Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

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.

Assertion 2. Yet there are some cases in which entering into such debates is neither necessary nor expedient. As, 1. Supposing the matters are not new, but have already been sufficiently refuted, perhaps in other places not far away and not long before. For if men were continually to renew such debates, no truth would ever be acknowledged as settled, nor would there be opportunity for other and further duties. 2. When some persons are known vainly and deliberately to seek to throw everything into confusion by multiplying such debates and irreverently pursuing them, as though they had made this their trade or vocation. To answer such men according to their folly would be to partake in their guilt of taking the blessed Name of God in vain, and would be done merely to satisfy men’s humors rather than for the great end of edification. 3. When men become unreasonable, and in their debates show irrational contradiction and blasphemy, in such a case the debate is to be forborne or broken off with indignation and zeal for the glory of God, as we see Paul and Barnabas do in Acts 13:45–46.

4. Some erroneous persons are so gross and absurd that they are not to be disputed with, but rather reproved and abhorred. Therefore we see in these Epistles, Revelation 2 and 3, no disputing against the Nicolaitans, as Paul uses in other cases, because where such absurdities are openly maintained there is no access to fasten a conviction by reason, when men by such opinions show themselves unreasonable. 5. When men deny first principles, such as the authority or sufficiency of Scripture, or lay down new principles, such as an inward light, revelations, enthusiasms, and such like; or when they grossly and absurdly wrest and pervert Scripture, as Peter speaks of some, denying its clearest meanings and inventing senses which are most ridiculous. In such cases there is no access to dispute, not only because this cannot be done without allowing them opportunity to blaspheme, but also because there is no means by which they may be convinced, seeing the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is rendered useless to them.

For instance, Hymenaeus and Alexander said there was no resurrection yet to come, because it was already past. They did not lack dexterity in abusing Scripture, which says that there is a resurrection from sin and that by the new birth believers are raised from the dead. Now, applying what is spoken of the general and second resurrection to this particular and first resurrection is so gross that Paul does not dispute with such blasphemers and abusers of Scripture, but sentences them. For it is clear that they did not deny Scripture, or resurrection simply, but grossly and irrationally misapplied it. Of this sort also are those who will admit no distinctions, no consequences, no different meanings of words and phrases, and such like. For according to such principles Scripture is made to disagree with itself, to give no certain sound in anything, and to infer many absurdities, which it is blasphemous even to think.

Assertion 3. It is not to be thought that conviction consists only in putting the adverse party to silence, nor that this alone is intended when ministers are commanded to convince gainsayers. For men of corrupt and unruly spirits, as the Apostle says, wax worse and worse and resist the truth, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, 2 Timothy 3:8, and are therefore called reprobate concerning the faith. Indeed, sometimes the more they are pinched and hemmed in, the more loudly they cry out, and they will not yield to convincing truth, as we see in Acts 6:9–11 and Acts 13:45–46. Certainly none of Paul’s opposers were able truly to dispute with him; yet we scarcely ever find his adversaries silent. Though he put them to silence and actually convinced them, they still muttered and contradicted, so that often he broke off and shook the dust from his feet against them when arguments did not accomplish the work.

Often also, this continuing in contradiction, together with some dexterity in perverting Scripture to their own destruction, is itself penal and judicial to them, as was formerly observed, and follows upon their daring to oppose manifest truth. And who would have thought that those magicians who resisted Moses, after so many miracles, would not have been convinced and ceased to oppose him? Yet they continued nevertheless. And if it was so then, and afterward with Paul and the other Apostles, can it be expected to be otherwise now, seeing the spirit of Jannes and Jambres and the gainsaying of Korah are marked by Scripture as patterns which continue to recur?

If it be asked then, What is to be understood by conviction? And may a person be accounted convinced who nevertheless keeps the last word and confidently boasts of victory? We answer that conviction is not to be limited to acknowledgment or silence in the party convinced, as has already been shown. Indeed, those who are convinced may, as it were, cry the others out of the company by multitude of words and confidence of expression, as those Jews cried down Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:46. Therefore we see in that precept, Titus 3:10–11, that the heretic who is to be rejected is both said to refuse admonition and also to be condemned of himself; yet it cannot be said that he was put to silence by these admonitions or ceased to spread his errors. This therefore must be taken as certain, and is confirmed by 2 Timothy 2:25, where the recovery of opposers, even after sufficient instruction with meekness, has a “perhaps” placed upon it, as a thing very rarely found.

We must therefore place conviction in something else than silence. And so, in answer to the question, What is to be accounted conviction? We say, 1. It is when a person is so far convinced, and the truth and his error are so far cleared to be truth and error respectively, that his continuing obstinate cannot reasonably be supposed to arise merely from infirmity. This will often show itself in foolish, weightless, and unreasonable evasions and answers, or when there cannot be sufficient weight in the answer to satisfy a man’s own reason or conscience, if he were sober and himself. Upon this account the heretic is said to be “condemned of himself,” Titus 3:11. This does not mean that his conscience is actually condemning him for deliberate dissimulation; for even then it is supposed that he may remain under delusion, which keeps off such challenges. Their consciences are said to be “seared with a hot iron,” 1 Timothy 4:2, which implies that they are not capable of such inward positive convictions.

Rather, it must be understood thus: they are the cause of their own blindness, as willfully and maliciously refusing and rejecting light when it is offered to them. Thus the cause of their own condemnation does not arise from the neglect of others in failing to hold forth sufficient light, but from their own obstinacy, prejudice, and maliciousness. 2. They may be said to be convinced when the matter is made clear to sober and serious men, even as some stupid and ignorant persons are inexcusable in their ignorance when they live under such means as others of ordinary capacity profit by. Although plain preaching, discourse, or doctrine may not be understood by them, yet it may justly be said that the light was sufficient to instruct them, or the Gospel sufficient to convince them, seeing others have profited by the same.

3. They may be said to be convinced even when they continue to answer, if there is no answer to the point in what they say, but only an absurd denying or asserting of things without reason; or when they grant absurd consequences, or assert one absurdity possibly greater than another which they sought to avoid; or when they break out into bitter railing against men’s persons and seek to defame them in order to strengthen their cause. Thus the false teachers dealt with Paul among the Corinthians and Galatians, and the Libertines dealt with Stephen by spreading calumnies against him and provoking others against him, Acts 6. Or when, in their answers and debates, they break out into blasphemy against God, against His Scriptures, or against His ordinances. Such persons, in such cases, are to be accounted sufficiently convinced, and their obstinacy is to be accounted malicious.

This we may gather from other places, and particularly from Acts 13:45–46, where, when they come to willful contradiction and blaspheming, Paul and Barnabas reason with them no more. Likewise, in Acts 28:24–25, some Jews are accounted sufficiently convinced, and their contradiction to proceed from judicial blindness, when they reject that Word which sufficiently convinces others. We see also in Acts 17:32 that when men begin to mock the fundamental things of religion, or to evade clear places of Scripture by placing strange and absurd interpretations upon them, as was formerly noted of Hymenaeus and Alexander, such persons are not to be disputed with any further, but are to be accounted abundantly convinced, notwithstanding their most confident contradiction. What was formerly said concerning cases in which public debate ought not to be admitted may be applied here also, as evidences of sufficient conviction and self-condemnation in such persons.

Assertion 4. When any such debate is found necessary, much spiritual zeal and prudence are required in managing it. Besides what is generally required in the manner of every duty, these things are particularly to be observed. 1. It must not be tumultuous and confused, because in that way the Name of God is dealt with irreverently and exposed to reproach. Therefore order, reverence, and whatever is necessary and suitable for such an end are to be provided. Otherwise such confused meetings are to be abandoned when entered into, as dishonorable to the Name of God and unbecoming the gravity which ministers ought to maintain, as we see in Acts 13:45–46 and Acts 19:30–32. For in such a case there is no opportunity for edification.

2. Men should undertake such a task self-deniedly when called to it, being convinced how difficult the work is, how weak they themselves are, and how subtle the principal adversary is with whom they have to deal. Therefore it should not be undertaken merely upon the account of gifts, abilities, or learning; nor should it be managed only or mainly by subtle arguments, nor should advantage be chiefly sought by that means. Rather, simple truth should be plainly, gravely, and zealously proposed, with a view to affecting the conscience both of the adverse party and of the hearers. As in preaching, the most subtle and learned discourses do not always prove the most effective; so in debates which concern conscience, substantial plainness demonstrating the truth with power to the conscience often carries the clearest evidence with it.

There is a notable instance recorded by Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History, book 10, chapter 3. At the Council of Nicaea, great scholars had gathered from many places upon the report of that famous meeting, and some leading philosophers also came. One of the most eminent of these frequently disputed with the greatest scholars, who were never able to bind him, because, as Rufinus says, such was his nimbleness that, like an eel, he slipped away from them by one evasion or another whenever the arguments seemed most constraining.

But God, that He might show His Kingdom did not consist in word but in power, stirred up one of the confessors, a man of very simple nature who knew little besides Jesus Christ and Him crucified. When he saw the philosopher insulting and boasting in his quickness, he asked permission to speak with him briefly. The others tried to prevent it, knowing the man’s simplicity and fearing that he might become a reproach before subtle men. Nevertheless, he persisted and began in this way: “Philosopher, in the Name of Jesus Christ, hear these things which are true. There is one God who made heaven and earth, and formed man from the dust, and gave him a spirit; who made all things visible and invisible; who sent His Son, born of a virgin, to deliver us miserable sinners from everlasting death by His suffering of death, and who has given us eternal life by His resurrection; whom we expect to come as Judge of whatever we do. Philosopher, do you believe these things?”

Then the philosopher, as though he no longer knew how to contradict, astonished at the power of what was said and put to silence, could answer only that it appeared to be so, and that there was nothing but truth in what the old man had spoken. Then the aged confessor said, “If you believe so, rise and follow me to the Church, and receive the seal of this faith.” The philosopher, turning to those who were with him and to the other hearers, said, “Hear, O learned men: while the matter was managed with me by words, I opposed words to words; but when instead of words power proceeded from the mouth of him who spoke, words could not resist power, nor man God. Therefore, if any of you have felt what I have, let him believe in Christ and follow this old man in whom God has spoken.” Thus far Rufinus—a story not unworthy of observation.

3. It should be known what principles may be laid down, or what rules may be binding; otherwise there may be an asserting of anything and a denying of everything. 4. There should always be a ministerial gravity and authority preserved, lest that ordinance become contemptible. Ministers should therefore make use of their reason, light, authority, and ministerial commission from Christ upon the consciences of those with whom they have to do, as we see Paul does in his debates, even where his own authority was much questioned.

CHAP. XI. Admonition is necessary, and how to be performed.

The third step is admonition; that is, when convictions have no success, ministers ought then to proceed to judicial and authoritative admonitions, as the word is in the direction, Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretick reject, after the first and second admonition.” This admonition adds no new reason to inform the judgment, which is already presupposed to have been done, but it adds these two things. 1. It has a concurring weight to affect the conscience which has resisted or smothered the light; and so, by God’s blessing, it is useful to make former despised light be more seriously and impartially weighed and considered, when in His Name the admonition is particularly directed to them upon that account. 2. It is a warning, giving notice of some sadder thing to come if they continue to reject the truth; and so it is a threatening of them for that particular fault before the stroke is laid on, that either, by God’s blessing, it may humble and soften them, and so cause them to endeavor to prevent the coming stroke; or, if they continue stubborn, it may make them more inexcusable. Thus there is clearer access to proceed to rejection.

This admonition may be considered in these three steps. 1. It may be in private. After the minister has conferred with the persons and found them guilty, he may not only instruct them, but afterward, if they continue, admonish them, and that as a minister, in the Name and authority of Jesus Christ, which is more than the admonition of a private person. 2. There is a step of this admonition to be passed judicially by a Church-judicatory when the person is brought before them, whereby they judicially interpose their authority to admonish such a person concerning the evil of his way and the necessity of the present duty of repentance for the same, like that which was sinfully and most abominably misapplied by the priests and Pharisees in Acts 4 and 5. Yet that in general there is such an admonition is apparent. 3. The third step is publicly before the people, in which, after the former has failed to reach the desired end, the infected party is solemnly and publicly admonished before the congregation. In this step, 1. The party’s good is to be respected, that now it may be tried whether the admonition both of officers and people, who are supposed to join in this public admonition, may have weight. 2. It is useful for the people, to guard them against such an evil and such a person. 3. If it does not succeed, it leaves the person more inexcusable and convinces all of the justice and necessity of proceeding further, and so tends to make the sentence more respected by all. This, we conceive, is the admonition intended in Titus 3:10, and answers to that public rebuke spoken of in 1 Timothy 5:20.

In carrying on these admonitions, these things should be observed. 1. There should be no great haste, except where the person’s readiness and diligence to infect others requires it, in which case no delay is to be admitted. 2. All these steps of admonition should be carried on in such a way as becomes an ordinance of Christ, so that the weight of them may lie there. 3. A difference is to be made between giving an admonition and entering into a debate or conference. Therefore there is no necessity of suspending an admonition because the person is absent, any more than there is of suspending a warning or citation. And, on the other side, if the persons are present and should contradict and oppose themselves, there is neither necessity nor convenience in entering into debate again, because that is not the present work, but authoritatively to admonish those who have resisted sufficient conviction. They are therefore to be left under the weight of the admonition, from which a renewed debate would detract.

The fourth thing, and that which follows fruitless admonition, is rejection, Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretick, reject.” This rejection is the same as excommunication, or delivering to Satan, 1 Timothy 1:20. Concerning this, these things are clear.

1. A man continuing a heretic may and ought to be rejected and excommunicated as well as for any other gross scandal. For, 1. The precept is plain in the place cited: “A man that is an heretick, reject,” which must mean casting him out from Church-communion and giving him over in respect of the use of any further means for his edification, which is in effect to account him as a heathen man and a publican, and which in 1 Corinthians 5:13 is called putting away from among ourselves a wicked person. 2. The example and precedent is clear in 1 Timothy 1:20. 3. Where this is followed, it is commended, as in Ephesus, Revelation 2; and where it is forborne, and corrupt teachers are suffered to remain in the Church, it is very sharply reproved, as in the Epistles to Pergamos and Thyatira. 4. The general grounds concerning scandal and discipline against it, and the reasons which enforce the exercise of discipline in any case, have weight here. For, 1. It is exceedingly scandalous. 2. It is hurtful to the Church. 3. Discipline, and particularly that sentence, is appointed for remedying the hurts of the Church and removing offenses from it. These grounds have formerly been cleared. Therefore it plainly follows that this sentence is to proceed against such persons. But for further clearing of this there are some questions to be answered.

2. It may be questioned, What if the person is godly, or accounted so? Answer. I shall not say how unlikely it is that a truly gracious man should be a minister of Satan; we have spoken of that already. But supposing it to be so, 1. If it is scandalous in a gracious man, is not the same remedy to be used for the Church’s good? 2. Paul’s supposition in Galatians 1:8–9 puts this beyond all question: “Though we,” says he, “or an Angel from Heaven, preach another Gospel, let him be accursed.” And again he says it, to put the matter beyond controversy: “If any man shall preach another Gospel, let him be accursed.” And if Paul will except no man, not even himself, no, nor an Angel from Heaven, who can be excepted? The mistake lies in this, that excommunication is not looked upon as an ordinance of Christ, useful through His blessing for humbling and reclaiming a sinner more than if it were not applied. Whereas, if it were looked upon as medicinal in its own kind, it would not be so interpreted; for, by comparing 1 Corinthians 5 with 2 Corinthians 2, we will find that it was more profitable to the excommunicated person himself that this sentence was passed than if it had been forborne.

3. It may be asked, What if the person is no fixed member of any particular congregation, and yet infects others? Answer. This cannot be sufficient to exempt him from censure. Because, 1. He is a member of the catholic Church; therefore censures must in some way reach him. Otherwise, supposing a man to disclaim all particular congregations, he might be a member of the Church and yet be reached by no censure. 2. He might claim the privileges of any particular congregation, if he carried himself properly, as one who is a member of the Church catholic. Therefore it would seem, by proportion and the rule of contraries, that Presbyteries may reach him with their censures if by his misconduct he becomes offensive to the people. 3. We see that the Church of Ephesus, Revelation 2, judicially tried and censured those who called themselves apostles, who, it is likely, being strangers, obtruded themselves upon them under that title and so could not be accounted members of that Church. And indeed there is no less need, for the edification of the people of particular congregations and for guarding them against the hurt that may come by wandering persons, that such persons either be censured somewhere by one congregation, or by many in associated Church-judicatories, or at least that some public note and mark be put upon them, so that others may be warned to avoid them, as the word may be understood in Romans 16:17–18 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14, which speaks there of busybodies and wanderers without any certain calling or station.

4. It may be questioned, What if magistrates in their place do not concur, or if the case should so fall out that they are displeased with the drawing forth of such a sentence? Answer. This may require the greater prudence, zeal, and circumspection, but it ought not to hinder the progress. Because, 1. Excommunication is an ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ for the edification of His Church, as preaching and administering the sacraments are. 2. The same question might have been asked in the primitive times when Paul excommunicated, and when the Lord reproved the want of it, Revelation 2. There was then no concurrence of civil power. Yea, 3. In this case it seems most necessary; and even the greatest enemies of Church-discipline allow the Church to sentence her members in such a case. 4. The weight of this sentence does not depend upon civil power, but upon Christ’s institution. Therefore the weight of it is to be laid there, whatever civil powers may do. 5. We find the primitive Fathers hazarding martyrdom upon this very point, so that when corrupt emperors prohibited them from excommunicating Arians and other heretics, they nevertheless did it. And by designating beforehand whom they desired to succeed them in their places before they passed the sentence, they declared themselves ready to suffer, upon this account, whatever might follow; and accordingly some of them were immediately put to suffering.

5. We say that although a heretic is to be rejected, yet there is a twofold limitation to be observed in Titus 3:9. First, it is not every erroneous person who is to be dealt with in this way, but he must be a heretic. This implies these three things. 1. A perniciousness and destructiveness in the error maintained. 2. An actual spreading of it to the destruction of the Church, either by corrupting doctrine, marring order, breaking its unity, or in some other way spoiling the vines that have tender grapes. 3. It implies pertinacity in such evils.

It is true that sometimes lesser errors, in respect of their effects and other aggravating circumstances, may become intolerable and may be proceeded against by this sentence, as was said formerly concerning lesser scandals in practice. Yet we conceive that, properly speaking, it is some grosser error than what may be accounted an infirmity, such as many godly, sober, unprejudiced men may hold, that is to be the ground of such a sentence. Therefore we refer the determination of this to the distinctions formerly laid down.

2. We find it qualified by this also, that this rejection is not to proceed hastily, but is to follow upon rejected and slighted admonitions. Therefore, if an admonition has been received beforehand and the Church has been heard in it, there is no further proceeding to be made in reference to this sentence. Because, 1. The limitation is express. 2. The reason is clear; for if the lesser means accomplish the end, and prevail to recover the person and remove the offense from the Church, what need is there of more?

CHAP. XII. What is to be accounted a satisfying and successe∣full admonition.



If it be asked, What is to be accounted a satisfying and successful admonition? And how are men to judge of, and walk in reference to, the same? Answer. We should distinguish satisfaction or success as to an admonition, which may be either full satisfaction or only partial. Full satisfaction is when the person is so fully convinced of his evil as not only to forbear the venting of it, and to give no offense for the time to come, but also fully to abandon the same, as being grieved for it and willing to edify others by a suitable acknowledgment.

Again, we call that a partial satisfaction or success when, although a fully satisfying length is not attained, yet it cannot be said to be altogether fruitless. As suppose, 1. A person should not be brought wholly to disclaim his errors, yet should profess a conviction of the evil of venting them and troubling the Church with them, and afterward should engage to abstain from offending in that kind. 2. Suppose one should be convinced of the grosser errors and be content to disclaim these, yet should stick at some others, professing scruple concerning them.

We should also distinguish those who give partial satisfaction. 1. Either they are such as appear to be sincere in the length to which they come, and in the professions which they make, as also to be docile and ready to be informed; or they are such as discover a want of sincerity in their proceeding, and show themselves only to be lying in wait to return to their vomit.

Now to apply this, we say, 1. When this satisfaction is full, there is no question; for thereby not only is all further process to be stopped, but the person is to be admitted to communion in Church-privileges.

2. Where this partial success is of the first sort, we conceive that it may be sufficient to stop the process for a time, and to continue the persons under means within the Church, so long as they do not contradict their profession; yet it is not sufficient to give them free access to all Church-privileges, as if the scandal were fully removed.

3. Where that satisfaction is only of the last kind, that is, mocking and dissembled, we say that, although it may require a Church-judicatory to try the evidences of this dissimulation, and during that time possibly to stop their proceeding a little, yet it ought not to hinder the drawing forth of the sentence, lest there be an accession to the hurt which is intended to the Church by that dissembler. And here we are to apply both the reasons against, and the marks of, dissimulation which were spoken of concerning practical offenses.

4. If there is no seeming satisfaction at all, then, after admonitions have been given, the person despising the same is to be rejected, as one who is infectious and unfit to have communion in the Church, or the benefit of any Church-privilege and ordinance. And, in a word, for his scandal and obstinacy against Christ’s ordinances, he is to be declared excommunicate and cast out of His visible Kingdom, as an outlaw from the same. This is to be done with such gravity, weightiness, sympathy, and authority that it may appear to be the ordinance of Christ and may carry an impression of His dread and Majesty upon all who are witnesses of it.

If it be asked, Whether any further duty is required from a minister toward such a person after the sentence is passed? Answer. He is not then properly under pastoral charge, since he is no member of Christ’s visible Church, at least in that respect in which members fall under common and ordinary actual inspection. Yet we conceive, 1. That the minister is to continue to deal with God for him, at least in private, if perhaps he may be recovered out of this snare, because he is under the last cure, which will prove either life or death. God’s blessing upon it is therefore to be sought; and it well becomes the natural care of a kindly minister, who is thirsting for the blessing, to deal with God for it. 2. Although there is no actual access to do anything, yet there ought to be a lying in wait to observe any opportunity which may be for his good; and when it offers, it should be carefully improved. And therefore, 3. For that end, whatever indignation is shown against a man’s ways or errors, so as to make these loathsome to others, yet there should still be evidence of tender respect toward the persons, and, if need be, means used to supply them, especially if they come into any difficulty; although in all this such a distance should be kept as may preserve the weight of the sentence both to them and to others.

But by this means their suspicious misconceptions of ministers, as though there were carnal hostility against their persons, are best removed, and access is thereby gained for being edifying to them. Some examples of this are recorded in the life of Musculus, concerning his tenderness toward persons who were most desperately deluded, when they were in affliction and exceedingly discountenanced by magistrates, which God blessed in the end for their recovery. This is suitable: severity in magistrates, and tenderness in ministers. And among the other evils and snares which that cruel indulgence—which is indeed cruel to the poor souls to whom it becomes a snare—has following upon it, this is one: that the magistrate is accounted merciful and the zealous minister cruel, whereby they are put into an incapacity to be edified by the one, and into a capacity, as it were, to miscarry as they please through the indulgence of the other.

CHAP. XIII. What is required of Magistrates for restraining of seducing spirits.

The second thing that we proposed to speak to in this remedy was as it relates to magistrates, namely, Whether anything is, or what it is, that is called for by the Word of God from them, to be performed in their stations for the drying up of such a flood and removing of such a plague? It is not our purpose to insist upon this as much as upon the former. Yet it is fitting that we say something. And who knows but it may fall into the hand of some magistrate who may be desirous to hear and know his duty? We shall lay it down in an assertion or two, thus:

Assertion 1. Although God has not made magistrates, as such, Church-officers, nor entrusted them with the ecclesiastical government of His Church, yet He does allow them and call them to employ their civil power for the good of His Church in ecclesiastical things in some respect, as well as in civil things. And therefore, if a magistrate does not see to the providing of ministers for a people, and of maintenance for them, and such like things as are necessary for the being of a Church, as well as he provides officers and furnishes those things that are necessary in the State, he is faulty and unfaithful to his trust. For the Lord’s design in settling societies and appointing magistrates is to be understood as subservient to that great end of men’s glorifying God and enjoying Him. And certainly magistrates are to have that as their own end, even in the actions of their station, and to endeavor to promote it among those over whom they rule for their good.

This is clear in all the governments and commonwealths which the Lord immediately modeled Himself: magistrates had this as a special part of their task, to keep His ordinances pure and to restrain the corrupters of them. This is expressed in the Moral Law, where masters are no less to oversee their servants, that they do not work on the Sabbath, out of respect to the Lord, than to direct their work throughout the week out of respect to themselves. And by the rules for interpreting these commands, whatever belongs to a master to be done by him as a master, in reference to those over whom he has power according to his station, belongs also to all magistrates in reference to those under their charge, according to their stations. Also, where one instance is named, all things of that kind are comprehended. And therefore, as this ordinance of sanctifying the Sabbath is to be overseen by superiors, so also are all others. Yea, it is acknowledged also that what is expressed in one command, in respect of its extent, is to be understood in all. Therefore this obligation lies upon superiors, to make inferiors observant of God’s ordinances in reference to all the commands. This is not doubted concerning the duties of the second Table; yet there is no expression in it inferring the same so expressly as there is in the first. And this is a common assertion: magistrates have both Tables of the Law committed to their keeping. This has been fully demonstrated by many godly and learned men, and we need not insist upon it; for ordinarily no magistrate questions his own power, that he may do what is fitting. The whole matter is to consider what that is.

Assertion 2. It is not a magistrate’s duty, in the case of overspreading delusion, merely to look to outward order, civil peace, and injury, and to give liberty to any or many sorts of dangerous errors and delusions to spread, or to give toleration to those who maintain them in their spreading of the same. For, 1. Such errors are evil deeds, and such spreaders are evildoers, bringing great prejudice to people, Galatians 5:20; 2 John 11. 2. Magistrates ought to be a terror to evildoers indefinitely; and I suppose, if the sword is borne in vain in reference to them, the conscience will have no ground of quietness in the day of judgment upon a distinction of evildoers when the Lord has made no such distinction in their commission. 3. They ought to be zealous for the honor of Him who is their Superior, that His Name be not blasphemed. And can such persons be tolerated without this construction upon the matter, that men have liberty to blaspheme the Name of God, to abuse His truth, reproach His ordinances, and take His Name in vain as they please? Would any supreme magistrate take it well to have some inferior officer or magistrate of a town or province give such liberty to those under his jurisdiction in reference to him? And is there any such distance between the supreme and inferior magistrate as there is between the Majesty of God and the most supreme power on earth? And what if He should judge between Himself and them out of their own mouth, and according to the measure which they measure out to others, measure out to them?

4. Are magistrates not to seek the people’s good? And is there any such good as their spiritual good? Or are there any such enemies to that good as seducers? We conceive, therefore, that it will not be found agreeable to the intent of their office and the end which they ought to aim at therein that magistrates should give this liberty or connivance to men, to vent and propagate such errors as may destroy souls and actually overturn the face of a visible Church; so that, if something should overspread universally, as Popery and some other gross errors and delusions have done in some places of the world, there should be no visible Church within such dominions. And indeed, upon these principles, men cannot impute it to their own care that it is otherwise.

Also, such looseness may overturn ordinances and set up abominations in their place, remove all ministry, sacraments, discipline, and preaching, and all upon the pretext of conscience. Such delusions have been in the world; and if, through the magistrate’s connivance, they should overspread a nation so that no remedy could be applied, would it be satisfying or comfortable to him, supposing him to have a conscience, to see his people under him in such a condition? What if, under the pretext of conscience, magistracy itself should be denied to be an ordinance of God, and he should be put from it upon the ground that the people thought it unlawful to obey him? Would not his conscience readily say that, seeing he did not restrain others from casting off those ordinances in which the honor of God and the good of souls were so much concerned, it was just with God to permit them to cast off that ordinance also in which he himself was so greatly concerned? And indeed, it has not been infrequently seen that those who began by casting off Church-ordinances have at length, as if they had been disposed to it by the former, come to cast off civil ordinances also, if we may so speak. And what wonder is it, seeing there is no clearer warrant from God for the one than for the other?

If it be said that what has been spoken in the doctrine, and concerning these places in Revelation 2, about not suffering corrupt teachers to vent their errors, belongs to ministers and Church-officers and not to magistrates, Answer. 1. If you are a magistrate who makes this objection, ask your own heart whether that which is so displeasing in ministers and Church-officers, namely, toleration of corrupt men to spread their errors, will be well pleasing and approved in magistrates when Christ Jesus shall come to judge both in reference to this thing; or whether, in that day when the great Judge shall sentence ministers for tolerating in such a case, He will take another rule by which to proceed with the magistrate? Or is it likely that Christ, out of love to His Church, should peremptorily require ministers not to suffer false teachers, but to restrain them according to their stations, and not to endure them to teach and seduce His servants, and yet that the same Lord, for the good of His Church, should require magistrates to tolerate and maintain the same?

2. Consider whether the grounds and reasons which bind this duty upon ministers will not equivalently and proportionately bind all men according to their stations; for the grounds are, in sum, love to God and love to the edification and salvation of others, which are the substance and fulfilling of the Moral Law. 3. Consider whether, in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, or in history since, these two have not always been joined together: the most commended magistrate and one who is most zealous against corrupt teachers. The fathers of old were not to spare their children, Deuteronomy 13, nor suffer them to teach or seduce to the dishonor of God and hazard of souls. And can it be said that souls now are less precious, or error now less infectious and dangerous, or these things less to be cared for now in the days of the Gospel than formerly, which concern the glory of God and the edification or destruction of souls?

Consider whether, in the Book of Revelation, the suffering of Antichrist to delude souls is not mentioned as reprovable; and whether the destroying of that beast and putting him from corrupting the earth is not spoken of as a principal part of the commendation of those who shall be instrumental therein. Now, in the language of Scripture, all deluders and seducers are antichrists, being led by the same spirit and pursuing the same design against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Can there therefore be any reason to make such a difference where the Lord has made none? 5. Consider whether it can be accounted sincere zeal which persuades men to permit the Name of God to be dishonored when any reflection upon our own name moves us so greatly. For this implies either that there is an indifference between truth and error, so that in the one the Lord is not more dishonored than in the other—which will be found exceedingly contrary to His own expressions concerning Himself in Scripture and will not, I suppose, be pleaded in the day of judgment when He shall avenge Himself upon such seducers—or it must imply that men are not to take notice of what dishonors Him, even though many things are within their reach to prevent it.

And indeed, if a conscience seriously pondering the matter will not be provoked by zeal for God, whose glory suffers; by respect to the salvation of many souls, which are endangered and destroyed by such means; by a desire to prevent the many offenses which necessarily attend such evils; by the many inconveniences, divisions, jealousies, rents, and the like which follow in families, congregations, cities, and nations; and by the great prejudice which the commonwealth suffers through the distracting of her members among themselves, the incapacitating of many for public trust, and the fostering of diverse interests and contrary principles in one body, to the marring of honest public designs—if, I say, the zeal and conscience of those who are concerned are not provoked by these things, by what will or can they be?

If it be said that it looks more Gospel-like, and more conducive to the furtherance of Christ’s Kingdom, that magistrates should leave men to follow their light and to be dealt with by the preaching of the Gospel and its power, we shall propose these considerations in reference to this. 1. Consider whether it looks Christian and tender for men so to stand by in the Lord’s cause and let Him, as it were, act for Himself. It was indeed once said of Baal, Judges 6, “If he be a god, let him plead for himself.” But will a tender heart think or speak so reproachfully of the Majesty of God? He indeed can and will plead for Himself; and it is not from lack of power that He makes use of men to defend His truth or restrain errors. Yet it is His good pleasure to make use of magistrates therein, and thereby to honor them, as He does Gideon in that same place.

2. Consider whether it looks Christian to give the devil equal access with Jesus Christ to pursue his designs in setting up his kingdom. Now absolute toleration does this, and more, because there is but one truth and there are many errors, and each of these has the same liberty and immunity, so to speak, that truth has, and may with the same confidence come forth into the open light as truth may, in respect of any civil restraint. 3. Consider the case of Antichrist. There is no error against which the Lord has more directly engaged Himself to fight with the sword of His mouth than this of Popery; and yet we suppose none will think that kings might warrantably suffer it to be spread and preached to the infecting of their people, without adding or enjoining any restraint by their civil power. Certainly their hating of the whore and making her desolate implies something more. And wherever true hatred of error exists, there will be a more effectual stretching forth of men’s power and places for restraining the same.

3. We may add this consideration: that hitherto toleration of errors and diversity of corrupt opinions have always been looked upon and made use of as a most subtle means for undermining and destroying the Church. It is recorded of that skillful enemy of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Julian, that, having employed his subtlety to the utmost to discover means by which to destroy the Church through craft, which his predecessors had been unable to accomplish through violence, among other means he resolved not to raise an open persecution, but to give liberty to all the differing bishops and teachers—who then, after the Council of Nicaea and Constantine’s death, were very numerous and bitter in their differences—to follow their own way and vent their own opinions without any fear of restraint. Therefore he called them together that he might make this known to them for their further encouragement therein. The words which he used to them, as they are recorded by Ammianus and cited by Ludovicus Molinaeus, page 560, are: Ut consopitis civilibus discordiis, suae quisque Religioni serviret intrepidus; that is, in sum, that every one, forbearing civil discord, should worship according to his own religion without control or fear. And is it likely that this should prove a means useful for the good of the Church which that expert child of the devil made use of to destroy the same?

Our third assertion, then, is that magistrates in their places ought to prevent the infection of the people under them by corrupt doctrine, and to seek their recovery when they are ensnared; and that therefore they ought to restrain and hinder corrupt teachers from spreading their errors to seduce others. This assertion, we suppose, is clear from the former two. For if magistrates are allowed to employ their power for the good of the Church, and if it is not their duty to give error and those who spread it the same common protection as truth, then it follows that they ought to use their power to restrain the same and, by the exercise of it, to procure the good of their people by preserving them from so great an evil.

CHAP. XIV. What may be justly acknowledged to be within the reach and power of the Magistrate in such a case, and so, what is his duty.

The second thing that we proposed to speak to in this remedy was as it relates to magistrates, namely, Whether anything is, or what it is, that is called for by the Word of God from them, to be performed in their stations for the drying up of such a flood and removing of such a plague? It is not our purpose to insist upon this as much as upon the former. Yet it is fitting that we say something. And who knows but it may fall into the hand of some magistrate who may be desirous to hear and know his duty? We shall lay it down in an assertion or two, thus:

Assertion 1. Although God has not made magistrates, as such, Church-officers, nor entrusted them with the ecclesiastical government of His Church, yet He does allow them and call them to employ their civil power for the good of His Church in ecclesiastical things in some respect, as well as in civil things. And therefore, if a magistrate does not see to the providing of ministers for a people, and of maintenance for them, and such like things as are necessary for the being of a Church, as well as he provides officers and furnishes those things that are necessary in the State, he is faulty and unfaithful to his trust. For the Lord’s design in settling societies and appointing magistrates is to be understood as subservient to that great end of men’s glorifying God and enjoying Him. And certainly magistrates are to have that as their own end, even in the actions of their station, and to endeavor to promote it among those over whom they rule for their good.

This is clear in all the governments and commonwealths which the Lord immediately modeled Himself: magistrates had this as a special part of their task, to keep His ordinances pure and to restrain the corrupters of them. This is expressed in the Moral Law, where masters are no less to oversee their servants, that they do not work on the Sabbath, out of respect to the Lord, than to direct their work throughout the week out of respect to themselves. And by the rules for interpreting these commands, whatever belongs to a master to be done by him as a master, in reference to those over whom he has power according to his station, belongs also to all magistrates in reference to those under their charge, according to their stations. Also, where one instance is named, all things of that kind are comprehended. And therefore, as this ordinance of sanctifying the Sabbath is to be overseen by superiors, so also are all others. Yea, it is acknowledged also that what is expressed in one command, in respect of its extent, is to be understood in all. Therefore this obligation lies upon superiors, to make inferiors observant of God’s ordinances in reference to all the commands. This is not doubted concerning the duties of the second Table; yet there is no expression in it inferring the same so expressly as there is in the first. And this is a common assertion: magistrates have both Tables of the Law committed to their keeping. This has been fully demonstrated by many godly and learned men, and we need not insist upon it; for ordinarily no magistrate questions his own power, that he may do what is fitting. The whole matter is to consider what that is.

Assertion 2. It is not a magistrate’s duty, in the case of overspreading delusion, merely to look to outward order, civil peace, and injury, and to give liberty to any or many sorts of dangerous errors and delusions to spread, or to give toleration to those who maintain them in their spreading of the same. For, 1. Such errors are evil deeds, and such spreaders are evildoers, bringing great prejudice to people, Galatians 5:20; 2 John 11. 2. Magistrates ought to be a terror to evildoers indefinitely; and I suppose, if the sword is borne in vain in reference to them, the conscience will have no ground of quietness in the day of judgment upon a distinction of evildoers when the Lord has made no such distinction in their commission. 3. They ought to be zealous for the honor of Him who is their Superior, that His Name be not blasphemed. And can such persons be tolerated without this construction upon the matter, that men have liberty to blaspheme the Name of God, to abuse His truth, reproach His ordinances, and take His Name in vain as they please? Would any supreme magistrate take it well to have some inferior officer or magistrate of a town or province give such liberty to those under his jurisdiction in reference to him? And is there any such distance between the supreme and inferior magistrate as there is between the Majesty of God and the most supreme power on earth? And what if He should judge between Himself and them out of their own mouth, and according to the measure which they measure out to others, measure out to them?

4. Are magistrates not to seek the people’s good? And is there any such good as their spiritual good? Or are there any such enemies to that good as seducers? We conceive, therefore, that it will not be found agreeable to the intent of their office and the end which they ought to aim at therein that magistrates should give this liberty or connivance to men, to vent and propagate such errors as may destroy souls and actually overturn the face of a visible Church; so that, if something should overspread universally, as Popery and some other gross errors and delusions have done in some places of the world, there should be no visible Church within such dominions. And indeed, upon these principles, men cannot impute it to their own care that it is otherwise.

Also, such looseness may overturn ordinances and set up abominations in their place, remove all ministry, sacraments, discipline, and preaching, and all upon the pretext of conscience. Such delusions have been in the world; and if, through the magistrate’s connivance, they should overspread a nation so that no remedy could be applied, would it be satisfying or comfortable to him, supposing him to have a conscience, to see his people under him in such a condition? What if, under the pretext of conscience, magistracy itself should be denied to be an ordinance of God, and he should be put from it upon the ground that the people thought it unlawful to obey him? Would not his conscience readily say that, seeing he did not restrain others from casting off those ordinances in which the honor of God and the good of souls were so much concerned, it was just with God to permit them to cast off that ordinance also in which he himself was so greatly concerned? And indeed, it has not been infrequently seen that those who began by casting off Church-ordinances have at length, as if they had been disposed to it by the former, come to cast off civil ordinances also, if we may so speak. And what wonder is it, seeing there is no clearer warrant from God for the one than for the other?

If it be said that what has been spoken in the doctrine, and concerning these places in Revelation 2, about not suffering corrupt teachers to vent their errors, belongs to ministers and Church-officers and not to magistrates, Answer. 1. If you are a magistrate who makes this objection, ask your own heart whether that which is so displeasing in ministers and Church-officers, namely, toleration of corrupt men to spread their errors, will be well pleasing and approved in magistrates when Christ Jesus shall come to judge both in reference to this thing; or whether, in that day when the great Judge shall sentence ministers for tolerating in such a case, He will take another rule by which to proceed with the magistrate? Or is it likely that Christ, out of love to His Church, should peremptorily require ministers not to suffer false teachers, but to restrain them according to their stations, and not to endure them to teach and seduce His servants, and yet that the same Lord, for the good of His Church, should require magistrates to tolerate and maintain the same?

2. Consider whether the grounds and reasons which bind this duty upon ministers will not equivalently and proportionately bind all men according to their stations; for the grounds are, in sum, love to God and love to the edification and salvation of others, which are the substance and fulfilling of the Moral Law. 3. Consider whether, in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, or in history since, these two have not always been joined together: the most commended magistrate and one who is most zealous against corrupt teachers. The fathers of old were not to spare their children, Deuteronomy 13, nor suffer them to teach or seduce to the dishonor of God and hazard of souls. And can it be said that souls now are less precious, or error now less infectious and dangerous, or these things less to be cared for now in the days of the Gospel than formerly, which concern the glory of God and the edification or destruction of souls?

Consider whether, in the Book of Revelation, the suffering of Antichrist to delude souls is not mentioned as reprovable; and whether the destroying of that beast and putting him from corrupting the earth is not spoken of as a principal part of the commendation of those who shall be instrumental therein. Now, in the language of Scripture, all deluders and seducers are antichrists, being led by the same spirit and pursuing the same design against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Can there therefore be any reason to make such a difference where the Lord has made none? 5. Consider whether it can be accounted sincere zeal which persuades men to permit the Name of God to be dishonored when any reflection upon our own name moves us so greatly. For this implies either that there is an indifference between truth and error, so that in the one the Lord is not more dishonored than in the other—which will be found exceedingly contrary to His own expressions concerning Himself in Scripture and will not, I suppose, be pleaded in the day of judgment when He shall avenge Himself upon such seducers—or it must imply that men are not to take notice of what dishonors Him, even though many things are within their reach to prevent it.

And indeed, if a conscience seriously pondering the matter will not be provoked by zeal for God, whose glory suffers; by respect to the salvation of many souls, which are endangered and destroyed by such means; by a desire to prevent the many offenses which necessarily attend such evils; by the many inconveniences, divisions, jealousies, rents, and the like which follow in families, congregations, cities, and nations; and by the great prejudice which the commonwealth suffers through the distracting of her members among themselves, the incapacitating of many for public trust, and the fostering of diverse interests and contrary principles in one body, to the marring of honest public designs—if, I say, the zeal and conscience of those who are concerned are not provoked by these things, by what will or can they be?

If it be said that it looks more Gospel-like, and more conducive to the furtherance of Christ’s Kingdom, that magistrates should leave men to follow their light and to be dealt with by the preaching of the Gospel and its power, we shall propose these considerations in reference to this. 1. Consider whether it looks Christian and tender for men so to stand by in the Lord’s cause and let Him, as it were, act for Himself. It was indeed once said of Baal, Judges 6, “If he be a god, let him plead for himself.” But will a tender heart think or speak so reproachfully of the Majesty of God? He indeed can and will plead for Himself; and it is not from lack of power that He makes use of men to defend His truth or restrain errors. Yet it is His good pleasure to make use of magistrates therein, and thereby to honor them, as He does Gideon in that same place.

2. Consider whether it looks Christian to give the devil equal access with Jesus Christ to pursue his designs in setting up his kingdom. Now absolute toleration does this, and more, because there is but one truth and there are many errors, and each of these has the same liberty and immunity, so to speak, that truth has, and may with the same confidence come forth into the open light as truth may, in respect of any civil restraint. 3. Consider the case of Antichrist. There is no error against which the Lord has more directly engaged Himself to fight with the sword of His mouth than this of Popery; and yet we suppose none will think that kings might warrantably suffer it to be spread and preached to the infecting of their people, without adding or enjoining any restraint by their civil power. Certainly their hating of the whore and making her desolate implies something more. And wherever true hatred of error exists, there will be a more effectual stretching forth of men’s power and places for restraining the same.

3. We may add this consideration: that hitherto toleration of errors and diversity of corrupt opinions have always been looked upon and made use of as a most subtle means for undermining and destroying the Church. It is recorded of that skillful enemy of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Julian, that, having employed his subtlety to the utmost to discover means by which to destroy the Church through craft, which his predecessors had been unable to accomplish through violence, among other means he resolved not to raise an open persecution, but to give liberty to all the differing bishops and teachers—who then, after the Council of Nicaea and Constantine’s death, were very numerous and bitter in their differences—to follow their own way and vent their own opinions without any fear of restraint. Therefore he called them together that he might make this known to them for their further encouragement therein. The words which he used to them, as they are recorded by Ammianus and cited by Ludovicus Molinaeus, page 560, are: Ut consopitis civilibus discordiis, suae quisque Religioni serviret intrepidus; that is, in sum, that every one, forbearing civil discord, should worship according to his own religion without control or fear. And is it likely that this should prove a means useful for the good of the Church which that expert child of the devil made use of to destroy the same?

Our third assertion, then, is that magistrates in their places ought to prevent the infection of the people under them by corrupt doctrine, and to seek their recovery when they are ensnared; and that therefore they ought to restrain and hinder corrupt teachers from spreading their errors to seduce others. This assertion, we suppose, is clear from the former two. For if magistrates are allowed to employ their power for the good of the Church, and if it is not their duty to give error and those who spread it the same common protection as truth, then it follows that they ought to use their power to restrain the same and, by the exercise of it, to procure the good of their people by preserving them from so great an evil.

CHAP. XV. What is called-for from people who are desirous to keep themselves pure in such a time and case as the increasing of errours and seducers.

It remains now that we speak something of a people’s duty who are members of the Church where such delusions are vented; in speaking to which, we shall follow almost the same method as in the former.

That it is not intended that magistrates should rigidly and severely, much less equally, animadvert upon all who in their judgment are erroneous, or differ from what is truth; that is not called for from ministers.

People should be seriously affected with the falling, or hazard of the falling, of any whom they hear of, as being touched with zeal for God and sympathy with them; and for this cause should humble themselves before God, to deprecate that stroke and plague as they would do sword, famine, or pestilence.

People should try upon what terms they themselves are with God, and whether things inwardly are in a good condition; whether there is any guiltiness procuring or disposing them for the same plague, such as little love to the truth, little study of the knowledge of the truth, little zeal against error, or sympathy with infected Churches that are at a distance, laughing, perhaps, at such things without making any other use of them; little prayer for others, or exhorting or admonishing of them, which is a means for preventing unsteadfastness; little endeavor, according to men’s places, to have others instructed, or to have faithful, able, and godly ministers for that end; but, perhaps, on the contrary, much spiritual pride, self-conceitedness, tenaciousness, and addictedness to our own wills and opinions, prejudice against able and faithful teachers, and readiness to hear everything and every person. These and such like things may be tried, and, when found, ought to be mourned for as causes of humiliation to them for their accession to such a plague.

They should endeavor to strengthen and confirm themselves in the knowledge of necessary truths, and should exercise themselves in the practice of uncontroverted godliness, and by all means should avoid jangling debates in unnecessary things, knowing that this is a piece of the enemy’s subtlety, once to engage them, even if it were only in the smallest thing; for thereby he does not only divert them from more necessary things and wear away liveliness, but disposes them for greater things, as was formerly marked in his method of dealing. For, as in corrupt practices men are not at first brought to a height of profanity, but by degrees, so it is in corrupt doctrines; and therefore there is wariness called for here in debating or questioning the smallest truth, if any truth can be called small.

If anything is really doubted, means should be used in a sober and prudent way for attaining information, either by providing and reading some suitable book, wherein often reasons are more deliberate and full, and may be more deliberately studied and digested than in a transient discourse; but in this, special respect should be had to a right choice, and for that cause the judgments of such as are sound and able to discern should be followed. Or, where God gives occasion, it may be done in sober and Christian conference with others of ability and integrity, especially with ministers, who ought neither to decline nor rashly misinterpret the same, but affectionately and tenderly to welcome any such sober persons, lest they be provoked to consult with others who may prove physicians of no value. In this, people should not express their doubts in all companies at random, nor to or before such as may possibly more easily take up the doubt and with greater difficulty be brought off from it. When therefore such a doubt is to be moved, the party and the time should be deliberately chosen, that men may be serious therein; and no doubt should be moved for debate but either such as the mover can himself resolve, or in such company where he may expect to have it resolved.

People should endeavor exceedingly to have a good esteem of their ministers and guides, and to be diligent and reverent observers of all ordinances, especially at such a time; for ministers are guides, Hebrews 13:17, and ordinances are appointed to keep people from being staggered, Ephesians 4:11–14. And it is to such that the Bride is directed, namely, to keep near the shepherds’ tents, for being preserved from wandering, Song of Solomon 1:8. And the more the devil endeavors to bring in prejudice against ministers and to blast the ordinances in their reputation, the more are people to wrestle against that, and, in some respect, to be more blind and deaf to what may be seen and heard concerning ministers’ faults; not so much for the ministers’ sake as for their own good. Therefore the Apostle gives this reason for his pressing obedience and submission to ministers, Hebrews 13:17, because the lack of that was not only prejudicial to the minister, but unprofitable to themselves.

People should have an eye upon the way that faithful and eminently godly men have gone to Heaven before them. This is to follow the footsteps of the flock, Song of Solomon 1:8, and the faith and patience of those who inherit the promises, Hebrews 6:12. And ordinarily we will find such to be most sober and serious, and farthest removed from novelty, curiosity, or absurd opinions. And it is no small part of the boldness and impudence which often accompanies new delusions that they generally condemn the generation of God’s people, as if there were no way to Heaven but by their vain inventions. This will be no small hindrance to a tender mind, at once to condemn the religion and practice of such a cloud of witnesses.

They should be careful, when they hear others questioning things or expressing their prejudice against ministers, ordinances, or established truths, to endeavor the immediate stopping of the same, and not to foster anything of that kind by raising new doubts, suspicions, or giving new grounds of jealousy against ministers or others, but rather should gravely and wisely endeavor to remove the same.

They should then be much and serious in the exercise of Christian fellowship, observing or considering one another, provoking one another, as the word is, Hebrews 10:24, and, Hebrews 3:12–13, taking heed lest there be among them an evil heart of unbelief, and lest any of them be hardened; but “exhort,” says he, “one another daily,” as the remedy of that. There is no time in which Christian fellowship is more called for, and in which it may be more profitable, than at such a time, if it is rightly ordered and managed. I say, rightly ordered and managed; for often the pretext of Christian fellowship is abused to the hatching and propagating of the most absurd opinions, when people become light and frothy, taking up their time with vain janglings and diverting from the main purpose, namely, edification. These things are indeed to be shunned, but Christian fellowship is not to be disclaimed, but wisely ordered in respect of the persons with whom, and occasions upon which, it is used, and in respect of the matter and duties insisted upon, which are to be the confirming of themselves in some truth, faithful freedom in admonishing one another concerning what is wrong, and serious endeavor to keep repentance, humility, self-denial, and the like graces fresh. These and such like things are good and profitable to men when gravely, sincerely, faithfully, tenderly, and inoffensively followed.

In respect of persons infected, the people’s duty may be considered in these steps. 1. They are to be affected with their fault and to pray for their recovery. 2. As they have occasion, they are to testify their dislike of their way. 3. Such as are noted or known to be instrumental in carrying on novelties ought by all means to be shunned. As, 1. Their company and fellowship are to be avoided, Romans 16:17–18. Men are to beware of them, Matthew 7; Philippians 3:2. Secondly, they are not to receive such into their house, nor to give them a salutation or bid them Godspeed, 2 John 10. They are to have no company with them, 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

We conceive there is no duty more pressingly urged upon the people of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, as may be clear by considering not only the foregoing places, but many other places of Scripture, especially Proverbs 19:27: “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.” And there is this double reason for it. 1. There is nothing which conduces more to preserve those who are sound; for it is hard to walk upon fire and not be burned, Proverbs 6:27–28, and the experience of not a few confirms this. For many would not have declined had they kept their distance even from the garments which were so defiled and infected; and it is the hearing of such instruction which causes one to err from the way of understanding. 2. There is nothing more useful for convincing the persons infected and making them ashamed, which is another reason why the Lord commands this.

And we may add that there is nothing which more evidences respect to God and reverencing of Him, and nothing which is more becoming a sinner who is sensible that he has corruption, than that he stands in awe of coming near a known temptation. For God is jealous, and will not endure men’s hazarding themselves to be carried a-whoring from Him; and men are not free from corruption, and therefore are readily capable of what is corrupt. It may be that people think there is no evil or hazard in trying anything, that so, “proving all things,” they may “hold fast that which is good”; and also that it may be ministers’ fear of diminishing their own particular respect which makes them press this, and that it proceeds from their carnal passion. But such should consider:

Whether our blessed Lord Jesus and His Apostles restrained people from any due liberty when they expressly prohibited their companying with such persons and hearing them, especially where it is done purposely, ordinarily, and deliberately. And we suppose that there is scarcely a direction concerning any particular in the Word which is more frequently, weightily, and peremptorily pressed than this, as the places alleged make clear.

They should consider whether our blessed Lord Jesus or the Apostles had any fear of losing their respect, or any inability to maintain their point against any seducers; yet they themselves press this, and command and charge other ministers after them to press this also upon their hearers.

They should consider whether these, namely, our blessed Lord and the Apostles, fostered carnal passion, while nevertheless they so pressed the people and reproved the suffering of such persons to continue in fellowship. Yea, they also practiced it themselves. Church history records that the Apostle John, having entered a bath where the heretic Cerinthus was, immediately went out in haste, professing fear that he should be ruined with him if he continued under the same roof.

They should consider whether the meaning of such places as “Prove all things” and “Try the spirits” is such as requires people to give a hearing to every novelty. For, 1. It is not possible that every person should inquire into and put to trial every error and every opinion. 2. The people are not capable of doing so. 3. This directly contradicts the letter and scope of the former precepts, which were given even when this command of proving all things was given. It must therefore be understood in agreement with them, and as pointing out that no doctrine should be admitted without proof upon the trust of any bearer, but ought to be tried whether it is the Word of God, as the Bereans did, Acts 17. But it does not allow them positively to try everything, especially however gross it may be, without prior trial, though it commands them not to admit anything without proof.

Further, a principal part of the people’s duty is to concur in their places in countenancing and adding weight to the respective sentences and steps which are called for from ministers in their stations. As, 1. To contribute whatever clearness they can to the discovery and trial of such persons. 2. To add their testimony to the truth, and thereby to make the means of conviction more weighty to them. 3. By evidencing their dislike of the persons’ obstinacy, and their acknowledgment of the justice and necessity of drawing forth further sentences against them. 4. In shunning their company, abstaining from familiarity, and otherwise expressing their indignation against their way. 5. In carrying themselves toward them according as they are sentenced, that so they may ratify the same and, in their place, endeavor to make it weighty and effectual upon the persons, that thereby, being made ashamed, they may the more readily be humbled and turned from it. And people are by all means to shun such familiarity, especially with excommunicated persons, as may lessen the weight of their sentence or hinder their being ashamed; which indeed will make people guilty of despising the ordinance of Christ and obstructing its fruit toward a brother, and will also make themselves liable to censure as being scandalous by so doing.

CHAP. XVI. What further duty is required of private Professors towards Hereticks that are cut off.

Answer. I suppose these things are called for:

Abstinence from unnecessary civil fellowship, as, not to frequent their company, to visit them, to dine or sup with them, or to have them dining or supping with us, or to use such familiarity in such things as is used with others, or possibly has been with them. So it is, 1 Corinthians 5; and it is no less the people’s duty to carry so, that it may be a means for their edification, than proportionally it is the minister’s duty to instruct, pass sentence, etc.

There should be an abstinence from Christian fellowship; that is, we should not pray with them, read or confer of spiritual purposes, purposely at least, nor do any such thing that belongs to Christian communion; that is, to reject him in that sense from Christian fellowship, and to account him as a heathen man or publican. In this respect, we cannot walk with an excommunicated man as we may walk with other Christians; and, in the first respect, we cannot walk with them as we may walk with other heathens that, it may be, are guilty of as gross sins upon the matter; for the Word of the Lord expressly puts this difference between them and those who are simply heathens, 1 Corinthians 5.

Yet even then prayer may be made for them; for excommunication is no evidence that a person has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, or that their sin is a sin unto death; and their necessities, if they are in want, may and should be supplied, because they are men, and it is natural to supply such. They may be helped also against unjust violence, or from any personal hazard, if they fall into it; and, as occasion offers, people may give a weighty, serious word of admonition to them, and such like, because by such means the end of the sentence and its weight are furthered and not weakened.

Those who are in natural relations ought to walk in the duties of them, as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, magistrates and subjects, etc.; for what nature binds, the Church does not loose.

Men may follow civil business, as paying or exacting payment of debts, buying or selling, and may walk in such things as are requisite for human fellowship and society; because, though Church-censures are to humble and shame men, by bearing in upon them their sinfulness, yet they are not to undo them and simply to take away a being from them.

Yet all these things should be done with them in such a manner as, 1. The persons may show their indignation at their way, even when they express tenderness to their persons. 2. It should be done in a different manner from what is used with others not under such a sentence, that so they may bear out their respect to the sentence even when they show respect to them. Therefore, there should not be such frequency in dealing with such persons, nor should it be with familiarity, or many words and long discourses to other purposes, nor with laughing, and with such cheerfulness, intimacy, or complacency as is used with others. But, in a word, the business should be done, and other things abstained from. 3. When what is necessary is past, except it be upon necessity, people should not eat or drink with them at the time of doing their business, or after the closing of the same; because that does not necessarily belong to them as men, and by so doing the due distance would not be kept. And this is the great practical point, so to carry toward them that the weight of the sentence is not lessened, nor they prejudiced of what otherwise is necessary to their being, but that so every opportunity may be taken whereby their edification may be advanced.

If what is before said is considered, we suppose there will be no great need to add arguments to provoke either ministers or others to be zealous in prosecuting their respective duties. Yet these few considerations may be taken notice of and pondered to this purpose:

Scarcely has delusion, though ever so gross, broken into a Church and for a time been forborne, but it has carried away many therewith, and has proven exceedingly inductive to much sin, offense, reproach, division, bitterness, and evils of all sorts into the Church of Christ. Very little acquaintance with the history of the Church will put this out of question.

Consider that this spirit of delusion is, in a special manner, foretold to have a great reviving and strength in the latter days. It is said, 1 Timothy 4:1, that “the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.” And why is that “expressly” added, but to give warning the more clearly, that men may be at their duty? Again, 2 Timothy 3:1, “This know, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” It is the observation of a holy and learned man that in this place it is “the last days”; in the former, “the latter times”; as if this did relate to a time nearer the end of the world. And so the first looks to the Popish superstitions and abominations—and indeed, the nature of the doctrines there reproved seems to favor this—and this last place relates to the gross delusions that, under the pretext of the form of godliness, were to succeed these. And therefore men, according to their places, ought in these times to be so much the more watchful and zealous, seeing the trumpet has given so distinct a sound.

The dreadful effects which such evils necessarily bring with them may be considered. It is not ruin to bodies or estates, but to souls; it is not simply to sin, and to permit that, but it is rebellion; and, which is more, it is to teach rebellion and to carry on the same with a high hand against God. And what will stir zeal for God, or what will awaken love to, and sympathy with, the souls of others, if this does not?

It should be considered how often zeal, diligence, and faithfulness of men in their several places, as has been laid down, have proven exceedingly helpful for preventing and restraining the growth of such evils, so that thereby such a flood has been dried up, as it is Revelation 12, which otherwise might have drowned the Woman and her seed; and, Matthew 13, it is marked that such tares are sown and spring up, not while men are watchful and diligent, but while they sleep and are defective in their duty, verse 25. For diligence in the use of means has the blessing promised which others cannot expect; and if wrath has come to such a height that the Lord will not be entreated in that matter, yet the person who is diligent may look for his own soul for a prey, and to be kept on his feet in the midst of temptations.

It may be a provocation to humility and watchfulness to consider how great men have been carried away with the most vile delusions. The Church of Corinth did abound in most eminent gifts, yet corrupt teachers did not lack influence upon them. The Church of Galatia had been most singularly zealous and tender, yet to what a height delusion came among them is evident, so that they were bewitched therewith, Galatians 3:1. In Church-history also it is evident that most eminent men have been carried away with the vainest delusions. That great light, Tertullian, became exceedingly tainted with the delusions of the Montanists; and after-times have let us see that the most eminent of men are capable of defection; and even stars are often made to fall from heaven by such storms.

It is dreadful also to consider how difficultly men are recovered from these delusions. It is a rare thing to find in Scripture or in history any observable recovery of a person who has slipped in this kind. Sometimes indeed persons who through fear have been brought to deny Christ, or to countenance idolatry in a particular act, are marked with much tenderness and satisfaction to acknowledge their failing and to abandon it; for often such a failing is the fruit of some surprise, and is of infirmity. But the recovery of a person who has, with a kind of deliberation, drunk in error and rejected convictions is a most rare thing, and has a “peradventure” added thereto, 2 Timothy 2:25, as was formerly marked, which will not readily be found in any other case; yea, often such persons do wax worse and worse, and one delusion draws on another till it comes to the greatest height of absurdity.