West Port Experiment

CHAP. III. If any of the People of God may be carried away with grosse delusions.

From these doctrines several questions may be raised. And, 1. Whether any of the people of God may be carried away with such abominable errors in doctrine? We shall answer in the following assertions.

Assertion 1. There is no error so gross in its substance that believers may not fall into it. For although they have a promise that error shall not wholly separate Christ and them, nor that they shall finally be carried away by it, yet, seeing they have corruption capable of being tempted to every sin, and therefore to this among other sins, they cannot be absolutely exempted from it. Neither is there any promise by which they can expect absolutely to be preserved from heresy any more than from murder or adultery, which, together with this, are fruits of the flesh. Indeed, except for the sin against the Holy Ghost and final impenitence, there is no absolute exemption of the believer from any sin. The Lord has wisely ordered it so, that the believer may be kept from security even in reference to such temptations.

Besides, experience shows that grace does not exempt a person from error in judgment. For it is likely that Solomon, even if he did not actually commit idolatry himself, yet became too inclined toward it, as we may gather from what Scripture records concerning him. Neither can we altogether condemn, as to their spiritual state, those in Corinth, Galatia, and other Churches who were drawn away from the truth after their conversion, as though none but unregenerate professors had been so drawn away. Indeed, it is possible, if not probable, that some of those whom the Lord calls His servants, and who nevertheless were seduced in the Church of Thyatira, were not still in the state of nature.

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

CHAP. VI. Concerning what is to be accounted satisfaction, or satisfying.

The great question is, when a person appears, acknowledges his offense, and submits to a public rebuke, what is to be judged satisfactory, so that a Church judicatory may stop the process, rest satisfied, and admit the person to Church privileges as though the former offense had not been?

In answering this, we shall first show what is not satisfactory. Secondly, we shall show what a Church judicatory need not inquire into for this ecclesiastical satisfaction. Thirdly, we shall show what is necessary and satisfactory. Then we shall answer one or two questions for further clarification.

1. We say that every verbal acknowledgment of a fault, even though accompanied by a promise of amendment, is not sufficient. Such a profession may occur in either of the two cases formerly mentioned: first, where the person merely mocks Christ’s ordinance by making the profession; or secondly, where he has often relapsed after making similar professions, or at present continues in that same offense or some other gross evil. To regard such a profession of repentance as satisfactory would produce all the inconveniences already mentioned and would amount to a manifest taking of the name of the Lord in vain.

This may be gathered from the following consideration. Such a profession, under these circumstances, ought not to satisfy a brother in the exercise of private admonition. On the contrary, he ought all the more to take one or two others with him afterward, being the more offended by such hypocrisy. If those witnesses also meet with the same insincere profession, they may properly bring the matter before the Church, since they likewise cannot reasonably be satisfied with such mockery. Much less, then, ought the Church itself to be satisfied with it, because the Church more formally represents Jesus Christ and His authority. Consequently, mockery and contempt shown toward the Church constitute a far greater offense.

Read Full Post »