West Port Experiment

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

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

Having now come this length, there is one thing of close concern to what is past, which possibly might be useful to be inquired into, concerning such scandals as cannot be called in the former sense doctrinal, nor yet personal; because there may be purity in the one, and regularity and orderliness in the other respect, and yet actually there may be a scandal and an offense or occasion of stumbling lying in the way of many, and that is, by schisms and divisions in the Church, or amongst the people of God. This we confess is no less difficult to speak to than any of the former, because there is often more that can be said for both sides, and the side from whence the offense rises is not so easily discernable, which makes that we are the more unwilling and less confident to undertake to speak anything in reference thereto. Yet seeing we have in providence been led to the former purposes without any previous design; and now, having this occurring to us before we close, we shall endeavor shortly to speak a word in reference thereto in a general, abstracted manner, without descending to any particulars, which may be dangerous to be touched upon, but shall give some general hints concerning the same, which we are induced unto upon these considerations:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Because if this is wanting, what is said in the former cases is palpably defective, especially at such a time when there is no less cause to observe this evil than any of the former. This being, as to them, in some respect a cause that brings them forth and fosters them, and, in some respect, an effect which necessarily and naturally follows upon them: for divisions breed both scandals in practice and doctrine; and again, scandal in these does breed and entertain divisions.

What we would say shall be drawn to these four heads:

1. To consider what division is, or of what sort it is, which is properly to be spoken of here. 2. What are the causes which breed and foster the same. 3. What are the evil effects which ordinarily flow from it. 4. What may be thought to be duty in reference to such a time, and what may be looked upon as suitable remedies of such a distemper.

For the first: We take it for granted that there is such a thing as division in the Church, which is not to be looked upon as any new or strange thing; for the Scripture makes it clear, and the history of the Church puts it out of question. Concerning which we may premise these few things:

1. That the division which is intended here is not every contest, and alienation of mind, and difference of practice incident to men; but that which is proper to the Church concerning Church affairs, and so is to be distinguished from civil debates and contentions. We would advert also that there may be Church differences that fall not under the charge of scandal, as when in some things men of conscience are of different judgments, yet carry it without any offense or breach of charity; or when in some practices there is diversity with forbearance, as was in Polycarp’s days and the time of Irenaeus, about Easter matters. These we speak not unto.

2. Although sometimes titles and expressions may be used more generally and promiscuously, yet in this discourse we would distinguish between these three: Heresy, Schism, and Division, without respect to what otherwise is used to be done.

And, first, Heresy is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacity and endeavor to propagate the same.

Again, Schism may be where no heresy in doctrine is, but is a breaking of the union of the Church and that communion which ought to be among the members thereof, and is either in Government or Worship.

As, first, in Government: when the common Government, to which all ought to be subject, is rent, and a distinct Government set up. This may be either when the Government is altered, as, suppose some should set up Episcopacy in opposition to Presbytery, yet keeping still the fundamental truths; or it may be where the same Government is acknowledged, but there is difference concerning the persons to whom the power belongs. So, sometimes men have acknowledged Popery, yet followed diverse Popes; so often Sectaries have not disclaimed Councils and Bishops, but have set up their own, and refused subjection to those to whom it belonged. The first kind implies a doctrinal error concerning Government; the second may consist with the same principles of Government, but differs in the application of them, and becomes a schism when men act accordingly in acknowledging diverse supreme independent Governments. Because so, when there ought to be but one Church, it becomes, as it were, two; and this is exclaimed against and regretted by the Fathers under the expression of erecting altare contra altare, that is, altar against altar, whereas the Lord allowed but one, even in reference to His own worship.

2. Schism may be in Worship, that is, when, it may be, both the same Doctrine and Government are acknowledged, yet there is not communion kept in Church-ordinances, as in Prayer, Word, and Sacraments; but a separate way of going about these is followed. It seems that this was in part the schism of the Corinthians, whatever was the rise thereof, that they had a divided way of communicating, and of going about other duties and other Ordinances, as may be gathered from 1 Corinthians 11:18–21 with 33. This kind of schism has been frequent in the Church, and has flowed not so much from dissatisfaction with the Doctrine and Government thereof, as with the constitution of the Members, or failings of the Governors. Thus it was in the case of the Novatians, Donatists, Meletians, Cathari, and others, of whom it is recorded that their fault did not consist in setting up any strange Doctrine, or in rejecting the truth, at least at the first, but in breaking the bond of communion, as Augustine has it often; for, says he, Schismaticos facit non diversa fides sed communionis disrupta societas (Against Faustus, book 20). Again, he says of the Donatists (To Boniface, Epistle 50), Nec de ipsa fide vertitur quaestio, sed de sola communione infeliciter litigant, & contra unitatem Christi rebellis inimicitias, perversitate sui erroris, exercent.

And this sort of schism does often draw with it the former, there being no way to maintain this without the other. Of this schism there are many kinds, according to its several rises and degrees; and also, according as it extends to the breaking of communion in whole, from Ordinances, or in part only from some, or in some Ordinances, as appears to have been in the Church of Corinth, where there has not been a total schism, though it has been in that Ordinance of the Supper especially. And it is likely also that that schism has been occasioned because of the corruption of some members, with whom others have been afraid to communicate, and therefore have not waited for them; for the Apostle particularly condemns this, and exhorts them to wait for one another. And to attain this, he clears them concerning what was necessary for right partaking, namely, the examining of themselves, verse 28, and declares to them that whoever did eat unworthily, and did not prepare himself, did eat and drink damnation, but to himself, and not to others; wherefore, says he, you need not be so anxiously solicitous how they are prepared, or of what sort they are who are with you, but examine yourselves, and wait for one another, that there be not a schism among you. And this he speaks even when he has been reproving drunkenness among the communicants, yet will he not admit that as an excuse why private persons should communicate separately, which was their practice. This was spoken of in the first part.

This schism, however it is understood, has ever proven exceedingly hurtful to the Church, and has been an inlet and nursery to the greatest errors. It is most pressingly condemned in the Scriptures, even with as great weight as corrupt doctrine and heresy are, and it is attributed to that same original, namely, the flesh, with witchcraft, idolatry, heresy, etc., Galatians 5:20. It has ever been most weighty to faithful ministers, most offensive to people of all sorts, most advantageous to the enemies of the truth, and has made the Church most vile and contemptible before the world, as we may see in the sad complaints and writings of the Fathers in reference to the Novatians, Donatists, and others of that kind. It has also proven most dangerous to those who have been engaged therein, and often has been a snare to bring on some spiritual desertion, deadness of spirit, security, self-confidence, or some other spiritual evils of that kind, or to dispose for receiving a more gross temptation, as was formerly marked. Also, it may be observed that such schisms have spread very suddenly in some places of the world, but have not been easily removed; for these schisms of the Novatians and Donatists did trouble the Church for several generations, which might be enough to make men think the breach of unity in that respect to be no little evil, and to make them fearful to fall into the same.

But because every schism properly does imply some error in doctrine, although it does not arise from the same, therefore we shall forbear to speak anything particularly to this, because what has been said of errors in doctrine may in part be applied here. For we will find that schism does imply one or all of these:

1. That such apprehended corruptions do either make such a society to be no Church, or communion with that Church in other Ordinances to be unlawful because of such corruptions, or of such corrupt members.

2. That there may be a distinct erected Church beside a Church, which yet may not be in communion with that other Church.

3. These or such consequences: that either the Church of Christ on the earth is not one, which truth of the unity of the catholic visible Church is the main ground of all Church-union and communion; or that that one Church may be of such heterogeneous or dissimilar parts as the one of them ought not to have communion with the other; or, at least this, that a person ought to seek his own satisfaction and consolation, though to the prejudice and rending of the Church, and to the general offense and stumbling of all others. The fairest schism and separation must imply one of these; for it cannot be conceived that otherwise men would act so directly according to these principles if they did not take them for granted.

It is to be adverted that as there is an unjust schism, that is, a separation without any cause at all, so there is a rash and scandalous schism, that is, when it is beyond the ground given, or when the ground given is not such as will warrant such a separation. Which may be:

1. When the separation or schism is upon some occasion which is indeed a defect in the Church, but not such as makes communion therein sinful, as that in Corinth. Or,

2. When, it may be, the schism is extended beyond the ground; that is, when, suppose one could not communicate in the Lord’s Supper in such a Church because of some sinful corruption in that Ordinance, if, upon that occasion, one should separate from communion in all Ordinances, that would be to exceed the ground given. Or,

3. When no professed schism is owned, yet when really and indeed it is practiced, so that men can neither justify a schism or separation upon such a ground, nor yet altogether vindicate their practice from inferring the same; in which respect, the schism and rent flows from affection or inclination, and not from well-grounded light or reason, and so cannot but be rash and unwarrantable.

4. It may be, in the manner, precipitant, when either means have not been used to remove that ground, if it is just; or when men so heighten some lesser defect in a Church by aggravating it with such circumstances as may make it appear to themselves or others a ground sufficient to bear and warrant separation; or, in such a way, vent their dissatisfaction with things or persons as thereby to hurt the unity of the Church, or to occasion a rent, or division, or schism in the same, when, it may be, others beside their intention may thus conclude: A Church so corrupted, etc., is not to be kept communion with (and, it may be, the proposition is sound and so qualified as it is acknowledged by all Divines); But this or that particular Church is such. This again is offered to be made out by the too vehement aggravation of some lesser defect, which may seem to confirm that assumption. And in practice it may be observed that as some will lay down premises concerning a schism who yet dare not act according to the conclusion and actually separate, so others will keep the conclusion and actually separate in practice who yet dare not in thesi absolutely maintain schism to be lawful upon such a ground. It is to be adverted that schisms and divisions are so near in nature and names that we may use instances for illustration of either promiscuously.

The third word is Division, which does not at first view differ from Schism; yet we do take it here as different, and to agree to such divisions and dissensions in the Church as are consistent with communion both in Government and Worship, and have not a divided Government or Worship following them, as in the former case. Of such there are many instances in Scripture and Church-history, as we may observe by considering these distinctions thereof:

There is a Doctrinal Division, as when the matter is not fundamental, nor yet is it pleaded for as such to the breaking off of communion among those who differ, yet possibly, being a mere indifferent matter, is followed with too much eagerness, vehemency, bitterness, etc., by those who respectively own the same. Thus contentions were hot in the primitive times concerning meats and such things which were neither of themselves destructive to the foundation of Faith on either side, at least in that time, and so were not heretical; nor did they break off communion in Church-ordinances, and so were not schismatical; yet was the Church troubled therewith by division among her members. Of this sort are the divisions that may be among godly and orthodox men in some points of Truth, when they too vehemently press their own opinion to be received with a kind of necessity, or load the other with too many absurdities beyond what will follow from the nature thereof.

There are some Divisions that may be called Practical, and do indeed imply some difference of opinion, but do also infer somewhat in practice. Of this sort was the division concerning Easter in primitive times before it came to a schism, some keeping one day, some another. And in after-times it abounded, when some acknowledged the ordination of such a Bishop and others did not; when some acknowledged the authority of such a Council and others did not, and so had divided practices.

Some Divisions are between particular men; some have influence upon Churches, and are, as it were, one party against another. The first is more properly a difference, and may be between eminently godly and zealous men, such as was between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15:39, and is called a contention. Such also we will find in Church-history between Augustine and Jerome, Chrysostom and Epiphanius, which indeed has a contention with it, and, if the Lord does not prevent it, is apt to make parties and to rend the Church. But the other, namely, the acting of one party against another, as has been seen in many Councils, and appears to have been among the Corinthians when one adhered to one person and one to another—this, I say, looks like faction, and is properly division.

Division may be considered in all these respects as it is in judgment, or in affection, or in practice. It is in judgment when they are not of the same mind, but have diverse apprehensions concerning Truths. 2. It is in affection when upon that difference of judgment alienation follows, whereby that love, and affection, and charity which one owes to another is somewhat cooled or discomposed. 3. It is in practice when they speak and act differently and oppositely, as if it were an advantage to Truth for the one to cross and undermine what the other does. This distinction is clearly insinuated in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I beseech you, brethren, that there be no divisions amongst you”; which is branched out in union in these three, namely: speaking the same thing, that relates to action; being perfectly joined together in the same mind, that relates to affection; and being one in the same judgment, that relates to opinion; which supposes that there were divisions opposite to all these, which also often go together.

There are some Divisions which, to say so, are negative, and are in the manner and circumstances of doing some duties. Thus men may differ and take diverse ways, yet both of them be endeavoring the thriving of the work of the Gospel, and in no way laboring to cross each other, or to make one another less weighty and successful. Thus Paul and Barnabas, after their contention, did indeed differ in their manner of prosecuting the work of the Gospel, yet both of them continued faithful therein, and neither of them did counterplot nor counteract the other. Again, some divisions are positive, to say so, when men do not only differ from each other, but do oppose each other, and do not set themselves singly to prosecute the work which possibly their opposite may be prosecuting with them; but there is an endeavor to lessen the authority and mar the actings of the other, and to engage men in the approbation of that particular wherein they differ, which savors of division and faction properly, and is more hurtful and intolerable, whereas the first is more tolerable among men who have their infirmities. And it is likely that such were the divisions of Corinth, when there was an endeavor to cry up one and down another.

Some are in doctrine, for difference of judgment; some are in Government, for precedency, as sometimes was among the Disciples, a contest who should be greatest; which is not so much for Government abstractly and considered in itself, or about what should be done, as it is for the persons who should be the governors and doers thereof. As among the Disciples, the question is not: What kind of government shall there be? or, What should be the governor’s duty? But: Who should be chief and have the main hand in ruling?

Sometimes Divisions are more stated and deeply rooted, when in some way men’s designs are contrary, though not in the main, yet in the manner of carrying them on. Sometimes again, they are more occasional, and arise from some particular act or circumstance wherein men may differ, and may be when neither side draws on a division. So that particular of taking or not taking John Mark in the company was the occasion of that contention and division between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15, when otherwise there was a harmony in the series and strain of their whole way.

Sometimes Divisions are between godly and orthodox men upon the one side and corrupt men upon the other, as were the divisions of the Church with the Arian heretics and others of that nature. Sometimes again, they are among godly and orthodox men on both sides, and this is a main ingredient in, and aggravation of, the scandal of Division, when it is among Christ’s own Disciples. And this is that which we would especially speak to; concerning which we say:

That there is such a thing incident to the Church as division among godly, able, and orthodox men, as between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15; the Disciples of Christ and the disciples of John; yea, oftentimes between the Disciples of Christ among themselves. And afterward the instances of Augustine and Jerome, Chrysostom and Epiphanius, with many others of later times, demonstrate it. In the Old Testament we find Job and his friends keeping up a long dispute quite sharply. And in Numbers 12 something is recorded of a division between Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

This Division may continue long, and come to a great height; that is, it may be very sharp, although it may be that its rise is small; for contentions are as the letting out of waters, Proverbs 17:14, and they often grow, even among good men, so as to provoke much sharpness against each other, and that with much confidence, as the instances given make clear.

Though it is frequent for them to come to a height, yet they are not easily removed, even among the best. This being true, Proverbs 18:19, that a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, and that their contentions are as the bars of a castle, they are so strongly rooted. Hence we see that there is no breaking off between Job and his friends until the Lord interposes; there is no composing of the matter between Paul and Barnabas, but their contention continues so hot that they must separate; neither is there anything expressly recorded of their meeting together again, although they had long been of most intimate fellowship as nearest colleagues in their journeying and traveling in the Lord’s work, and were appointed thereto even by Himself extraordinarily, Acts 13. It is recorded that Chrysostom and Epiphanius did separate so embittered against one another that Epiphanius wished that Chrysostom should not die a Bishop; he again wished that the other might not see his home, namely, Cyprus, to which he was then making his voyage; both of which accordingly came to pass. This is a dreadful instance of this evil, and looks like the Lord’s making use of their passion to signify His displeasure against both their distempers.

CHAP. II. Whence Divisions do arise, and how they are fostered and increased.

This division does frequently arise, and is continued upon very small occasions; for it is not ordinarily gross heresies or palpable abominations that draw godly and learned men to side in the defense thereof, but things of lesser concernment; which we will find to be such as these:

1. Some various and different apprehensions of truths that are less fundamental, such as were the debates about meats, genealogies, and other questions in the primitive times, concerning which there was no little jangling even among good men; thus is it when Divines press too hotly some truth not simply necessary. It cannot be supposed that all men who yet see but in part should be of that same mind; and the Lord has left some things, as it were, to be the matter of doubtful disputations, as the Apostle speaks, Romans 14:1. And though there be truth upon the one side of every debate, yet considering that that is not always easily demonstrable, too peremptory deciding and pressing of such things cannot but occasion strife.

2. Sometimes it flows from the mistake of some dispensations, and the suspecting of the sincerity and integrity one of another; whereby sometimes men are engaged before they know it to maintain their prejudice, and to lay the less weight upon light held forth by others. It was thus with Job’s friends, who, misinterpreting God’s hand upon him, and concluding uncharitably of his state, are brought to maintain an unwarrantable thesis to make good their point.

3. It may arise from different apprehensions about some persons, or from a different manner of doing the same thing, or from the use-making of different persons; as when one would have such a man to be a Minister, another does not think him worthy; when one does think such a man deserves not to be a Minister, and another thinks that he does; when such different thoughts about persons, means, or manner of doing things, which are incident to the best of men, are followed with different actings accordingly, and none does yield to another, then necessarily follows contention and division. So Paul thought John Mark not meet to be taken to the Ministry again in their company, seeing he had left them; Barnabas did think him meet and would have him, whereupon the contention and division followed.

Often also, we find in Church-history that good men have divided upon this, that some would ordain such to be Presbyters or Bishops whom others did not think worthy of that office; and that some would not condemn persons or writings which others did condemn: for learned men often think the condemning of a person or doctrine which is owned by them, or the refusing to condemn a person or doctrine which they do condemn, to be a reflection on them, and that therefore they are engaged to deal with such as with the principal party. It is noted that the rise of Chrysostom and Epiphanius’s difference was that Chrysostom did not so go along in the condemning of Origen and his writings as the other did, and that some of the Clergy of Constantinople had refused the same; whereupon Epiphanius began in preaching to inveigh against the other, which came to that height that is reported. Also, sometimes some have been too favorable interpreters of deceivers, as if they had been of some honesty, whereby difference has grown with others who knew the deceit: as witness the first divisions that were in Phrygia concerning Montanus, because some, being simple and not knowing that prophecy in an extraordinary manner was laid aside by the Lord, did dispute that possibly there might be some more than an ordinary thing in his way, and that he might through access to God do such things, when as yet they were not infected with his errors. This did breed a schism, when others necessarily had to condemn the deeds, and also the persons, as not serving the Lord, but their own bellies, Romans 16:17–18.

4. It usually arises from secret grudges at being slighted, or heartburnings at another’s credit and reputation beyond them, and sometimes indeed, not because of the fact done, but because such persons were the doers thereof, and one way or other springs from the root of pride, envy, or emulation, which has many branches whereby it vents its malignant, distempering disposition in sundry shapes. It is indeed sad that such things should be among the disciples of Christ; yet often we see that this, Who should be the greatest, was a bone of contention among them, especially when some had evidenced their too great proneness and inclination to prefer themselves to others. This also had influence upon that mutiny which Aaron and Miriam did stir up against Moses, Numbers 12; and it is the Lord’s word by the wise mouth of Solomon, Only by pride comes contention.

5. Too much insisting on, and exaggerating of the infirmities or opinions of others, and loading and exaggerating them with many fearful consequences, has much influence upon this, especially where words are twisted beyond the intention and sense of the speaker, because such a humor shows little love and respect to the person, and by the nature of the work does tend to set him forth as odious, ignorant, absurd, or some way despicable; which even good men, being but men, are not easily brought to digest. We see this in Job’s friends, who frequently carp at his expressions, and study to exaggerate them, which indeed were not always altogether excusable; yet their scope, at least in the work, was to represent them and him much more absurd than indeed they were. And this was present in those debates between Augustine and Jerome, and usually is where such differences are, as too many reproachful and bitter differences now in the Church, almost everywhere, do demonstrate.

6. They are occasioned by a carnal and factious-like pleading for, and vindicating even of Truth. Often it is not the matter about which godly and learned men debate that makes division, for there may be difference where there is no division, but it is a carnal manner of prosecuting either side of the difference, even that side whereon the truth does lie, that does engender the division; and often we see men differing about greater points than others do, and yet carrying themselves so as it cannot be called Division. It is noted, 1 Corinthians 3, that some were for Paul, some for Apollos, some were for none but Christ; and yet this is counted a side of the faction as well as any of the others; not because being for Christ is wrong, but because they factiously walked under that pretext. Which we may summarize in these respects: 1. When a man too peremptorily presses his light upon others, or upon a Church, in a matter that is not fundamental or necessary, which is condemned, Romans 14:22, when men in these debates keep not their faith, or light, to themselves, but do trouble and distract others therewith. 2. It is when men too vehemently press such a thing, as if the contrary thereof, or those who maintain the same, were intolerable; and so in a fiery, violent way seek to bear down that which is indeed an error, though of infirmity. It is noted by some who write Church-history, and Augustine is of that same mind, that Stephen, Bishop of Rome, did more hurt to the Church by his too vehement opposing of Cyprian’s error, which was that those who were baptized by Heretics or Schismatics ought again to be baptized, because he did thereby hazard the dividing and rending of the Church by refusing communion with such as were against him, than Cyprian did in his maintaining of his error; because, though it was still his opinion, he did meekly and condescendingly carry himself in it, with respect to the unity of the Church. 3. This is also when things are followed with Sentences and Censures on the opposite opinion, and the abettors thereof, as if it were a matter of Faith. It is known what influence those Sentences of Victor, Bishop of Rome, had upon rending the Church, and stating that divisive distinction between the East and West Church, and that for a matter of nothing, namely, what day of the month precisely Easter was to be kept; and he was for that sharply reproved, even by Irenaeus, who was of that same judgment with him: and many such instances are in history. 4. It is when, in the prosecution of such things, men leave the matter and fall into personal reflections, and become bitter in these respects, as to bring up pride, arrogance, hypocrisy, ignorance, heresy, or erroneousness, or some other personal fault, if any be known or imputed to them, or one way or another to slight them and make them despicable. So Aaron and Miriam murmur against Moses, Numbers 12, that he had married an Ethiopian woman, and that he seemed to slight them, as if God had only spoken by him, and not by them also; Epiphanius also did upbraid Chrysostom with hypocrisy; Jerome hugely reviles Vigilantius, whose tenets seem to be as near truth as his are; so it was between Demetrius and Theophilus, when in the matter of fact, each gives the other the lie. 5. It is when the manner of carrying on a thing is factious, as endeavoring to make sides and parties underhand, and using indirect dealing to engage others in their differences, and to stir up men by such means against others. It is likely it was so in Corinth, even among the people who adhered not to false teachers. It is noted also in that vehement, bitter contention that was between Jerome and Rufinus, that he did endeavor by all means to awaken hatred against Jerome’s person, and to defame his writings, more than in any convincing way to make good his point; and yet all this arose from Jerome’s alleging the other to be a favorer of Origen’s heresy, because he had translated some books of Origen’s, which was indeed condemned by others as being dangerous; yet seeing Rufinus did disclaim these errors, and deny that he approved them, there was no such ground to press him with it; and this became the occasion of that irreconcilable hatred which was never removed; in which also it is noted that Jerome does object to the other obscurity and harshness of style, adding withal many other slighting expressions.

7. It may be by the imprudence of such as have good affection: as, 1. Expressing too much good liking of some corrupt men, because they pretend fairly. Thus the Church was divided in Phrygia for Montanus, because some did too imprudently think well of him, as if indeed he and his prophetesses had truly had the gift of prophecy; others again vehemently upbraided them for it. 2. It is when things are pressed unseasonably, or in an offensive manner, without respect to the manner of things, if they be satisfied in the matter. There followed many divisions on the back of the most famous Council, which made Gregory Nazianzen say he never desired to see many Bishops together, and the Centuriators give this reason or occasion: While some imprudently urged the Nicene faith, others fiercely opposed it.

8. Too much peremptoriness where there may be some condescending has a great hand in this; when men become not all things, so far as is lawful, unto others. It is noted in Church-history that sometimes too tenacious adhering unto Canons and Councils, by some who would not condescend in a syllable when others did condemn the matter, has been in this respect prejudicial. Such was the cause of the schism between the East and West Church, and particularly the tenacious adhering in all things, even as to the very manner, to the Council of Chalcedon, which was indeed a famous and orthodox Council in the matter. The former instance clears this also.

9. Sometimes this does come from dissatisfaction in some particulars of Government, as when some have been displeased that such and such men, formerly cast out, should have been again admitted to communion; or that a person, cast out of communion in one place, has been admitted in another. This is frequent, as later instances may clear.

10. It is often occasioned by the encroachment of one upon another in the exercise of their power, as to preach, ordain, and such like, within the bounds of others beside, or without their knowledge, or against their will.

11. It has sometimes arisen from the Church’s meddling in extrinsic or unnecessary things; and seldom have Churchmen been too much taken up and occupied about such things, but it has had such a consequence: as when they are too much taken up about ceremonies and things not commanded, as Easter was; or about indifferent things, as the prescribing of forms in everything, and such like; or about precedency in Government, and what might conduce to the external splendor of the Church in immunities, privileges, fabrics, endowments, etc., whereof instances are very many. Or, when Churchmen have become too pragmatic in civil things, or affairs of the world, thereby to carry on a temporal grandeur in the spiritual Kingdom of Christ; which was often the rise and occasion of difference among the Apostles; and although there was scarce access to this occasion in respect of practice while Magistrates were heathens, yet in after-times this is evident; and sundry divisions followed upon such occasions, as the approving or condemning of such and such an Emperor’s Election; the transferring of the Empire from East to West, or from one Family to another.

12. New manners of expression, or new molds of the Doctrine of the Gospel, different from what have been formerly delivered, have given occasion to this; that is, when there is either a new form of speaking, and an affectation of novelty in words, different from the form of sound words which Ministers ought to hold fast; or, when things are so proposed as if all former molds had been defective, and all other Divines in their Preaching and Writings were nothing to such. It seems that this newfangledness of speech had no less influence in dividing the Church of Corinth, and begetting factions therein, than the diversity that was in the matter, wherein they are not so generally found guilty as being carried away with error, as of being itchy for a human kind of eloquence in the manner of Preaching. This same also may be in Writings; and indeed when some cry up one manner or mold, and some others the contrary, it may breed siding and division, even as well as diversity of Doctrine may do. And it is not for nothing that the Lord has commanded simplicity in the manner, and the holding fast of the form of sound words, even as He has commanded soundness in the matter; and oftentimes there does arise no less itchiness among people, nor less emulation among Ministers, from the one than from the other.

CHAP. III. The height of evil that division bringeth.

Having now seen a little the rises of this evil, we may look to the height it has come to from such beginnings; which we may consider in these steps. 1. It engenders heat, strife, and contention; and in that respect, makes men carnal, 1 Corinthians 3. 2. It breeds alienation in affection, and separates those in fellowship that have been most intimate, as if their companying together had lost that sweetness and refreshfulness that sometimes it had; and thereby even their Christian communion is interrupted; both these may be seen in that strange and hot contention which came to this height between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15. 3. It breeds jealousy and suspicion of one another’s actions and intentions, yea, it may be, of the sincerity of their state: it breeds envy at one another’s prosperity and respect, and makes them less weighted with any cross or adversity that the other falls into. Paul is suspected, not only by the false teachers, but even by the professors, to be an enemy to them, and not to be single in his designs among them: some have counted others hypocrites, as is before noted.

4. It brings forth violent and virulent expressions, and reflections upon each other; and greater heat almost is not to be found than among differing Divines, that yet do agree in the main. It is a wonder to read some of the expressions that are between Jerome and Rufinus, and between Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Theophilus, Bishop of Jerusalem, with many others; or to consider the sad regrets that Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and others have of these differences; something may be seen of it in the instance of Job and his friends. And what there is for the present among Orthodox Divines abroad, and in this Island, I fear, out of honor to the men, to mention them; yet I suppose such things may be read in the Prefaces and Writings of the most eminent Divines, as may make the hearts of all to loathe such divisions. 5. It has come to that height, as not to spare to publish even personal reflections; yea, sometimes it has come to that, that men have condemned deeds in others, after such begun differences, which formerly they did highly commend in them; thus their estimation and construction of their actions does ebb and flow according to their estimation of their persons. It is noted of Demetrius of Alexandria, that while he and Origen did continue in fellowship, he was a great commender of that deed of Origen’s, namely, his gelding of himself while he was young: yet after difference arose between them upon very mean grounds, Origen not being come to his grossness, he did most vehemently object that to him in his Writings. 6. Often it has come that length, that they have imprecated evil to one another, as in the instance of Chrysostom and Epiphanius; sometimes they have informed and most vehemently instigated civil Powers against one another, that they might procure their deposition, banishment, and such like, as Rufinus did against Jerome, the Clergy at Antioch against Flavianus, and some at Constantinople, particularly Severianus, did stir up the Emperor against Chrysostom. 7. Also, it has been followed in Councils and Synods by the Sentences of Deposition and Excommunication, as was frequent in the case of that debate about Easter, and in that debate between Stephen and Cyprian; Tertullian also was Sentenced upon a prejudice, without just ground; so was Chrysostom deposed even by Bishops that were not heterodox; and many others.

8. It has extended to divide Churches, although it began among Ministers; and has come to that height, that they have withdrawn from the communion of one another, and have chosen different Bishops and Ministers without communion one with another, or without dependence one upon another, and yet neither of them have been Heretics, nor professed Schismatics, but because of some dissatisfaction, it may be, with the person, or ordination of such a Minister; or upon some mistake of a particular act of a Council, even when both did acknowledge the same, as particularly is noted to have been between Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of Pamphilia; and again at Antioch in the case of Meletius and Paulinus; and again between Flavianus and others; which is noted to be in the fourth Century. 9. It has extended to great heat and fury, even among the followers of each other; whereby much jealousy, heat, and dissension has been occasioned. 10. In both these there has been such a fervor, and as it were fury, that there has been no setting up nor removing of the same: and although we find difference to have arisen from little, even among good men, yet often we will find that most difficultly it has been removed, but for many generations it has continued, when the first authors have been away, and that with very great heat, as almost in all the instances given; so that, that sweet and moderate Divine Melanchthon did usually call the difference of Divines rabies Theologorum, and at his death did bless himself that among other sins and miseries he was to be freed from this rabies, or fury of Divines, which was evermore sadder to him than any opposition of open adversaries. 11. Usually, it has diverted most serious Divines, both from the pressing of piety, and reproving of vice; as also from maintaining of truth against open adversaries, and the pursuing of their errors. Augustine does complain of this to Jerome, and does for this end, as it were, crave a cessation; and it cannot be otherwise, for such debates do not profit those that are occupied therein, Hebrews 13:9, and when men’s edge is hot and sharp against others in such particular differences, it cannot but cool and blunt them in more weighty things, and is no little part of the devil’s subtlety to make way for error and profanity, thus to entangle Ministers. Which occasion he has ever taken to sow tares, which that great Father and Divine Basil does condole to this purpose, that while there was concord in every occupation, only in the Church and among Ministers there was dissension, and that so hot, that no commiseration of the Flock, which was set upon and drawn away by perverse men, was prevalent with them to abstain from such differences. 12. Hence, it has followed, that though there has been no considerable difference upon the matter at the first, yet notwithstanding it has grown and come to a height; and that in respect both of Schism and heresy; and it is rare to find in History that a division has continued long, but it has turned to separation in communion, and a Schism; and again, Schism has not continued long, but it has brought forth heresy; for divided practices lead men to lay down and maintain such principles as may defend them, and the bond of unity being broken, there is no stay or hold, because, as that forenamed Father Basil says, men take on them then to speak, write, and do as they please.

13. Although sometimes the fault of division may be more on one side than another, yet seldom is any side free, at least in the manner of prosecution, and therefore often it turns in the close to the hurt of both, and the one side becomes more schismatic and erroneous, at least in many of their members, as fell out in the case of the Novatians and Donatists. The other side again have often become more cold and secure in the practice of holiness, carnal and formal in pursuing ceremonies and external things, with less affection and life in the main, because the edge of their zeal was bent toward these differences; and generally people have been stumbled and offended by them; and by the miscarriage of some affectionate persons, men more formal and not very zealous in the main thing have come to have more weight and sway in the Government of the Church; and thus we see that after these hot debates that were in the Church about lesser things, schisms and heresies grew up on the one side; lukewarmness, formality, and inclination to ceremonies, and a formal lazy way of worship, did grow up and increase in the Church, upon the other side. 14. Though we find men sadly regret these, yet was there always a difficulty to get them removed; there being often a kind of inconsiderateness whereby the public good has been overlooked, and men have walked too much by particular inclination and affection, and so have come to hate whom formerly they praised, and to praise whom formerly they hated; by which the Ordinances have become weightless to all; and the Ministers, who sometimes were counted a gazingstock, a reproach, and the offscouring of all men because of afflictions, have become much more despicable because of their own intestine divisions, as one of the Fathers does pathetically expostulate for the dissensions of his time, writing to Nazianzen.

CHAP. IIII. The causes why Division usually cometh to so great an height.

We may now inquire what are the causes why divisions usually come to such a height, and are so difficult to remove, even among men who are devoted to the work of Christ, and otherwise sound, zealous, and sober; which is indeed strange, especially considering that they often see the evil, regret it, and themselves profess their desire for a remedy. In answering this, we are to look, 1. To the Lord’s sovereign hand even in this. 2. To what accession there is to it from those who differ. 3. To some occasional and accidental causes that concur therein. 4. We may consider the strength of the temptation in respect of some other circumstances.

That the Lord has a sovereign hand therein cannot be denied, and that in these two respects, not to insist on all: 1. As it is a trial whereby both men’s soundness and unsoundness have occasion to be manifested; this is asserted in 1 Corinthians 11 as a reason for the necessity of schisms and divisions, as may be gathered by comparing verse 18 with 19. But we will not insist on this. 2. The Lord has a judicial hand in it, that is, as He orders divisions for the just chastisement and punishment of some, even as was formerly said of heresies and delusions; and to this purpose, we may consider that woe which flows from offenses unto the world as relating especially to divisions among Church officers, as the placing of it immediately after the contention among the Apostles shows. And in the nature of it, and in respect of the consequences that follow thereon, it is indeed a woe, and a very great woe unto the world, and an evidence of the Lord’s displeasure, when thus in His anger divisions come among Ministers or people, as it is in Lamentations 4:16. We will find this true in these respects: 1. It shows signs of the Lord’s anger against Ministers; for thereby they become despicable, the Lord’s countenance and presence seem to be withdrawn, and much carnalness of spirit, and many other evils steal in; which both eat up much of that inward liveliness which otherwise they might have, and also disturb that tranquility and composure of mind which love and unity foster, and present Ministers unto people as men destitute of that badge whereby they may be known to be the Lord’s disciples, namely, love to one another. 2. It is often a great snare to many carnal professors; for thereby some are hardened in profanity, and become atheists, as if all that is spoken by Ministers concerning religion were not to be believed. Therefore the Lord prays for unity, and against differences among His disciples, for this reason, that the world might believe that Christ was sent by God, and that these are loved by Him, John 17:21, 23, which implies that this plague of atheism follows in the world upon such divisions. Again, others are so stumbled that they reject the truth preached by them, and thereby become a prey to be carried about with every wind of doctrine; for the prevention of which, Ministers, and union among Ministers, are required, Ephesians 4:1–3, with 11–14. 3. It becomes a burden, grief, and offense to the weak, such division being a main stumbling-block to the little ones who believe, Matthew 18:1, 6. 4. It proves a great confirmation and ground of hardening to the adversaries of the truth, who are thereby exceedingly hardened, and brought to applaud themselves in their own way, as if such divided instruments could not be of the one body, the Church, which is guided by one Spirit; and this was cast up as an objection by heathens in the primitive times, as we may find in the apologies of many of the Fathers. The same way has been followed by Antichrist and his followers unto this day; they triumph in nothing more than the divisions of the orthodox, and are more proud of nothing than their pretended unity, which they make a mark of the true Church. And when all these are considered, we suppose it may be evident that such divisions, when they occur, are a great plague unto the Church, and may justly be called a woe unto the world.

We need not insist upon the marks of a judicial division, seeing there is hardly a division in a Church but it is judicial in some part; yet these things may be considered to this purpose: 1. When the division is among the more eminent and godly men, as among the disciples. 2. If the matter for which the difference is kept up is comparatively light, as Augustine calls that with some Donatists parva dissentio (a small disagreement) as to the matter or occasion, which was yet great in its effects, Epistle 203. 3. If it is for dominion, or preeminence, or such things as may appear carnal before men, like that in Matthew 18:1. Or, 4. If the manner of pursuing it is carnal, or appears irrational, without that proper tenderness toward edification and offense which might reasonably be expected from such men. 5. When there are many clear and convincing reasons, especially in respect of the particular time and case, which might draw men away from such divisions. Or, 6. When sometimes healing is attempted, and contrary to probable reasons and expectations, it breaks off and turns worse when it appeared to be near a close. 7. When it spreads, and comes to occupy and take up professors, it may be, beyond many more important things. This is especially discernible when the division arises suddenly upon the back of a great calm, and after such sins as may procure its interruption, and when it comes in an unexpected way, from such persons, and upon such an occasion as, it may be, none could have looked for or thought of; when it occurs under afflictions, and other cares and reproaches, as the Jews’ divisions did, even when they were besieged by the Romans, and when under their power, as Josephus writes. These and such like may evidence something judicial therein. Because, 1. It so furthers what is penal in all the former respects, and it cannot but have such effects. 2. Because there being no other probable reason how ordinarily such a thing may come to pass, the Lord’s hand is to be acknowledged therein so much the more, when even His servants are drunken but not with wine, and He has poured upon them the spirit of deep sleep, and covered even the prophets and seers therewith, as the word is in Isaiah 29:9–10, and when they are as so many wild bulls caught in a net, full of the fury of the Lord, and of the rebuke of their God, as it is in Isaiah 51:20; whereby it comes to pass that neither one sort nor the other can particularly understand the duty called for in reference to their healing, any more than if all visions and directions concerning the same were sealed up, Isaiah 29:10–11 and 59:10, and none of all Zion’s sons are able to take her by the hand, Isaiah 51:18. 3. Besides these two, the Lord sometimes has a wise design for promoting His work, even by occasion of such divisions, as thereby to cause the Gospel to spread further than otherwise it would have; for by discontents and differences, sometimes men have been moved to go elsewhere and preach the Gospel. And in that instance of Paul and Barnabas separating, this is brought about: the Gospel is preached by both in their separate journeys, which would not have been so widely extended had they been together; but this, and others of this kind, being proper only to the Lord’s sovereign wisdom, we will not insist on them.

In the second place, if we consider the accession of the men themselves who are engaged in such divisions, it is manifold. 1. Men by former guiltiness may procure the same, as by abuse of former unity, carnalness in it, not improving it for edification, pride and conceitedness concerning it as if it could not be interrupted, not being thankful to God for it, nor praying for its continuance. These and such like may draw on such a dreadful stroke as division; wherefore not only is there a woe to the world because of offenses, but also to him by whom they come, Matthew 18, even when, notwithstanding, the necessity of them is asserted. 2. Some present sinful distemper in Ministers’ spirit or disposition may have influence upon this, as it were disposing them the sooner to take fire upon any occasion. As, 1. Distance from God, and coldness of love to Him, without which love cannot be kept up with others in Him. 2. Pride, conceitedness, desire of preeminence, respect, and applause, which was among the Apostles. 3. Following upon this, envy at the respect which is given to others, or the weight that they have in managing matters, and carnal emulation of their persons and actions. 4. There is a secret discontent at men’s being slighted by others, or at their apprehending themselves to be so. 5. There is a credulousness and readiness to receive wrong impressions, a jealousy or suspicion of others concerning their designs, ends, or particular attitudes toward them; all of which, proceeding from lack of charity that thinks no evil, etc., cannot but in some way dispose men toward division. 6. There is an itching, newfangled humor, not after new doctrines, but after new expressions, forms, or changes in other things. 7. There is sometimes a prejudice against severity and strictness, as if it were pride, ambition, or something intolerable, which is noted to have been the cause of the Clergy of Constantinople’s dissension with Chrysostom their Bishop. Of this kind, namely, sinful and disposing causes, are ignorance, imprudence, tenaciousness, or self-willedness, and such like, whereby a Minister is the more easily engaged, and the more difficultly brought away from it.

There are some acts whereby men have accession to the raising and heightening of division, and oftentimes these are mutual: As, 1. Some men’s doing of some inconsiderate act, or writing some inconsiderate expression upon the one hand, and others too passionately and vehemently exaggerating such a fact, and condemning such an expression by torturing deductions of absurdities from it beyond what was intended; so it was between Jerome and Augustine, etc. 2. When some press severity in discipline and censures somewhat too hotly, and others, with no less discontent, repel the same. 3. When men slightingly express their opinion of the persons, writings, or actions of others; and they in turn are engaged by similar reflections to vindicate themselves. 4. When men do not seek the instruction of themselves or others with genuine concern, but pursue a kind of credit for themselves, though at the cost of reproaching others. 5. Little willingness to condescend in order to remove mistakes and prejudices; abstaining from society and fellowship with those from whom they differ in some particular; hasty preaching and publishing of differences of small moment, as Epiphanius and some others formerly cited did; no condescending in particular matters where they might lawfully condescend; and such like. 6. Especially such acts as establish a schism and break communion in Government, Worship, and other Ordinances are exceedingly instrumental in this. As, 1. To have distinct Bishops or Ministers, Governors or Officers, and so to have opposing judicatories and opposing ordinations, which is often found to be the result and a great means of cherishing divisions in the primitive times. Whereupon followed, 2. Division in the administration of Sacraments, when such and such could not acknowledge men so ordained to be Ministers, and so could not communicate with them if they were ordained in opposition to them, or with such as were ordained by them; and this has a connection with such an act, because acknowledging such men to be lawfully ordained would call their own ordination into question. Whence, 3. Follow divided Congregations and meetings, according to the opposition among Ministers, some meeting in one place and some in another, and so withdrawing communion from one another, although both continue in the same Faith and Government, as may be seen in several of these divisions mentioned at Antioch, Constantinople, etc. Upon which again followed, 4. Opposing preaching among Ministers, each condemning the others as schismatics and as persons with whom communion ought not to be kept, one calling that a duty which the other called a sin and matter of humiliation, and contrariwise; as also mutual railing and reviling among the followers of such sides, which often has come to tumults, whereby it appears how great an influence such things have upon division. Yea, 5. It has come to divide families; Augustine often regrets in his Epistles that their division made the man and wife whom one bed contained incapable of being contained in the same Church where the same Faith was preached, and so he urges it also in reference to parents and children, and to masters and servants. Many more things might be named, such as censuring men upon such differences; for then often some adhere to them, which makes a rent, as is clear in these instances of Eustathius and Chrysostom; urging the condemnation of some writings and tenets that are not fundamental; thus the pressing of the condemnation of Origen’s writings, which are not supposed by some to have been so gross as those now called his, gave much occasion for contention and division among men who otherwise acknowledged all the fundamental truths comprehended in the general Councils, and likely also did not agree with him in his grossest errors, yet would not judicially condemn him, and others such like.

CHAP. V. What occasionall means may have influence upon division amongst the godly.

We come now, in the third place, to consider what occasional means may have influence upon this division among godly men. And such may be, 1. Some talebearers and secret whisperers, who may have much influence in alienating good men’s affections by misrepresenting the words and actions of others, under pretense of respect for them, when, in the meantime, it may be some particular discontent that moves them to it. It is noted that one Serapion had much influence in alienating Chrysostom and Severinus, who formerly were exceedingly close, by suggesting to the first many evidences of the other’s disrespect toward him, as if he had been endeavoring to draw the people’s affections away from him; and for that purpose, he picked out some words of Severinus which, considered alone, sounded gross, but when considered in the sentence as spoken by him, did not have such a meaning. 2. Often when differences arise among honest men, there are many who, out of particular designs, then foment that fire, especially such as, from some other fear, take occasion to exaggerate such a difference, because fostering that difference prevents what they fear. For instance, Chrysostom had threatened to censure many of his Presbyters for their faults, whereupon they took occasion from the differences between him and Epiphanius, Severinus, and others, to irritate and stir them up against him, and to side with them in these differences; whereby the division against him, and those who followed him, was maintained until it came to its height. Yet neither the differences between him and these other men, nor the persons of these other men who opposed him, were respected by them any further than they served their end of bearing him down, and so preventing the threatened and feared censure. 3. Sometimes Magistrates have had no little influence upon this, either by pretending to side with one party in these differences against the other, when yet it was not these differences but some other prejudice, arising from free speaking or the like, which engaged them. It is noted in that same case of Chrysostom that the Emperor and Empress concurred in bearing down his followers, and those who sided with him, because of some particular discontent at his free preaching, for which cause they were zealous executors of the Synod’s sentence. And those of the Clergy who were opposed to Chrysostom, in turn, took no little advantage of that discontent which they knew the Empress had against him. Or, on the other side, Magistrates are sometimes accessory by weakening Government and giving men access to do what they will. When Basil lamented the great differences of the Church in the times of Julian and Valens, and set himself to find out the cause thereof, he settled upon this statement in the Book of Judges: “In those days there was no King in Israel; every man did what seemed good in his own eyes.” He does not speak simply, as if there had been no Government, but that by such Government as there was, no course was taken, such as the calling of Synods or similar means, to restrain such things; rather, they were encouraged. 4. Sometimes also the people’s engaging and taking sides in such differences has no little influence in heightening and lengthening them. Hence we find that in some debates in which Churchmen alone have been engaged, there has been some stopping of them; but when the division has increased to the forming of parties among the people, it has always become more difficult, because Ministers were thereby more encouraged and engaged to be tenacious; yea, sometimes fear of displeasing the people who adhered to them has not lacked its weight. Also, it then turned more easily into schism and faction in practice, when one part of the people would call only such a man as agreed with their judgment, and another part of the people another man of theirs; whereupon followed great dissensions and factiousness in Elections, and opposing ordinations by Bishops of different judgments. Whereupon followed, 1. A rent in that particular Church; one part withdrawing with their Bishop and Minister, and the other part with theirs, neither keeping communion with the other, but seeking to overturn one another. And, 2. A rent among neighboring Bishops and Ministers, according as they were pleased to admit either side to their communion, and acknowledge or condemn either of the opposing ordinations. And, 3. Often also there followed opposing and eager applications to the supreme Magistrates and Emperor, to have their own respective Elections ratified, and the opposing election crushed by his authority; which often was followed with much bitterness, and sometimes not without calumnies against good men; and also not without prejudice to the Church’s liberty, and advantage to corrupt men or Magistrates who were not tender of truth, who thereby had occasion to involve themselves and advance their own ends the more. And it is noted of Anastasius the Emperor, who was a Monothelite, that he took occasion from heated differences in the Church among Divines, who on both sides differed from him, though one of the sides was sound, without respect to right or wrong, equally to endeavor the suppression of both by sending them into exile. And when Magistrates were more equitable toward and tender of the Church, as Theodosius, Gratian, etc., yet they were exceedingly troubled with such appeals, and made to hear such complaints even among and against men fully orthodox and sound, differing only in some particulars which had brought on opposing ordinations, as in the cases of Meletius and Paulinus, Eustathius and Flavianus, with their respective competitors. All of these things, concurring with that heat and fervor with which Churchmen usually pursue their differences, contributed considerably to the heightening and lengthening of divisions and rents upon the smallest occasions. 5. Occurring miscarriages of persons who differ have often had influence in increasing and continuing a breach; that is, when some persons on either side become more gross in other points of Doctrine or in practice, or pursue their designs by means that seem gross and unwarrantable to the other, or when some on one side express unjust calumnies against the other. This exceedingly alienates affections, confirms jealousies and suspicions, and readily gives rise to new Questions and controversies; because some are led to oppose and condemn, and others to defend such practices. Therefore there must be opposing principles suitable to them, and so the differences multiply from one step to another; whereby it comes to pass that often, where there is but one difference at first, after a time many arise, which makes the removal of divisions increasingly difficult the longer they continue. Hence we see that seldom does one difference continue for any length of time without the addition of many others, and these of greater importance, which, it may be, remain when the first cause might have been removed. 6. Sometimes also occurring dispensations in providence will give occasion to this tenaciousness. Suppose there appears to be an advantage on one side to carry through their point and bear down the other without uniting; it is then supposed to be conscience and prudence to make use of the same. Hence we find in History that men are more or less inclined to unite according as they apprehend their party to be more or less strong. Sometimes also some singular stroke upon the persons, names, or families of eminent opponents proves a confirmation to the others who escape, as if their way were more approved, and the others more remarkably condemned; for men are ready thus to misinterpret the most accidental event which, for other ends, may come upon anyone with whom they differ. Thus Zwingli’s death not only became matter for triumph among Papists, but was misapplied even by Luther and others; and Carlstadt’s foul defection afterward became an occasion for hardening many in condemning his opposition to keeping Images in Churches, though without any worship, because, following that debate, Luther had represented him as a light, unsettled, unstable person whose judgment was not to be valued. When this accordingly came to pass, it made many maintain the opinion contrary to his, as if it had been ratified by his fall. And we think that if either Chrysostom’s or Epiphanius’s wishes concerning the other had come to pass only upon the one side, it also might have had influence; but seeing both came to pass, we conceive that thereby the Lord would keep men from being confirmed in their differences by such providential dispensations, and show Himself angry at the carnalness of good men, even in their smallest differences on both sides.

In the fourth place, we have to consider wherein the strength of the temptation to keep up division lies, in respect of several circumstances that may have influence, especially upon Churchmen.

There is engagement, concern for reputation, and such like, which steal in and vent themselves in heat and tenaciousness under other appearances, such as zeal for God’s honor, respect for the reputation of the Ministry, and concern for the Ordinances. And in this it seems not to be any personal reputation or respect that sways them, but zeal for and respect to the Master, as is suggested in the disciples’ conduct in Luke 9, in their seeking to avenge themselves upon the place that would not receive Christ by calling down fire from heaven, verse 54, and also in their forbidding some to cast out devils, even in His name, because they thought it was not for Christ’s honor, verse 49.

The temptation often carries with it great confidence in the justice and equity of their own side, and in the unreasonableness of their adversaries. There may in part be much ground for this where the controversy concerns some doubtful, disputable thing. How great a confidence both Job and his friends have in their debate, so that both of them are frequent in desiring God’s decision, when neither of them, either in matter or manner, was fully approved. Sometimes also there may be a persuasion very satisfying to the party, when yet it is not from God; this was the case in Galatians 5:8, likely on both sides, even when they were biting and devouring one another. For we often find by experience that a disputable thing, after being pleaded for a time, will become palpably clear and altogether necessary to those who have disputed for it, because engagement bribes the light and perverts even the wisdom of the just. Hence we see that the longer one pleads for a thing, the more confident he becomes in it, because his own pleading secretly prevails more with himself than reasons proposed by others to the contrary can.

There is strength in the temptation in this also, that not only is the matter thought just, but it is thought necessary and of great importance. If it is, 1. A Question concerning even the most circumstantial truth, if we may speak so, it appears necessary and as a thing that cannot be given up. Yea, even those who are engaged to maintain that side where the error lies will exalt the controversy as a high point of Christianity. Among the Fathers, those who maintained the Millenarian opinion and Christ’s personal reign thought it a point of high importance. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, says that he is no Christian, orthodox in all things, who thinks otherwise. And in later Popish Writers, how strongly is the necessity of oil, chrism, and such like pleaded for? This shows what an impression the apparent weightiness of such things will have upon men, as if they were a main foundation of Religion. And, 2. If it is a matter of fact or Government, it is thought to be of such importance for the good of the Church that they cannot give it up without becoming accessory to the corruption and hurt of the Church, or to the weakening of its authority. Hence the faults and consequences of the adverse party are so often aggravated; canons and constitutions are alleged to have been broken, as we may see, among other instances, in that debate between Rome and Constantinople concerning precedence before Antichrist was revealed, one alleging an act of Nicea, the other an act of the Council of Chalcedon, and Rome claiming the interest of Saint Peter and the good of the universal Church. And, 3. If it is a difference about persons, as who is to be acknowledged as Bishop or Minister, or whether such a person is lawfully ordained, deposed, etc., then those whom they oppose are conceived to be notoriously heinous, and those whom they support are believed to be incomparably singular and eminent. Therefore it is no wonder that they press their point vehemently, thinking that much of the good or evil of the Church depends upon the admission or rejection of such men respectively. And this flows imperceptibly from the former differences, because when they are confident that they themselves are right in a main point, they necessarily must think those wrong and untender who oppose them in such a thing; and the hotter the opposition grows, the more grossly obstinate they think each other to be. By this also they are disposed to hear and receive reports and misinformation concerning their opponents, whereby they come truly to believe that they are gross even in all other things, and in their very ends and designs. And I suppose that, besides the instances formerly given in all these respects, the differences that arose first between Luther and Carlstadt, and afterward between Luther and those who followed him on the one side, and Zwingli, Calvin, and others on the other side, fully demonstrate this. How small were these beginnings at first, and yet how were even the smallest differences aggravated, and the persons differing misunderstood, even before these differences came to the height which they reached? And we may observe also that this misunderstanding of men’s persons and actions, and the bitterness that follows thereupon, is most ordinarily discernible upon that side where there is least to be said in conscience and equity for its defense.

Add to these a conviction of sincerity which persons may seem to themselves to have in all the former steps, wherein there may be no positively corrupt end proposed, nor any palpable dissimulation in their professions entertained or approved by them. But as they have some confidence in the equity of their side, so there may be an apprehended testimony of their own sincerity in following it; and there is great strength in the temptation to continue division that lies here. For when men apprehend their own sincerity and uprightness, and, it may be, have access to God and liberty to pray even in reference to such things, it is not easy for a man to stop himself in that way. And yet it cannot be thought, among the instances of such divisions that have been given, that men on both sides did not have a sincere end and mind, pray, and have access in prayer; yea, no question, many of them might go to heaven with such differences on both sides, for we find them continuing zealous in such things even to death. Neither ought this to be thought strange; for the best know only in part and are subject to mistakes, and their zeal and sincerity are shaped according to their knowledge. It was such zeal, not according to knowledge, though in the most fundamental things, that made Paul and others, with a kind of sincerity, persecute the Church; therefore, proportionally, there may be zeal and sincerity in lesser things when there is ignorance concerning them.

After engagement, the temptation is strengthened by this: lest, by afterward yielding, their former practice in being so eager should be condemned, and they should lose the weight of their Ministry in other things, and their respective followers, who possibly may be more tenacious and zealous than themselves, should be irritated and provoked. These things appear to them as greater injuries even to the work of the Gospel than their continuing divided. It is written of Luther in his life that, being in conference with Melanchthon and others on his last journey, he acknowledged to them that he had been too vehement and peremptory in the Doctrine of the Sacrament; and when they urged him then to publish something concerning the same, he replied that he feared thereby to diminish the authority and weight of what else he had stood for on God’s behalf, and therefore refrained from doing it, while allowing Melanchthon after his death to do in that matter as he thought fit.

Sometimes also the temptation is strengthened by apprehended consequences of hurt and prejudice to those who side with them in such a matter from others, in case there should be yielding in such and such particulars for the sake of union; or by the thought that, in doing so, they might make themselves and their cause odious to others who possibly may be thought to have more favorable thoughts of them because of their differing in such things from others. It is written of Luther that he gave this as a main reason why he kept up the Sacramentarian difference, and would not unite with Calvin and others on that point, because, he said, the opinion which the Sacramentarians, as they were called, hold is generally more hateful than that of Consubstantiation, and would make the Princes and others more exposed to malice and hatred.

The temptation is also strengthened when men do not look upon the difference simply in itself, but comparatively, with respect to the principles and conduct of their opponents; and by considering things that are displeasing in them and their way, they are made more tenacious and brought to justify themselves the more. Hence it is in such divisions that the great stress of debates lies in reflections, accusations, and counter-accusations, as if this were the only vindicating argument: Those who oppose us are wrong in many things in their conduct; therefore our way is right, or we have reason to divide from them. And hence it is that such reflections are almost necessarily used in such debates, where the matter is not of such weight and evidence, as the most convincing defensive arguments on either side; as in those debates between Jerome and Rufinus formerly cited, where there is no dispute on either side but accusations on both. This may also be observed in the reflections of the Donatists.

In such differences also, men are ready to think that the other side should and will yield to them, and will not hazard division over so small a thing. Hence many have been drawn on to division from small beginnings which they would not have yielded to, had they known the consequences thereof, or had they not expected that the other side would have yielded. When they are disappointed in this expectation, their engagement becomes stronger and the division more irreconcilable. This is noted of Victor, of whom it is said that he would not have been so peremptory had he not supposed that, in such a matter, the other side would have yielded.

CHAP. VI. What be the sad effects of division, and the necessity of endeavouring unity. 

Having now in some measure discovered the nature and causes of the evil of division, it may easily be conjectured what its effects will be, which have always been most deplorable: in tormenting those who are engaged in it; in scandalizing the weak; in hardening and bringing to ruin many profane and frivolous persons; in spoiling the Church in her purity, Government, order, and the beauty of her Ordinances; and, what is more, in wearing out the life and power of Religion. Yea, above all, there is nothing that tends more to the reproach of the blessed Name of our Lord Jesus, that makes Christianity more hateful, that renders the Gospel more unfruitful, and that more hinders the progress and interest of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus. And, in a word, nothing more shuts out all good, and lets in by an open door everything that is evil into the Church, than this woeful evil of division, according to the word in James 3:16: “Where envy and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work.” And we are persuaded that whoever has read the Scriptures and the many and great motives by which union is urged; and has considered the Fathers, what great weight they lay upon unity, and with what horror they mention division, even as maximum malum, or the greatest evil that can befall the Church; or has observed in Church history the many sad consequences and effects that have followed upon this, and the lamentable condition of the Church under the same, when friends were ashamed and made faint, enemies were encouraged and delighted, and onlookers were either provoked to mock at or pity the Church; or whoever has had some taste by experience of its bitter fruits, will—and, if they are not altogether stupid, cannot but—be convinced of the many horrible evils that are contained in this one evil of division. Surely there is no evil that more suddenly and inevitably overturns the Church than this, which makes her fight against herself, eat her own flesh, and tear her own bowels; for that a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand is the infallible maxim of Him who was greater and wiser than Solomon. And when things are compared, it will be found that there is no more direct way to destroy the fruit of Ordinances, when the Ordinances themselves cannot be removed or corrupted, and by so doing to destroy and carry souls headlong, than this: that a Church, in her Ministers and Members, should be engaged thus to bite and devour one another, and to work against the actions of one another. This, we suppose, will not be denied.

It will also readily be granted that it is the duty of all Christians, especially of Ministers of the Gospel, to endeavor the preservation of unity and the prevention of division, and to recover unity and remove division by healing the breach when it has been made. Never did men run to quench a fire in a City, lest all should be destroyed, with more diligence than men ought to exert themselves to quench this fire in the Church. Never did mariners use more speed to stop a leak in a ship, lest all should be drowned, than Ministers especially, and all Christian men, should hasten to stop the beginning of the breaking in of these waters of strife, lest thereby the whole Church be overwhelmed. And if the many evils which follow thereupon; the many commands by which union is urged; yea, the many entreaties and solemn appeals by which the Holy Ghost so frequently urges this upon all, as a thing most acceptable to Him and profitable to us—if, I say, these and many other such considerations do not have sufficient weight to convince men of the necessity of this duty, either to prevent or to heal a breach, we cannot tell what can prevail with men who profess reverence for the great and dreadful Name of God, conscientiousness concerning duty, and respect for the edification of the Church and for their own peace at the appearing of the Lord in the great Day, wherein the peacemakers shall be blessed, for they shall be called the children of God.