West Port Experiment

CHAP. X. What is to be done in order to Uniting.

Now we may be briefer in speaking of what is to be done in reference to particular differences, seeing that much may be gathered from the general principles already laid down, and it is not our purpose to enter into every particular. Yet we say:

1. It is the duty of such persons to seek union with one another, and for that purpose to offer and desire meetings and conferences, and to urge harmony upon one another. In that Council of Carthage, of which Aurelius was Moderator, they appointed that conferences should be sought with the Donatists, although they had been long in schism; and for that purpose they appointed Commissioners and gave them instructions to go from place to place and endeavor a settlement. Among these instructions were these: that their former schism and separation should prejudice no one; and that Ministers and Bishops should continue in their charges, if otherwise worthy, notwithstanding their former separation. This is observed not to have been without fruit in many places, as the acts and events are recorded by Balsamon. And this is according to the general rule of pursuing peace even when it seems to flee from men; while questions that may produce strife are to be avoided and fled from when they seem to pursue men, because, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:22 and following, The servant of the Lord must not strive, and so on.

Read Full Post »

CHAP. VII. General Grounds Leading to Unity.

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

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

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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 »