who are professing Christians in good standing in the visible church,
under each head, I have observed some particular errors that have flowed from these fountains.
_______________
Secondly. I now proceed as I proposed in the second place,68 to take notice of some particular errors that have risen from several of these causes. In some perhaps they have been chiefly owing to one error, and in others to another, and in others to the influence of several of them, or all of them conjunctly.
1. And here the first thing I would take notice of, is censuring others who are professing Christians in good standing in the visible church, as unconverted. I need not repeat what I said elsewhere to show that this is against the plain, frequent, and strict prohibitions of the word of God. It is the worst disease that has attended this work, the most contrary to the spirit and rules of Christianity, and it has worse consequences. There is a most unhappy tincture that the minds of many have received in that way, both ministers and people. The manner of many has been, when they first enter into conversation with anyone who seems to have any show or to make any pretences to religion, to discern or fix a judgment about him from his manner of talking about the things of religion — whether he is converted, or is practically acquainted with vital piety or not. Then they treat him accordingly, and freely express their thoughts about him to others, especially those whom they have a good opinion about as "true" Christians, and have accepted as brethren and companions in Christ. Or if they don't declare their minds expressly, yet by their manner of speaking about them, at least to their friends, they plainly show what their thoughts are.
So when they have heard any minister pray or preach, their first work has been to observe him with a design to discern whether he is a converted man or not; whether he prays like someone who feels the saving power of God's Spirit in his heart; and whether he preaches like someone who knows what he says. It has been so much the way in some places, that many new converts don't know if it isn't also their duty to do so; they know no other way. And once people yield to
such a notion, and give in to such an attitude, they will quickly grow "very discerning" in their own minds. They think they can easily tell a hypocrite; and once they have passed their censure, everything seems to confirm it. They see more and more in the person that they have censured, which seems to them to plainly show that he is an unconverted man.
If the person censured is a minister, everything in his public performances seems dead and sapless, and to do them no good at all. On the contrary, it seems to have a deadening influence, and is poisonous to the soul. Indeed, it seems worse and worse to them; his preaching grows more and more intolerable. This is owing to a secret, strong prejudice that steals in more and more upon the mind, as experience plainly and certainly shows. When the Spirit of God was wonderfully poured out in this place more than seven years ago, on nearly thirty souls a week, for five or six weeks together, to all appearance they were brought home to Christ. The whole town seemed to be alive and full of God. There was no such notion or attitude prevailing here. When ministers preached here, as very many did at that time, young and old, our people didn't try to discern whether they were men of experience or not; they didn't know that they should. Mr. Stoddard never brought them up in that way. It didn't seem natural to them to go about anything of that nature, nor did any such thing stir in their hearts. Rather, when any minister preached, the business of everyone was to listen and attend to what he said, and apply it to his own heart, and make the utmost use of it. It is remarkable that there never appeared such a disposition in the people to relish, approve of, and admire ministers' preaching, as there was at that time. Such expressions as these were frequent in the mouths of one and another, on the occasion of strangers preaching here — they rejoiced that there were so many such eminent ministers in the country; they wondered that they had never heard the fame of them before; and they were thankful that other towns had such good means; and the like. Scarcely did any minister ever preach here, that his preaching did not do some remarkable service. I had good opportunity to know this, because at
that time I was particularly acquainted with most of the people in town, in the concerns of their soul. The fact that it has been so much otherwise lately, in many places in the land, is another instance of the secret and powerful influence of custom and example.
There has been an unhappy disposition in some ministers toward their brethren in the ministry in this respect, which has encouraged and greatly promoted such a negative spirit among some of their people. A wrong use has been made of Christ's scourging the buyers and sellers out of the temple. It has been expected by some, that Christ was now about to purge his house of unconverted ministers in this way, and this has made it more natural for them to think that they should do Christ a service,69 and act as co-workers with him, to put to their hand and endeavor by all means, to cashier 70 those ministers that they thought were unconverted. It appears to me probable that the time is indeed coming when awful judgments will be executed on unfaithful ministers, and that no sort of men in the world will be so exposed to divine judgments as they will be. But then, we should leave that work to Christ, who is the searcher of hearts, and to whom vengeance belongs — and not without warrant, take the scourge out of His hand and place it in our own. There has been too much of a disposition in some, to give ministers over as reprobates, who have been looked at as wolves in sheep's clothing. This has tended to promote and encourage a spirit of bitterness towards them, and to make it natural to treat them too much as if their accusers knew God hated them. If God's children knew that others were reprobates, it would not be required of them to love them — we may hate those that we know are reprobates. God hates them. It is lawful to hate the devil; and the saints at the Day of Judgment will hate the wicked. But some have been too apt to look for fire from heaven upon particular ministers. And this has naturally excited that disposition to call for it, which Christ rebuked in his disciples at Samaria. (Luk 9.54)
For my part, though I believe no sort of men on earth are so exposed to spiritual judgments as wicked ministers, I feel no disposition to treat any minister as if I supposed he was finally rejected by God. For
I cannot help but hope that there is coming a day of such great grace, a time so appointed for magnifying the riches and sovereignty of divine mercy, beyond what ever was, that a great number of unconverted ministers will obtain mercy. There was no sort of people in Christ's time who were so guilty, and so hardened, and towards whom Christ manifested such great indignation, as the Priests and Scribes — and there were no such persecutors of Christ and his disciples as them. And yet in that great outpouring of the Spirit that began on the day of Pentecost, though it began with the common people, in the progress of the work, after a while, a great company of priests in Jerusalem were obedient to the faith, Act 6.7. And Saul, one of the most violent of all the persecuting Pharisees, later became the greatest promoter of the work of God, who ever was. I hope we will yet see in many instances a fulfilment of Isa 29.24, "They too who erred in spirit, will come to understanding. And those who murmured, will learn doctrine."
Nothing has been gained by this practice of censuring. The end that some have aimed at in it has not been obtained, nor is ever likely to be. Possibly some have openly censured ministers, and encouraged their people's uneasiness under them, in hopes that it would soon come to this: that the uneasiness would be so general, and so great, that unconverted ministers in general would be cast off, and then things would go on happily. But there is no likelihood of it. Instead, the devil has indeed obtained his end: this practice has bred a great deal of unhappiness among ministers and people It has spoiled Christians' enjoyment of sabbaths, and made them their most uneasy, uncomfortable, and unprofitable days. And it has stirred up great contention, and set all aflame. In one place and another, where a glorious work of God's Spirit had begun, it has in a great measure knocked them all in the head, and their ministers hold their places.
Some have aimed at a better end in censuring ministers. They suppose it to be a likely means to awaken them; but in fact, nothing has had so great a tendency to prevent the awakening of disaffected ministers in general. And nothing has actually had such an influence to lock up the minds of ministers against any good effect of this great
work of God in the land. I have known instances of some who seemed to be greatly moved by the first appearance of this work of revival. But since then, they seem to be greatly deadened by what has appeared of this nature. If there are one or two instances of ministers who have been awakened by it, there are ten times as many on whom it has had a contrary influence. The worst enemies of this work have been inwardly eased by this practice of censuring. They have made a shield of it to defend their consciences. They are glad that it has been carried to so great an extent. For at the same time, they looked at it and employed it as a door opened for them to be bolder in opposing the work of revival in general.
There is no such dreadful danger of natural men being undone by our forbearing to censure them, and treating them as visible Christians. It will be no bloody, hell-peopling charity, as some suppose it is, once it is known that we are not treating them as Christians, because we've taken it upon ourselves to pass judgment on their eternal state, on any trial or exercise of our skill in examining and discerning them. It is only allowing them to be worthy of public charity, upon their profession and good external behavior. Judas was not in danger of being deceived by Christ's treating him for a long time as a disciple, and sending him out as an apostle. Christ did not then take it upon Himself to act as the Judge and Searcher of hearts, but only as the Head of the visible church. Indeed, such charity as this may be abused by some, as everything else is, and will be — even though it is proper in its own nature, and no matter how good a tendency it has. I'm not saying anything against dealing thoroughly with the conscience, by the most convincing and searching dispensation of the word of God. I don't want this sword to be sheathed, or gently handled by ministers. Let it be used as a two-edged sword to pierce, even to dividing asunder soul and spirit, joints and marrow. Let conscience be dealt with, without any compliments. Let ministers handle it in flaming fire, without having any more mercy on it than the furnace has on those metals that are tested in it. But leave a man's person alone. Let the
word of God judge him; but let's not take it upon ourselves to do that, until we have warrant for it.
Some have been ready to censure ministers because they seem, in comparison to some other ministers, to be very cold and lifeless in their ministerial performances. But consider that for all we know, God may later raise up ministers of so much more excellent and heavenly qualifications. They may be so much more spiritual and divine in their performances, that there may be as great a difference between them and those who now seem the liveliest, as there is now between the liveliest and others who are called "dead and sapless." Those who are now called lively ministers may appear to their hearers as wretchedly mean, and their performances poor, dead, dry things, when they compare them with others who excel them. Many may be prejudiced against them, considering them good for nothings, perhaps calling them soul-murderers. What a poor figure the liveliest of us make, and those who are most admired by the people, when seen in the eyes of one of the saints of heaven — other than as our deadness, deformity, and rottenness is hidden by the veil of Christ's righteousness.
Another thing that is supposed to be sufficient warrant for openly censuring ministers as unconverted, is their opposing this work of God that has lately been carried on in the land. There can be no doubt with me, that opposition against this work may render either ministers or people truly scandalous, and expose them to public ecclesiastical censure. As I observed before, ministers may utterly defeat the design of the ministry by this, and so give their people just cause for uneasiness. I shouldn't think that any person has power to oblige me to constantly attend the ministry of someone who, from time to time, plainly prayed and preached against this work, or frequently spoke of it reproachfully in his public performances — not after all Christian methods had been used for a remedy, but to no purpose.
As experience shows, it is a very difficult thing to determine how far opposition to this work is consistent with a state of grace, or how far
it may go, and for how long a time. Some people of good experience in their own souls, have been prejudiced through the errors that have been mixed with this work, or through some peculiar disadvantages they are under to behold things in a right view of them, because of the people they converse with, or because of their own cold and dead frames. I have seen things which abundantly convince me that the business is too high for me. I am glad that God has not committed such a difficult affair to me. I can joyfully leave it entirely in the hands of the One who is infinitely fit for it, without meddling at all with it myself. We may represent it as exceedingly dangerous to oppose this work, for we have good warrant for this in the word of God. But we are not under any necessity that I know of, to determine whether it is possible for those who are guilty of it, to be in a state of grace or not.
God seems to have so strictly forbidden this practice of judging our brethren in the visible church, not only because He knew that we are too much like babes — too infinitely weak, fallible, and blind, to be well capacitated for it — but also because He knew that it wasn't a work suited to our proud hearts. It would set us too vastly high, and make us too much like lords over our fellow creatures. Judging our brethren and passing a condemnatory sentence upon them, seems to carry in it an act of authority (especially in so great a case) to sentence them with respect to that state of their hearts, on which their liableness to eternal damnation depends. This is made evident by such questions as the two which follow. Hearing them from God's mouth, is enough to make us shrink into nothing with shame and confusion, and a sense of our own blindness and worthlessness. Rom 14.4, "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stand or falls." Jas 4.12, "There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy; who are you to judge another?" Our wise and merciful Shepherd has graciously taken care not to lay in our way such a temptation to pride. He has cut all such poison out of our pasture. Therefore, we should not desire to have it restored. Blessed be His name, that he has not laid such a temptation in the way of my
pride! I know that in order to be fit for this business, I must not only be vastly more knowing, but humbler than I am.
Though I believe some of God's own children have lately been guilty in this matter. Yet, by what is said about it in the Scripture, it appears to me very likely that before these things which God has recently begun, have an end, God will awfully rebuke that practice. May it be prevented in sovereign and infinite mercy, by the deep and open humiliation of those who have openly practised it.
Just as this practice ought to be avoided, so should all open, visible marks of distinction and separation that imply it. For example, particularly distinguishing those we have judged to be in a converted state, by calling them brother or sister. This should be done no further than there is a visible ecclesiastical distinction. In those places where it is the manner to receive only those persons to the communion of the visible church, who recommend themselves by giving a satisfying account of their inward experiences, there Christians may openly distinguish such people in their speech and ordinary behavior, with a visible separation, without being inconsistent with themselves. I won't pretend to meddle with that controversy now, whether such an account of a personal experience is requisite to church fellowship. But certainly, to admit people to communion with us as brethren in the visible church, and then to visibly reject them, and to make an open distinction between them and others by using different names or appellations, is to be inconsistent with ourselves. It is to make a visible church within a visible church, and to visibly divide between sheep and goats, setting one on the right hand, and the other on the left. (Mat 25.32-33)
This bitter root of censoriousness must be totally rooted out, if we would prepare the way of the Lord. It has nourished and upheld many other things contrary to humility, meekness, and the love of the gospel. The minds of many have received an unhappy turn, in some respects, with their religion. There is a certain point or sharpness, a disposition to a kind of vehemence, that doesn't savor of that meek, lamblike, sweet disposition that becomes Christians. Many have now been habituated to it for so long, that they don't
know how to get out of it. But we must get out of it. The pointedness and sharpness must be blunted, and we must learn another way to manifest our zeal for God.
Some have a way of reflecting on others, and censuring them in open prayer, which even if it has a fair show of love, it is indeed the boldest way imaginable of reproaching others, because there is implied in it an appeal to the most high God, concerning the truth of their censures and reflections.
Here I would also observe, by the way, that some have a way of joining a sort of imprecation with their petitions for others, even if conditional ones. These appear to me wholly needless and improper. They pray that others may either be converted or removed. I never heard nor read of any such thing practised in the church of God until now, unless it is with respect to some of the most visibly and notoriously abandoned enemies of the church of God. This is a kind of cursing men in our prayers, and adding a curse with our blessing; whereas the rule is, bless and curse not. (Rom 12.14) To pray that God would kill another, is to curse him with the same curse with which Elisha cursed the children who came out of Bethel. And the case must be very great and extraordinary indeed to warrant it, unless we were prophets, and didn't speak our own words, but words penned by the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God. It is pleaded that if God has no design to convert others, it is best for them, as well as best for others, that they be immediately taken away and sent to hell before they have contracted more guilt. To this I would say, that it was best that those children who met Elisha, seeing that God had no design to convert them, should die immediately as they did. Yet Elisha's imprecating that sudden death upon them, was cursing them. And therefore, it would not have been lawful for someone who did not speak in the name of the Lord, as a prophet.
And then, if we give way to such things as these, where will we stop? A child who suspects he has an unconverted father and mother, may pray openly that his father and mother may either be converted, or taken away and sent to hell quickly, before their guilt is greater. (For unconverted parents are as likely to poison the souls of their family
in their manner of training them up, as unconverted ministers are to poison their people.) So it might become a common thing all over the country, for children to pray in this manner concerning their parents, and brothers and sisters concerning one another, and husbands concerning their wives, and wives concerning their husbands, and for people to pray concerning all their unconverted friends and neighbors. And not only so, but we may also pray concerning all those saints who are not "lively" Christians, that they may either be enlivened or taken away. If what is often said by some these days is true, that these cold dead saints do more hurt than natural men, and lead more souls to hell, then would it be well for mankind if they were all dead?
How needless are such petitions or imprecations as these? What benefit is there by them? Why isn't it sufficient for us to pray that God would provide for his church, and the good of souls, and take care of His own flock, and give it needed means and advantages for its spiritual prosperity? Does God need to be directed by us in what way He should do it? Why do we need to ask God to do it by killing such and such people, if he doesn't convert them? — unless we delight in the thought of God's answering us in such terrible ways, and with such awful manifestations of his wrath to our fellow creatures.
And why don't ministers direct sinners to pray for themselves, that God would either convert them or kill them, and send them to hell now, before their guilt is greater? In this way we would lead people in the next place to self murder; for many probably would soon begin to think that what they may pray for, they may seek, and use the means for it.
Some with whom I have discoursed about this way of praying, have said that the Spirit of God, as it were, forces such words out of their mouths, when otherwise they wouldn't dare to utter them. But such an impulse doesn't look like the influence of the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God sometimes strongly inclines men to utter words, but not by putting expressions into the mouth, and urging them to utter them. Rather, it's by filling the heart with a sense of divine things,