than the approved conduct of another has to make the ordinances profitable to him who is scandalous. We can no more partake of the evil than of the good of another in Church-communion. But it is clear that the graciousness of one cannot sanctify an ordinance to one who is profane; and therefore the profanity of one cannot pollute the ordinance to one who is conscientious. And as he who examines himself partakes worthily in respect of himself and his own condition, but does not sanctify another person’s communicating, so he who partakes unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, and not to another. For that cause both the precept and the threatening are limited to the person: “Let a man examine himself,” etc.; “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” For according as duty is performed or omitted in himself, his communicating is worthy or unworthy. And if, in the most intimate fellowship of marriage, the company of a profane husband may be sanctified to a gracious wife, even when hers is unsanctified to him, because that depends upon the person’s own qualification and manner of making use of God’s ordinance of marriage, much more may it be so here. This last might be a distinct argument of itself.

Sixth, if continuance in communion with such persons be sinful, then it must either be because communion with those who are actually profane, whether we know or think them to be so or not, is sinful; or it must be because we know them, or think them, to be such. But neither of these can be said. Not the first, because then to keep communion with a hypocrite, or with a believer in a carnal frame, would be sinful, although we thought them to be sincere, which cannot be maintained. Nor can it be said that it is because we know them to be so; because, 1. If we knew a man to be such, and another did not know it, then in that case the ordinances would be polluted to one and not to another at the same time, though possibly both were exercising the same faith and, having examined themselves, were in the same frame, which would be absurd. Yea, 2. If it depended upon our knowledge of it, then our very supposing it to be so, although it were not so, would pollute the ordinance; and what confusion would follow from that may afterward be observed. Nor can it be said that it is because we think him to be so; because, supposing some think otherwise, it would still be an ordinance to them and a duty to continue in it, but not to us, which is the former absurdity. And this does not arise from the binding nature of an erroneous conscience, which may be alleged in other cases, but from the difference of persons’ light, charity, or other apprehensions of things, whereby one is led to account that scandalous which another does not.

Seventh, if communion with profane persons who are such to our knowledge be sinful and pollutes ordinances, then several questions must be raised, which will lead to various absurdities. 1. Ought persons to examine all those with whom they keep communion, to determine whether they are profane or not? For if any profane person be in that communion whom they might have known if they had examined, then their ignorance cannot excuse them. 2. It may be asked what degree of trial and search sufficiently discharges them, because possibly a further trial might have discovered some to be profane. 3. It may be asked what evidences are sufficient to demonstrate persons to be scandalous, and to require them to be accounted as such. Must it only be something seen by ourselves, or may it be something reported by others? And must that be judicially established, or is it enough that it be merely asserted? How many persons’ reports are to be taken as proof? Or is anyone who is so reported of to be accounted scandalous? 4. What sort of scandals are to be investigated in order to make a person one who pollutes the ordinances? Is any kind of scandal sufficient, or only scandals of a certain nature? Is one scandal sufficient, or must there be many? And if many, how many are to be given weight in this? Some satisfactory grounds must also be laid down showing how and where the distinction is to be fixed. 5. It may be asked whether one scandalous person alone pollutes the ordinances, or whether there must be more; and if more, how many? 6. Suppose such a scandal were known to us alone: charity and Christ’s command say that it is not to be published; conscience says, upon this supposition, that the ordinance is polluted; and circumstances press us either to communicate doubtingly, or offensively to abstain and conceal the cause, or, contrary to charity, to make the cause known. These and many similar questions must be answered in order to satisfy anyone upon the supposition that communion in such a case is sinful. Therefore that supposition is not to be admitted.

Eighth, if the ordinance be polluted to one who is clean, then it is either the act of the Church-officers that pollutes it, or the act of the scandalous person who communicates. But neither of these can be said. Not the first; for that would suppose that all the ordinances were polluted although no scandalous person were actually present, merely because they had not been actually excluded. And though they were absent, yet since no impediment had been placed in their way by Church-officers, as to the officers’ guilt the case would be the same. Nor can it be the second; because, supposing a person has not been debarred, it is his duty to communicate. And can it be said that he, in doing his duty in the matter, should make that cease to be a duty to us which lies upon us both by a common command, requiring him and us alike to eat, just as it requires us to pray?

Ninth, the Lord’s ordering matters so in His providence that He permits unsanctified officers to administer His ordinances, while nevertheless accounting them officers and the ordinances in their hands to be His ordinances, even when they are known to be unsound until in His own way they are removed, demonstrates this: that pollution in fellow-worshipers does not pollute the ordinances to others. For if any persons would pollute them, scandalous officers would do so most of all; but these do not. Therefore, etc. We may see this, 1. In the scandalousness of priests under the Law; for we must either say that there were no scandalous priests, or that the people then offered no sacrifices and joined in no worship, or that they sinned whenever they did so. All of these are absurd. 2. We see that in Christ’s time the Scribes and Pharisees were pointed out by Him as scandalous in Matthew 23:3; yet even there He requires continuance in the ordinances administered by them notwithstanding. 3. Does not Paul speak of some who preached Christ out of envy in Philippians 1:15, which is a most gross scandal, and of others who sought their own things and not the things of Christ in Philippians 2:21? Both of these are gross offenses, and are clearly established by his testimony; yet he is content that people continue, yea, he supposes that they may profit in communion with them, which he would not have done if the ordinances had been polluted by them to others. And the same may be said of several Churches in those second and third chapters of Revelation, where both the grossness of ministers and that of many professors is made known by Christ to the Church. Yet it cannot be supposed that this might afterward have been made a ground of separation from them, any more than their not separating before was reprovable.

Tenth, if known evil in anyone who communicates pollutes the ordinances in themselves, then how can a believer communicate with himself? Because, 1. He has corruption. 2. He has as full knowledge of it as of any other man’s, yea, such knowledge as may make him think it greater than what he knows of any other man. 3. That corruption is as near him as the corruption of anyone else. 4. The Law strikes more particularly against corruption in himself, as to himself, than against that which is in another. Yea, 5. This corruption certainly does, so far, pollute the ordinance to him and make him guilty. Now, the same grounds which say that he may communicate with a good conscience notwithstanding his own corruptions will much more say that he may communicate notwithstanding that which is in another, because the sins that follow his own corruption are his own sins, which cannot be said of the sins of others. And if repentance for his own sin, resting upon Christ, and protesting against the body of death—which yet are but the acts of the same person insofar as renewed, differing from himself as unrenewed—if, I say, such acts may quiet his conscience and give him confidence to partake notwithstanding his own corruption, and that even when he as unrenewed may be accounted guilty, may they not much more give him confidence in reference to the sins of another, which are not so much as his deeds?

Eleventh, this is implied in that directory which Christ gives in Matthew 18, because He warrants an offended brother to bring obstinate offenders to the Church as the last step of his duty, and as his full discharge. “Tell the Church,” says He; and no more is required by Him afterward but that he conform his conduct to the Church’s sentence in case of obstinacy. And none can think, upon the supposition that the Church did not do its duty, that he was from that time forward not to join in that Church, but to separate from it as from heathens and publicans. For then a private person might excommunicate a Church, although Christ will not have him withdraw from communion with a private member until obstinacy and the Church’s censure intervene. Yea, by so doing, a private person might account another a heathen and publican without any public censure, which is contrary to Christ’s purpose, since He joins this withdrawing of communion from him to the Church’s censure. This argument will have still more force if we consider that Christ’s words have an allusion, as is commonly acknowledged, to the Jewish Sanhedrin, which, being but one, could admit of no separation from its communion even though there had been some defect in it. What may properly be done by abstaining from unnecessary personal fellowship is always to be acknowledged. Yet if separation in such a supposed case were required as a duty, that direction would not be a sufficient direction for an offended brother, because it would leave him without direction concerning the final step. But Christ’s careful progression from one step to another plainly shows that something else is intended.

Whoever desires fuller satisfaction in this may consult the learned treatises written against separation, whose arguments will apply by consequence to the present case. Therefore we need say the less here, and shall only add the consideration of one passage of Scripture.

For confirming this assertion, then, we may consider more particularly one place which seems especially to relate to this purpose, namely, 1 Corinthians 11 from verse 17 onward. There it appears, first, that there were divisions among that people, even in respect of communicating together at the Lord’s Table, so that some of them would not communicate with others; for that there were divisions is clear. Now, these divisions are expressly said to have occurred in the Church when they came together to eat the Lord’s Supper, verses 18 and 19. And some communicated at one time and some at another, without waiting for one another, as is expressed in verse 33.

Secondly, we may also gather what might have been the reason for this divided communicating, or, at least, what some might have alleged as their reason for not communicating jointly with others. For it is likely that they fell into this irregularity deliberately, thinking that they did well when they communicated apart and not with others. So much is implied in the Apostle’s expostulation in verse 22: “What? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” Now, these reasons might have been alleged to justify their divided communicating: 1. That the ordinances were not reverently administered, nor with that gravity and discerning of the Lord’s Body which was fitting. 2. That many unworthy persons were admitted to communion, even such as were drunken, verse 21, etc.; and therefore it might have been alleged by them that joint communicating with such persons ought to be avoided.

Thirdly, it is also evident that, notwithstanding these grounds, the Apostle condemns their practice and presses them to joint communicating, as appears from verses 22 and 33. From this arises a clear argument: if the members of the Church of Corinth, who separated from the ordinances because of the sinfulness of those who jointly partook with them, were condemned by Paul and required to communicate jointly, and if he also makes clear how they might do so without becoming guilty, then separation in such a case cannot be a duty but must be a sin. But the former are true. Therefore, etc. I know of nothing that can be objected against this argument except either to say that the Apostle’s purpose in their eating together is only to regulate their love-feasts and condemn their practice in these; or that he commends joint communicating simply, but not in such a case, because it is not clear whether any of them actually scrupled communion upon that ground. For removing these objections, we say to the first that the main purpose of the passage is to regulate them in celebrating the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore the Apostle so clearly and plainly insists upon explaining its institution, thereby bringing them back to the way that was laid down and delivered to him by the Lord. As for any other sort of eating or drinking, the Apostle sends them to their houses, verse 22; and he repeats that direction even more expressly, that if any man hunger and desire to eat his ordinary food, let him do it at home, verse 34. Therefore no direction for the time to come can be interpreted as belonging to common eating in the Church or in its public meetings, but only to sacramental eating.

To the second, namely, whether the Apostle actually enters into this question with respect to the objection arising from the impurity of joint communicants, we propose these things for clearing the matter.

First, we say that whether they actually made this objection or not, yet there was ground for them to make it if it had any weight, as the text makes clear. Neither could the Apostle, knowing that ground and having immediately mentioned it, have proceeded to press them all indiscriminately to communicate together if his direction did not meet the case. For this might still have stood in the way: that many among them were such and such scandalous persons, and therefore ought not to be communicated with. And if this were a sufficient reason to keep them from joint communicating, then, the case being so circumstanced, it would also have been a sufficient reason to keep the Apostle from imposing joint communion upon them as a duty, at least so long as the case remained as it was.

Secondly, we say that it is not unlikely that there were such hesitations in some of them; and, whatever may actually have been among them, it is clear that the Apostle expressly speaks to this case and endeavors to remove that objection out of the way. Namely, men should not shrink from the Sacrament because of the profanity of others; and therefore they might, without scruple on that account, communicate jointly and wait for one another, which is his purpose in verse 33. This will appear by considering the several reasons by which he presses this purpose; for the words in verse 33, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together, tarry one for another,” state the conclusion drawn from the former grounds which he has given. Now, when he has corrected their first fault, namely, their irreverent manner of celebrating the ordinance, by bringing them back to Christ’s institution in verses 23–27, he comes in the last place to meet this objection: What if others be present who plainly cannot discern the Lord’s Body, and so cannot communicate worthily? Can it be safe to communicate with such persons? Or is it not better to find some other way of communicating apart, and not together with them? The Apostle gives several answers to this, and reasons by which he shows that their division was not warranted upon that ground, beginning at verse 28; and so he concludes in verse 33 that, notwithstanding this, they might wait for one another.

The first reason is in verse 28: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat.” This shows, 1. That a man’s suitable preparation for this duty is to examine himself, and that the fruit may be expected or not expected according as matters stand with himself. Otherwise it would not be a sufficient direction for preparation merely to put him upon examining himself. Again, 2. These two things are joined together: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat.” Which is, in sum, this: when a man has in some sincerity looked upon his own condition, and has attained some suitability to the ordinance as to his own particular case, then, says the Apostle, let him eat, without making this depend upon the condition of others. Otherwise, a man who had examined himself still could not eat, though his own disposition were as it should be, if the condition of others might hinder him from eating. And we conceive it is a principal part of the Apostle’s purpose, by joining these two things together, namely, a man’s eating with the examination of himself, purposely to prevent such a scruple.

The second reason which he gives confirms this also; for, says he in verse 29, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” Which is, in sum, this: a man who has examined himself may eat of the Sacrament, though many persons communicate unworthily with him. For, says he, the person who eats unworthily does not bring judgment upon others, nor is his sin imputed to those who communicate with him, but he brings it upon himself. Therefore no other person has cause to shrink from the ordinance because of that, if he himself has examined himself. This reason he again confirms from experience in verse 30: “For this cause,” says he, “many are sick, and many among you are weak,” etc. That is, not because they communicated with those who were scandalous while being themselves in a good frame, but because by not examining themselves they communicated unworthily. Thus, by their own sin, they brought these strokes upon themselves.

He gives a third reason for establishing his purpose in verse 31: “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” That is, men need not be anxious in this case whether others judge themselves or not; for, says he, God’s absolving or judging of us does not depend upon what they do, but upon what we ourselves do. Therefore he presses them still to look to themselves, because judging and humbling ourselves before God is the way not to be judged by Him, even in reference to that ordinance, whatever others may do.

Now, when he has fully established these reasons, and, as it were, made out this proposition—that if a man be right in his own frame, the sin of another joint communicant cannot be hurtful to him or be ground to hinder him in eating—and when by an inserted parenthesis he has answered a further doubt in verse 32, he concludes in verse 33: “Wherefore, my brethren,” says he, “seeing it is so, tarry one for another,” and do not be anxiously afraid to communicate jointly. Now, seeing that throughout this passage the Apostle has been giving such grounds as may clear a conscience in precisely this case, and seeing that in these words he lays down the direction of waiting for one another, or of joint communicating, as a conclusion drawn from the former grounds, it cannot reasonably be thought otherwise than that he purposely intended these reasons to be grounds for quieting consciences, so that they might obey that direction in such a case. And therefore it cannot be warrantable to separate upon that ground.

CHAP. XIII. Shewing more particularly what it is that private persons are called to in such a case.

If it is asked, then, what private persons ought to do in such a case, we answer: they are certainly to keep themselves within their proper station. Yet there are certain duties which are called for more particularly at such a time than at another.

First, there is need of much circumspection in our own personal walk, and of watchfulness in observing opportunities in which we may edify others, as in Hebrews 3:13.

Secondly, there is need of greater frequency, and of a more weighty and circumspect manner, in giving private admonitions and exhortations.

Thirdly, there should be much exercise of prayer, and even fasting with it, though in a secret and inoffensive manner, both for the restraining of offenses which dishonor God and for stirring up zeal in officers to perform their duty. If, in this respect, rivers of tears were running down our cheeks because of the abundance of offenses, there might be much more solid peace, we are persuaded, in continuing in communion with others than in separating from them. Such separation is often practiced with much, or at least apparent, pride and uncharitable cruelty, thereby giving offense to others and confirming them further in their profanity.

Fourthly, it is the duty of private persons to represent such offenses, together with the evidence for them, to Church-officers or Church courts, thereby putting them to the task of removing those offenses.

Fifthly, they may freely, though humbly and reverently, expostulate with Church-officers when they are defective, and endeavor to convince them of that offense. The force of that precept, “If thy brother offend thee, go and tell him,” warrants so much. And this the Colossians are to say to Archippus: that he be not defective in the ministry which he had received, Colossians 4:17. When done decently and convincingly, this is useful.

Sixthly, if all this does not prevail, private persons may communicate the matter to other Church-officers; and if no redress follows, it is their duty to pursue it before the competent superior courts. For Christ’s direction, “Tell the Church,” implies and warrants the same.

If it be asked what further is to be done if that also fails, we answer: we know of no other public redress. Christ has left it there, and so may we also. Neither can it be shown from Scripture that Christ has appointed separation to be the next step in a private person’s duty for removing offenses, much less that it should come before these other steps. Indeed, Scripture calls for withdrawing from personal communion with gross and scandalous persons as a necessary thing, as also from communion in the corrupt designs and courses of any, though they may have a form of godliness, 2 Timothy 3:4–5. This belongs to, and is comprehended under, the first particular direction. And if these things are faithfully observed by private Christians, we are hopeful that there will either be less ground of complaint concerning the defect of Church-officers, more opportunity to remove such as continue unfaithful, more peace to the consciences of particular private Christians, and less offense and more edification to all, than by any other way whatsoever.

That it is thus necessary for private persons to acquiesce in the Church’s determination, in the manner already described, may appear from the unsettledness and confusion, both private and public, which would otherwise follow. For either there must be a stopping at this determination of the Church, or there must be some other point upon which to settle, or there must be no settled point at all. Neither of the last two can be maintained; therefore the first must stand.

Not the last, namely, that there is no settled point at all; for then a particular person who was offended would not know what was his duty, or what course he was to follow. This would imply a defect in the Lord’s ordinance concerning the direction and peace of His people in such cases, which is most absurd.

If the second be said, namely, that there is some other thing upon which to settle for the quieting of consciences in such a case, beyond that public decision, we desire to know what that is which is called for, and by what rule we are to proceed in it.

If it be said that in such a case the duty is to separate from that Church where the majority of officers admit those who are accounted scandalous, then we ask:

What is next to be done? It must either be to continue as no member of a Church, which is both impossible and absurd. It is impossible that there can be any particular visible baptized member who does not belong to the visible body, at least when we consider that the Church constitutes one integral visible body. It is absurd, because it would imply either that Christ has no visible Church, that He has an ordinary way of edifying through external ordinances apart from His visible Church, or that a person may be indifferent to and live apart from His Church and ordinances, and yet be approved by Him and expect the benefit of them. Indeed, upon this supposition, the unfaithfulness of Church-officers in failing to cast out scandalous men would result in the actual unchurching of those who were not scandalous. Thus the sin of the one would become the punishment of the other, which is absurd.

If it be said that another Church of purer members is to be gathered, in which persons in such cases are to join for obtaining pure ordinances, then we ask further: What if such a congregation cannot be had? What is the duty in that case? Is there a necessity of living without a visible Church-state, lacking all Church ordinances for ourselves and baptism for our children? What can be the fruit of that? Is it not a more undeniable hazard to put ourselves outside all communion in Church ordinances than to enjoy them where they are pure, though some who partake jointly with us are offensive? Is not the former the way to make our children heathens and to leave them forever without baptism, seeing they cannot warrantably be entered where we ourselves cannot remain? Does this not also make way for all ordinances to be held in contempt and undervalued by the profane, seeing such persons live so contentedly without them?

Further, we ask: What if other persons and we cannot agree concerning who should be admitted as joint members? For if this is left to each man’s particular discernment, that rule is uncertain and variable, being involved in many difficulties, as was formerly suggested. In that case, there must either be no separated Church, or there must be various separated Churches according to the different breadth of different persons’ charity. For it is certain that one will think a person scandalous whom another does not, and one will approve what another will condemn.

Again, we ask: What if such persons who withdraw and seek to enter a more holy society should themselves be refused? How could they demonstrate their own holiness and convince those who refused them that they were graciously qualified and fit to be admitted? For whatever profession they might make, it would still have to be tried by no other rule than the particular discernment and charity of those persons.

Again, suppose this difficulty is overcome and such a congregation is settled: is it not possible that even some of those members should afterwards become scandalous? Then, supposing that the majority of that Church did not account such persons scandalous, or did not cast them out, what should be done? According to the former grounds, those who supposed themselves alone to be pure could not continue in communion, but would have to separate again. And if so, then upon the renewal of the former supposition there would have to be a separation in infinitum. For no Church can be expected upon earth in which these cases are not both supposable and possible.

And so now we may return to the conclusion: either a private person must acquiesce, as being discharged of his duty, when he has pursued the matter before the Church, or he shall have no ground of peace anywhere until he is either out of the world or outside all visible Churches. Thus there can be no other way of preserving public order and ordinances, and at the same time avoiding scandal and confusion.

This truth is fully established by those three worthy and pious divines of New England: Cotton, Hooker, and Norton. The last of these demonstrates it by many reasons in his answer to Apollonius’s last question, pages 162–163, and confirms it particularly from the Church of Corinth. “There,” he says, “was impurity or corruption in worship, for women taught in the Church; there was corrupt doctrine, for many denied the resurrection; in manners she was most corrupt, there being so many fornications, sects, palpable love of the world,” etc. Yet, he says, the Apostle did not command those who were worthily prepared to abstain from the Supper; rather, while correcting the abuses, he commanded every one to examine himself, and so to eat, etc. He has many other excellent observations to this purpose, laying down this as a ground: per alios indigne accedentes non polluitur communio, licet minuitur consolatio—that is, communion in worship is not polluted, though its consolation is diminished, by the presence of such joint worshipers.

The second, Mr. Hooker, fully confirms this maxim in Part 1, Chap. 9, pages 119–120, calling it irrational for the smaller number to make themselves judges of the action of the majority. Elsewhere he observes that to admit separation in such a case would be to lay a foundation for separation in infinitum. Only we may add these two observations concerning this: 1. May not the same principle be allowed to the Presbyterial Church, where the majority of Church-officers think it proper not to cast someone out? 2. The Presbyterial government is, upon this consideration, unjustly burdened with an absurdity, as though, necessarily upon its principles, the minority and better party, being overruled—suppose, for instance, that a particular congregation were wronged by the majority of a Presbytery—could have no redress. For according to his own grounds, the same consequence would follow upon the Congregational way. Suppose the majority of a congregation should wrong some officer, contrary to the vote of the minority and better party: there can be no other redress there than for men to keep themselves free from the wrong. For the same question still returns: if the minority should claim that their sentence ought to prevail because it is right in the matter, while that of the majority is not, he has already determined in the place cited that this is contrary to all orderly procedure and the rules of reason, opening a breach to endless dissension and the overthrow of all public procedure. Men in such cases, being their own judges, are always ready to think themselves in the right.

By the first, Mr. Cotton, it is laid down as an unquestionable and agreed-upon ground, with this observation following it: “By hasty withdrawing, reformation is not procured, but retarded,” Of the Holiness of Church-Members, page 2. Has not experience confirmed this? Might not discipline have been more vigorous in many congregations if this had not been so? And what can be expected of reformation in the body of the Christian world if, to the offense of the rest, those who suppose themselves to be more tender should immediately withdraw from them?

CHAP. XIV. Clearing whether the Ordinances of Christ be any way polluted by corrupt fellow-worshippers.

But yet two things remain to be answered. 1. It may be said, Are not the ordinances of Christ in some way polluted by the unworthiness of such scandalous partakers? And if so, can polluted ordinances be partaken of without sin? We answer that the polluting of ordinances may be considered in a threefold sense. 1. An ordinance may be said to be polluted when its essentials and substantials are corrupted, so that indeed it ceases to be an ordinance of Jesus Christ. Thus the Mass in Popery is a fearful abomination and a corruption of the sacrament. In this respect the ordinance, if it may still be called an ordinance after such corruption—for indeed it is not an ordinance of Christ—is polluted. This may happen in many ways, and communion in such a thing is indeed sinful, and cannot but be so.

An ordinance may be said to be polluted when it is irreverently and profanely abused, though its essentials are preserved. Thus the Lord’s Sabbath may be polluted, which yet remains holy in itself; and so was the Table of the Lord polluted in Malachi 1. In this sense the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was indeed polluted by the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11, when some came drunken, or otherwise irreverently, to the holy ordinance. In this respect an ordinance may be said to be polluted to the person who so approaches it, because to the unclean all things are unclean. But it is not polluted in itself, nor to any other who examines himself, as the former instance makes clear. For that pollution arises from nothing in the ordinance itself, its essentials being complete, but from the sinfulness of particular persons, and therefore must be limited to them.

An ordinance may be said to be polluted upon this external consideration, namely, when by some circumstance attending it, or by the misconduct of those who are engaged in it, it is made to appear common, and so loses something of that luster and honor which it ought to possess. By such a fault the ordinance is exposed to contempt and is despised by others, contrary to the Lord’s allowance. Thus the priests of old made the offerings of the Lord vile and contemptible. They did not do so by corrupting them in their essentials, nor by making them cease to be ordinances; rather, by their misconduct and corrupt, irreverent manner of administering them, they laid a stumbling block before others and caused them to account those ordinances contemptible.

This may happen in various ways. As, 1. When the officer or minister has a profane and carnal manner of life, he thereby makes the ordinance of the ministry, and every other ordinance, vile in this sense. Thus, if an elder or any other person should undertake to admonish another while himself in drunkenness, passion, or some similar disorder, he pollutes that admonition; yet the ordinance still remains an ordinance, and the admonition remains an admonition.

It may happen when an officer indiscreetly and indiscriminately administers ordinances to the precious and the vile, as though they were common things. Thus a reproof may be polluted when a manifest and known contemner is reproved, because thereby a pearl is cast before swine, which is derogatory to its excellence. In the same way, a minister may profane or pollute the most excellent promises or consolations of the Word when he applies them indiscriminately and without discretion, making no difference between the tender and the untender and profane, yea, even between hypocrites and the truly godly. This is not rightly dividing the Word of God, and is indeed chiefly what the Lord accounts to be a failure to separate the precious from the vile, when peace is spoken to those to whom He never spoke peace.

This is also committed when grossly scandalous persons are permitted, without the exercise of discipline upon them, to live in the Church or are admitted to the sacraments. For by this God’s institution is wronged, its luster is diminished, and men are induced to think less highly of it.

This may also happen through an irreverent manner of going about the ordinances, when they are administered without that due reverence and gravity which ought to be present in His worship. Thus one may make the Word and sacrament in great measure ridiculous. Suppose, for example, that at the sacrament of the Supper, in the same congregation, some should be communicating in one place and some in another; some should be plainly talking about other matters, and others misconducting themselves through drunkenness, etc., as it is clear happened in the Church of Corinth. All these may be said to pollute the ordinances, insofar as they detract from their weight and authority and involve misconduct in their administration. They are also likely to breed irreverence and contempt in others, where the Lord’s body in the Supper, or the end of His institution in other ordinances, is not discerned and observed.

Yet all these things do not pollute the ordinance in itself, or make it cease to be an ordinance, nor do they pollute it to anyone who reverently partakes of the same and does not stumble over the stumbling block laid before him. For a hearer suitably qualified might comfortably receive and feed upon a sweet promise, even when that promise is extended in its application beyond the Lord’s allowance; yet this does not alter the nature of the promise to him. So also worthy communicants who have examined themselves and discern the Lord’s body may partake of that sacrament with His approbation and to their own comfort. For they may discern Him, and thereby receive the right impression of the ordinance, although many stumbling blocks lie in their way. It is not the casting of snares before them by others, but their own stumbling at those snares, that pollutes the ordinance to them.

Hence we see that, although all these disorders were present in the Church of Corinth, so that there was neither due order in the manner nor proper discernment with respect to the receivers—for some came drunken, some came and did not wait for others, some came hungry, and others full—yet it was still the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. And it remained unpolluted to those who, by examining themselves and discerning His body, which others failed to do, reverently and duly partook of the same.

Besides these kinds of pollution already mentioned, we cannot conceive of any other. For legal and ceremonial pollution, such as that which arose from touching a dead body, etc., and which was opposed to ceremonial holiness, is not to be brought into this question. Yet we see that the first kind cannot be alleged here, and none of the other two ought to frighten tender persons away from the ordinances of Jesus Christ.

If it be said that communicating in such a case seems to approve such an admission, and to confirm those who are admitted in some favorable opinion of themselves, and that therefore there is a necessity of abstaining—not because the ordinances themselves are polluted, but in order to prevent the aforesaid offense, lest we become guilty—we answer: if weight is to be laid upon offense, we make no question but that consideration will weigh much more strongly on the other side. Oh, what offense has this way given to the Church of Christ! How has it hardened those who already had prejudice against religion? How has it opened the mouths of those who lie in wait for some occasion of this kind? How has it grieved and burdened others? How has it caused the work of Reformation, the profession of holiness, the exercise of discipline, etc., to become offensive to many and to be loaded with reproaches? And thereby much of that opportunity which otherwise might have existed for keeping the ordinances unpolluted in the former respect has been lost.

Is not reverent and exemplary participation in the ordinances at such a time a more edifying and convincing testimony against such untenderness than withdrawing and thereby giving a new offense?

The Lord’s command in such a case, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat,” does not leave the matter indifferent upon that ground. Therefore this objection can have no place here, as the principles formerly laid down sufficiently demonstrate. For we are not to be wise or holy beyond what the Lord has commanded.

CHAP. XV. Shewing if any thing further in any imaginable case be allowed to privat Christians.

It may yet be asked whether nothing more can be allowed in any conceivable case. We answer that, in a matter of practice, where people are not contending merely out of curiosity but are seeking direction, it is most unsuitable to suppose cases that are hardly or only rarely possible in a constituted Church worthy of that name, and then upon such suppositions to found either controversy in debate or schism in practice, especially where the actual cases are plainly different. At the very least, union ought to be preserved until such a case actually arises. And is it likely, where the order formerly laid down is observed, that there can be an habitual admission of notoriously or grievously scandalous persons, though there may indeed be lesser failings of several sorts? Yet, supposing that any persons, through infirmity or affection, through lack of sufficient knowledge, or otherwise, should for a time hesitate to join in the ordinances in some places upon such an account, while nevertheless they do not love separation or the erecting of a different Church, we say further:

That, in such a case, such persons may remove from one congregation to another where no such grossness can reasonably be alleged. And if the persons themselves are otherwise without scandal, they can neither properly be compelled to continue where they are so burdened, nor refused admission where they orderly desire to join, seeing this liberty could not rightly be denied to any. We suppose also that few will be so uncharitable as to think there is no congregation anywhere with which they may lawfully join, or so attached to outward considerations as to choose separation, with offense to others, disturbance to the Church, and perhaps little peace to themselves, when such an inoffensive remedy is allowed them.

Although separation is never allowable, and secession is not always immediately practicable, yet we suppose that in some cases simple abstinence may be permitted, provided that it is not offensive in its manner and circumstances, that it is not made customary, and that the ground is so convincing and the case so gross as to affect any candid hearer. It must also be so evident that no one acquainted with the circumstances can reasonably deny it, or there must be some present and still undecided process concerning the matter before a competent judge. In some such cases as may be supposed, we conceive that temporary abstinence ought not rigidly to be misinterpreted, seeing that for the time it is the burden of such persons that they cannot join, and perhaps they also have some public complaint concerning the matter to establish, which is still depending elsewhere.

Although we would not encourage anyone lightly to follow this course, nor can it reasonably be pleaded for where the case is not singularly horrid, yet, supposing the case to be such, we conceive that this may be the safest course both for the person’s peace and for the preventing of offense. Still, much Christian prudence is to be exercised in the manner of carrying it out, whether by removing elsewhere for a time or otherwise, so that there may appear to be no public contempt of the ordinances. But we conceive that such a case occurs so rarely that little need be said concerning it, and much less should any unnecessary debate or division be maintained merely upon the consideration or notion of such a possibility.

And certainly the case before us, concerning the admission of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, when their doctrine and deeds are considered, is more horrid than cases that can ordinarily be supposed. Yet it would seem that, even if this defect had continued, the Lord required nothing further of private professors than that they should continue in, and hold fast, their former personal purity. This is the whole burden that He lays upon them.

To conclude the whole matter, we may see what evils are to be avoided in the prosecution of public scandals, and what a commendable thing it would be to have this ordinance exercised vigorously in the right manner. If private Christians were zealous, loving, and prudent in their private admonitions; if officers were diligent, sincere, grave, and weighty in what belongs to them; if offending persons were humble and submissive; and if all were reverent and respectful toward the ordinances, and studious of both private and public edification, how beautiful and profitable a thing would it be?

Certainly such a manner of proceeding would be more honoring to the ordinances of Christ, more convincing to all who observe it, more sweet and easy both to officers and people, and more edifying and winning to all. And, by God’s blessing, it would be the way to make the much-misunderstood yoke of discipline to be accounted easy and light. If all these ends are desirable, and the contrary evils are to be avoided, then unquestionably the right manner of managing this great ordinance of discipline is carefully to be studied and followed, both by officers and by the people.

PART III. CONCERNING DOCTRINALL SCANDALS, OR SCANDALOUS ERROURS. (BOOK 3)

CHAP. I. Holding out the expediency of handling this matter.

Although something has already been said concerning practical scandals, as we may call them, yet little or nothing has been said concerning doctrinal scandals, and what may be required in reference to them.

It is true that these cases are so various and difficult that hardly anything can be said which applies particularly to them all. Also, what has already been said concerning practical scandals may, for the most part, be proportionately applied to these. Yet, considering that this passage looks so directly to scandals in doctrine, and that the condition of these times calls for some consideration of them, it would be a defect to say nothing further concerning them. Therefore it will not be impertinent to insist a little upon this subject also, although this treatise has already grown to a greater length than was at first intended.

In pursuing this subject, we may, 1. Consider some general doctrines. 2. Consider some general questions. 3. Speak more particularly to the several duties required according to particular cases, and to the remedies that are called for. 4. Show the necessity of orderly judicial procedure here, in reference to such scandals, as well as in reference to the scandals in practice formerly mentioned.

As for doctrines, we find here, 1. That error, when spread by those who are corrupted by it, is no less scandalous, and no less to be accounted so, than gross practices. For it is as likely to become an occasion of stumbling, and to hinder the spiritual edification and well-being of the people of God, as any scandalous practice. This is confirmed, 1. By the consequences of error: it destroys the soul, 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; yea, it brings swift damnation, 2 Peter 2:1; it overthrows the faith of many, 2 Timothy 2:18; it perverts the Scriptures to men’s destruction, 2 Peter 3:16; and it deceives many, Matthew 24. Therefore, for this reason, it is also called in 2 Peter 2 damnable, pernicious, and such like. These expressions show that error really becomes a stumbling block wherever it is found.

This will also appear if we consider the titles which the Holy Ghost usually gives in Scripture to those who promote corrupt doctrine. There are scarcely titles expressing greater indignation and abhorrence given to any than to such persons. They are called dogs and evil workers, Philippians 3:2; wolves, yea, grievous wolves, Matthew 7:15; Acts 20; deceitful workers and ministers of Satan, as though they were expressly commissioned by him, 2 Corinthians 11:13; deceivers and liars, Revelation 2; and evil men and seducers, who wax worse and worse, 2 Timothy 3:13.

Consider also the many threatenings and woes that are pronounced against them in Scripture, as in Matthew 23; the many warnings given to ministers to watch against them, Acts 20; the plain directions given for censuring them, Titus 3:10; and the particular examples of such censures recorded in Scripture, as will afterward appear. Consider also Christ’s commending such censure where it is practiced, and His reproving the neglect of it where it is not, as is manifest in the second and third chapters of Revelation. These and similar considerations clearly demonstrate how exceedingly scandalous the spreading of corrupt doctrine is. In Revelation 2:6 the Lord says that He hates such deeds, and therefore they cannot but be loathsome and abominable.

Consider also the many warnings given to the people to avoid such persons, and that precisely upon this ground, as being offensive, as in Romans 16:17; Acts 20; Philippians 3:1–2; and 2 John 10. These warnings plainly demonstrate the scandalous nature of such error.

Consider the nature of error more particularly. 1. It is contrary to the truth of God, and therefore is a lie, just as scandalous practices are contrary to the holiness of God. Now, God’s truth and veracity are no less essential attributes than His holiness. 2. Error is not merely to lie, but to attribute the lie to the Most High, by fathering such lies upon Him and saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” when He has said no such thing, but rather the contrary. 3. It teaches others to lie, as in Matthew 5:19, and does so more forcibly and impudently than any practice can do. 4. It has its origin from the devil, who was a liar from the beginning and the father of lies, John 8:44; and those who spread corrupt doctrine have a special influence in upholding and spreading his kingdom. 5. It is a fruit of the flesh, even as murder, adultery, and witchcraft are; and seeing that the Apostle ranks it with such sins in Galatians 5:19–20, can it be anything other than scandalous?

The effects of error will further demonstrate this. 1. It spoils the vines, Song of Solomon 2:15; for wherever it is found, purity is injured. 2. It spoils government and order, for confusion accompanies it. 3. It spoils unity, and contention always accompanies it. As Galatians 5:15 expresses it, there follows a biting and devouring of one another; and such contention can be avoided only by harmony in evil, which is far more desperate. 4. And, following upon all these things, error destroys souls. It infects more speedily, more dangerously, and more widely than other practical scandals. Never has the Church been so defaced, nor have so many souls been destroyed by any scandalous practice, as by the spreading of corrupt doctrine.

And however we understand scandal, according to the general description formerly laid down—whether as something likely to stumble others and occasion their fall; or as something that weakens their confidence, disturbs their peace, and unsettles their minds; or as something that grieves the hearts of others; or, finally, as something that causes the ways of God to be spoken against—it will still be found that errors of this kind are properly to be accounted scandalous. Indeed, nothing more readily opens men’s mouths against religion than such error, as may be seen in 2 Peter 2:2. From all these considerations it appears that gross error is not merely a sin, but a scandalous sin, and indeed a scandal of the grossest nature.

CHAP. II. Concerning the spreading of Errour; Gods displeasure at the suffering thereof, and the fainting even of good men in restraining the same.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Spreading of Error; God’s Displeasure at Permitting It, and the Fainting Even of Good Men in Restraining the Same.

Besides this, there are three things worthy of consideration, which from this and other Epistles we have occasion to observe and inquire a little into, before we propose any particular question.

The first concerns the spreading and increase of error, and even of the most unreasonable and absurd errors, in the primitive times. The second concerns the Lord’s detesting of it, so that even the permitting of those who spread error is hateful to Him in His angels and Churches, though otherwise they may be commendable in their own particular conduct, as in Pergamos. On the other hand, their not enduring such persons is commendable, even when their own inward condition is not altogether approvable, as may be seen in Ephesus. The third concerns how there may sometimes be fainting in the zealous restraining of error, even among men who are by no means the worst.

For the first, can it but be thought strange that delusion should rise to such a height so soon? And it may cause all to tremble at the force and impetuousness of it. 1. This error of the Nicolaitans is a most foul and absurd error, contrary even to the light of nature. 2. It spreads and increases among several persons and Churches; and Church history shows that it abounded, while no less is suggested in these Epistles. 3. It spreads not only among heathens, but within the Church and among Christ’s servants, who are seduced by it. This shows that even some persons of note were carried away with it. 4. This happens in the purest times of the Churches, while some of the Apostles, at least John, were still alive when this error was spread. 5. It is carried on by instruments who were contemptible in comparison with others: a woman calling herself a prophetess, and some fellows calling themselves apostles and new lights, whom one would think should rather have been counted distracted than held in such reverence. 6. This is done against the testimony of their own faithful ministers, and in Churches where God had witnesses who kept themselves from that evil. Indeed, even where many professors were in that respect pure, others nevertheless followed the error, receiving and reverencing these seducers more than any faithful pastors. 7. This is done where neither light nor authority was lacking to convince them; for, without question, both were present, as may be gathered from the trial of those in Ephesus. Indeed, John writes from the Lord’s own mouth to refute them; and although there could be no exception against the application of his doctrine, yet this error continued to be adhered to for many years afterward. 8. John, or some other Apostle, had been the instrument of converting them from paganism to Christianity; yet now he cannot recover them from a foul error within Christianity once they are bewitched by it. No doubt his authority and arguments had less weight with them now than before they were Christians. Yet what could be thought more powerful for their conviction and recovery than these considerations?

The like was often Paul’s case, who at first had an easy work with people while they were heathens, in comparison with what he afterward had with the same people when they became Christians and were tainted with false doctrine, or became listeners to corrupt teachers, as is clear in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians. This shows, 1. The unreasonableness and power of a deluding spirit, so that nothing can convince when once people come to love the way in which they are going. They go on deceiving and being deceived and, as Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16, pervert the Scripture to their own destruction. And, as may be gathered, they do this by first corrupting that which appears more obscure, and then molding other Scriptures so that they may agree with the notions they have conceived to have some ground in the former passages. Thus they first form notions out of obscure places, and afterward conform the plainer Scriptures to those notions, whereas the exact opposite is the safest course. And when the ignorant and unstable come to account themselves the only ones learned in the mysteries of God, what wonder is it that they should be thus given up? Especially when they think that the plain truths and duties, in which there is not the least shadow of a ground for stumbling, are beneath them.

Thus they may attain such skill in wresting the Scriptures, even the plainest of them, as is implied there, that this may judicially serve their own destruction and prevent their being convinced, which might otherwise put them to shame and cause them to abandon their error. 2. We may see that it is no easy thing to recover a people who have been misled into error. That word perhaps in 2 Timothy 2:25 is not accidentally inserted, but may show that it is a hundred to one whether such persons obtain repentance. By this the Lord would frighten all from that evil; and the grosser their error is, often the more unreasonable men become in defending it, and the more obstinate in adhering to it. For there is more of a judicial stroke apparent in giving men up to such follies; it is scarcely credible that otherwise they could fall into them. And if they are thus smitten by God, is it possible that any reasoning can prevail with them while that plague remains upon them?

Was there ever any error like that of worshiping stocks and stones? It is contrary even to sense and reason that men should burn one part of a piece of wood, make some common use of another portion, and of a third make a deity, falling down and worshiping it, as the Prophet argues in Isaiah 44:19. Upon consideration, the absurdity of this might easily be discovered. Yet this is given as the reason for such blockishness in verse 18: “For he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.” 3. The unreasonableness of this spirit in men should therefore not be thought strange in any of the former respects, even though no person could stop their mouths, but they should seem to themselves to triumph in bringing forward unheard-of interpretations of Scripture. The more they abound in this, the more judicial it is to them. Likewise, the more persons they carry after them, and the more they are tolerated by others, the more it works toward their destruction.

Men should therefore keep their distance from these infections. No one can tell what they may grow into once they enter a giddy and unstable soul, carried along by the flood of a spirit of error. A person, being given up by God to such error because of itching after it and not receiving the love of the truth, may come to the most horrible things, and that without shame or remorse, before there is any end. Those who look on should acknowledge God’s justice in such strokes, and learn thereby to reverence and fear Him the more.

The second point cannot but be clear from this. For if error is such an evil that, 1. It conflicts both with God’s holiness and His truth; and, 2. It endangers so many souls—for never has a plague so destroyed the face of the visible Church, nor carried so many souls to hell, as error has done—then the permitting of it cannot but be hateful to Him who loves His Church. 3. There is no way by which the devil more reproaches the ordinances and the Word than this: by turning them to the very opposite end, as though he would outshoot the Lord with His own bow—which is abominable even to mention—and invert His own means and turn His own weapons against Him. To permit this is to connive at his design. 4. There is no way by which the devil may so gain access to Christ’s servants and seduce them as by this, as is clear in the Epistle to Thyatira. And can their danger come so near to Christ without His being displeased with that which strengthens the snares laid for them?

This, so far as lies in us, makes the devil equal to, yea, in some respect gives him preference over, the Lord, and therefore cannot but provoke His jealousy. For by this the devil has liberty to spread his lies equally with the truth; and since there are many lies, though there is but one truth, he has by this means more doors opened to him than the Gospel has. 6. This causes even the truth, the ordinances, and religion itself to be lightly esteemed. When all these things are equally tolerated, it is in effect a proclamation that these matters are indifferent; and nothing can more reflect upon the jealous God, who in His Word makes such a distinction and shows such detestation of indifference. 7. This brings enormous confusion upon the Church. For, first, if these errors and corrupt teachers prevail, they carry souls after them and destroy them; and ought that to be thought a light matter? Secondly, if they do not prevail, yet they trouble, afflict, and offend the godly, and so prove a snare and burden to those concerning whom the Lord is tender. 8. Toleration either thinks little of error, as though it were no harmful thing, in which case there can be no proper esteem of truth; or it thinks little of the destruction of souls. Both must be abominable. 9. Error not only breaks God’s Law, but teaches others to do the same; and therefore the permitting of it must amount to maintaining teachers who teach transgression and rebellion against the Lord.

The third thing observable is that, although zeal in a minister, especially against error, is exceedingly commendable, yet there is often fainting even among ministers who are not of the worst sort. The angel here is reproved for permitting these Nicolaitans, or at least for being faint and defective in pursuing them in a ministerial way, just as Antipas is commended for his faithfulness, and the angel of Ephesus for not fainting in carrying on this trial. The Lord has joined these two together, the faithful and wise steward; and when they are equally carried on, O how commendable they are! Yet, in the final reckoning, only the one is expressly mentioned: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” This is not to give a dispensation concerning the other, but to show the necessity and excellence of faithfulness, so that ministers may be pressed to it, lest under the pretense of prudence they encroach upon that freedom and faithfulness which is required of them, whether in undertaking or in prosecuting this charge. There will not be lacking many difficulties which will be ready to cause fainting, unless ministers boldly set themselves against them in the Lord’s strength, as we may instance in the following respects.

It may arise in respect of the time. There are some evil times in which it is difficult to know what to say, and for which the prudent may be said to keep silence. Yet often that pretense may become the occasion of fostering too much fainting when the Lord is calling for faithfulness. 2. It may arise from a man’s sense of his own infirmities and inadequacy for that charge, as seems to have been the case with Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1. This happens when a man’s view of himself, apart from respect to his calling, is made the rule by which he proceeds. 3. It may arise from the message which he is called to carry. Sharp messages are heavy and burdensome, and this caused Jonah for a time to avoid undertaking that denunciation against Nineveh, especially considering that such messengers are ordinarily not acceptable to their hearers. And there are usually not a few who sew pillows under armholes and are ready, in that respect, to destroy what others build.

It may arise from the hearers, and these may be of various dispositions. Some are ready, like swine, to turn back upon those who bring the message, as though they hated them. Thus Micaiah was treated by Ahab, 1 Kings 22, who nevertheless had four hundred flattering liars in favor. Others have itching ears and cannot endure convincing doctrine and faithfulness. Such persons are ready to separate from those who faithfully reprove them, or at least greatly to cool their affection toward them, which, as appears in 2 Timothy 4, is no small trial to a minister. Many also who are affectionate are nevertheless hasty and cannot endure plain dealing; and it is no less difficult to attain to faithfulness toward these than toward others who are openly profane.

There is a fainting which arises from distrust of God, when men are not confident of the performance of His promise or of their being supported in His work. Thus, seeing the thing to be impossible in themselves and in their own eyes, they give it up as though it were simply impossible. 6. There is a fainting which arises from supposed consequences, either because men think there will be no fruit from such a course, or because they fear that some inconvenience will follow it. It is likely that Moses was not altogether free of the first when he said, Israel does not, or will not, hear me; and what then will Pharaoh do? The latter is common when once flesh and blood are admitted to consult concerning duty on the basis of the supposed inconveniences that may follow. Then they readily decide that it is not a duty at all.

It may be that something of this was present here: that the angel feared the disturbing of the Church, or some schism that might follow from his action. The Lord’s threatening to take another way of fighting against them with the sword of His mouth seems to suggest this. For a carnal expedient, adopted to prevent some inconvenience, often brings upon men the very thing they feared, and that all the more speedily. Other grounds of such fainting might also be given, though none of them are approvable before God.