Excursus: Brotherly Correction and Christian Reproof
thou also be tempted," and not "you"—which he does not through rudeness of speech, as some of the ancient divines have thought, but with great judgment he uses a familiar Hebraism, changing the number. First to give the greater force and to set the sharper edge upon his admonition. For that which is spoken to all is spoken to none. Secondly, to show how hard a thing it is for a man to consider himself; it is natural for men to spy motes in other men's eyes and not to perceive beams in their own (Matt. 7:3); to look outward at others, not inward at themselves. Like Plutarch's Lamia, or fairies which carried their eyes in their heads when they went abroad, but when they came home put them upon in a box. In doing good and being beneficial, we must not so much consider ourselves (Phil. 2:4), but in judging and reproving, we ought to begin with ourselves.
Excursus: Brotherly Correction and Christian Reproof For the better understanding of the doctrine of brotherly correction and Christian reproof, I will handle these four questions: I. Who are to be reproved? II. For what? III. By whom? IV. In what manner?
I. Who are to be reproved?
Answer. All that are brethren. For so our Savior Christ says, "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him between thee and him" (Matt.
18:15). And St. Paul says, "Brethren if any man," etc. The name "brethren" is taken four ways in Scripture, as Jerome has well observed against Helvidius. I. For those that are brethren by nature, as Jacob and Esau, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. II. For those that are of affinity. Thus the kinsmen of Christ are called "his brethren," which the Helvidians not observing,
thought they had been his natural brethren by the virgin Mary. Thus Abraham and Lot are called brethren (Gen. 13:8), though Lot was but his brother's son (Gen. 14:12). Thus Jacob the nephew of Laban calls himself "his brother" (Gen. 29:12), and so Laban calleth him (v. 15).
III. For men of the same country. Thus all the Jews are called brethren one to another. "From among thy brethren shalt thou make a king over thee" (Deut. 17:15). And, "Thou shalt not give to usury to thy brother" (Deut. 23:19), and Paul says, "He could wish himself anathema," or accursed, "for his brethren" (Rom. 9:3), that is, the Jews. IV. For those of the same religion. "We must lay down our lives for our brethren" (1 John 3:16). "One is your doctor," to wit, Christ,
"and all ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8). "If any that is called a brother be a fornicator, with such a one eat not" (1 Cor. 5:11). To these we may add a fifth acceptation. For all those that are confederate, or otherwise joined together by the bond of nature, humanity, society, or friendship. Thus Ahab calleth Benhadad his brother, that is, his friend (1 Kings 20:32–33). Thus Simeon and Levi are called
"brethren in wickedness" [Gen. 49:5], that is, confederate in evil.
Thus all men are called brethren one to another by reason of the bond of nature: "At the hand of a man's brother, will I require the life of man" (Gen. 9:5). In all countries, those that associate themselves together in war, after a special manner, are called sworn brethren.
Now we must not restrain the word brethren to those that are brethren by nature, or by affinity, or by country. Neither enlarge it to all those that are brethren by the bond of nature, but only to those that are brethren in the fourth acceptation, that is to say, brethren in religion, or brethren in the Lord (though they be false brethren), if they be brethren at least in outward profession. For reproof being a part of ecclesiastical discipline belongs not to those that are out of the visible church, as to Jews, Turks, pagans—because our Savior
Christ says, "If he hear them not, tell the church. And if he will not
hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," which cannot be understood of him that is a heathen or pagan already. And Paul says, "If any that is called a brother," that is, a Christian, "be a fornicator," etc. (1 Cor. 5:11). And then he adds in the next verse, "What have I to do to judge them that are without?"— that is, such as are no members of the church, to whom ecclesiastical discipline reaches not—"do not ye judge them that are within?," that is, such as are of the visible church, such as do subject themselves to the censure and discipline of the church. It belongs therefore to those that are of the church, at least in show, but specially to those that are of the same particular church, living under the same particular government. Albeit the case may so fall out that those of another church, professing the same religion with us, may be reproved and censured. Yea one church may admonish another, for they being members one of another are to procure the good one of another, as Paul teaches by the similitude of the head and the members of the same body (1 Cor. 12). Therefore all that are in the bosom of the church, even the mighty princes and potentates of the earth, are subject to reproof if they offend. Thus Nathan the prophet reproved
David (2 Sam. 12), and Azariah the priest rebuked Uzziah (2 Chron.
26:18), and Paul reproved Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11). Therefore those men, yea, those magistrates or monarchs, that cannot endure the least reproof and will not yield their necks to Christ His yoke and their backs to the rod of ecclesiastical censure are greatly to be censored. For herein they contemn the ordinance of God. Let them consider that they are not better than King David, who, having sinned, patiently endured reproof by Nathan. Let them remember how King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy for resisting God in the ministry. And here the popish sort come to be taxed who exempt their clergy men (as they call them) from the reproofs and ecclesiastical proceedings in thrusting them into some one monastery or other, lest their exemplary punishment should be a
blemish or disparagement to their order and profession. Whereas Paul would have the ministers and elders, yea all superiors, to be reproved as well as others, so it be done in order and with due respect (as after I will show). Thus Paul bids the Colossians that they should say to Archippus, "Take heed to thy ministry, that thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it" (Col. 4:17).
II. We are bound to reprove all that are in the church to whom we owe duty of love. But we are to love our superiors, as much, if not more than others. Therefore we are bond to reprove them as well as others. III. There is greater reason we should reprove them than others. 1. Because they being in higher place are in greater danger of falling than others, and therefore have more need of admonitions and reproofs. 2. Because they have many that will flatter them, but few or none that will or dare reprove them.
It will be said, all are not to be reproved which live in the church, for some be scorners, who (as Solomon says) must not be reproved. And our Savior Christ forbids us to "cast pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6).
I answer, that only open scorners, contemnors, persecutors of the word are to be excepted. Otherwise all wicked men are to be censured and rebuked. For first, Christ speaks of manifest contemnors of religion when He says that "they are like swine, which trample precious pearls under their feet"; and of persecutors when
He says that "like dogs they return again, and all to rend them."
Secondly, Christ being here upon earth did not hinder the Pharisees, Sadducees, publicans, and harlots from coming to His sermons.
Much less would He debar them of this censure of the church.
Thirdly, the woman of Syrophoenicia (though called a dog) "yet eateth of the crumbs that fall from the children's table" (Matt. 15:27).
Fourthly, Paul did often admonish and rebuke the Corinthians, though they were carnal and fleshly minded. Therefore all men,
though never so public and notorious offenders (if they be not open scorners, or persecutors of the known truth) are to be reproved.
Objection: Profane men which notoriously offend and scandalize the church by their wicked lives have no fellowship with Christ, but are to be accounted as dogs out of the church.
I answer: 1. They are not to be accounted as dogs which do acknowledge their faults, the greatness of their sin, and the merit of Christ. For such a dog was the Canaanite woman, who was a true believer. 2. This is agreeable to St. Paul's practice who did admonish those among the Corinthians that were carnal and did not at the very first excommunicate them or yet suspend them. And so answerably he commands Titus that he should rebuke the Cretans "sharply," or "precisely," for their notable lying and idleness (Titus 1:13). 3. Christ denies not pardon to them that fall by recidivation, but would have them forgiven not only till seven times, but till seventy times seven times; and Paul speaks indefinitely in this place, that we should
"restore him that falleth by occasion into any offence," not specifying how often we should forgive. 4. We must distinguish betwixt the magistrate's sword and the keys of the church. Notorious offenders when they repent are to be received into the bosom of the church as sons of the church. Yet for all that they may, nay, they ought to be punished by the magistrate—as the good thief (albeit a member of Christ), yet [was] justly punished for his offence.
II. For what faults are men to be reproved?
Men are to be reproved for every known sin. This is manifest from the end of reproofs, which is the gaining of our brother that he perish not in his sin. But every sin is of this nature and quality, that it brings death, being not repented of. Therefore for every sin a man is to be reproved. Secondly, our Savior does not restrain this precept to
private injuries, because in that case, we are to follow another rule.
"Resist not evil. Bless, and curse not. Do good to them that hate you," etc. Thirdly, it is extended to every sin because he which sins against God or the whole church sins also against you and every particular member of the church. For every Christian ought more to be affected for the sins committed against God or the body of the church than for those that are personally and directly intended or done against himself. Therefore Christ speaks not only of sins as they are private wrongs, injuries, or damages, but as they are dishonorable to the majesty of God, scandalous to the church, pernicious to him that committed them—not only as they offend him against whom they are committed. It will be objected that Christ's commandment is to be understood of those that wrong us, when He says, "If thy brother sin against thee."21 I answer that phrase and form of speech ("against thee") is not meant only of private wrongs offered us (as I have said) but of any sin committed against God. For in every known sin, we are in a sort wronged: (1) because we ought to be so zealous of the glory of God, that we ought to be more grieved when men sin against God, than when they sin against us. Yea, we must make God's quarrel, our own quarrel. (2) Because he which sins in our presence does or at least ought to offend us. As Hezekiah was offended when he heard the blasphemies of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 19:1); and David, whose eyes poured out rivers of waters because men kept not God's law (Ps.
119:136); and Lot, who vexed his righteous soul in seeing and hearing the abominations of the Sodomites (2 Peter 2:8). For to expound these words, "against thee," you being privy to it, is far from the meaning of the text, neither can the phrase be shown in that sense.
Now that men are to be reproved for known sins committed against God, of what nature, quality, and condition soever they be, besides the former reasons, it is manifest, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, but thou shalt plainly rebuke him, and shalt not suffer
sin to rest upon him" (Lev. 19:17). Therefore a man is to be rebuked for every sin. The apostle wheresoever he speaks of reproofs, never restrains it to one kind, but extends it to all known sins. He reproves the incestuous person for his incest, and excommunicates him being impenitent (1 Cor. 5). So in this place, "If a man be fallen by occasion into any offence," he says not, this or that offence but in general,
"into any offence," whether in life or doctrine, by evil example, or otherwise, against the first or second table. Yet this is so to be understood, as that injuries and wrongs offered us are not to be excluded. For even for them also are men to be reproved. I. It is the purpose of our Savior Christ (Matt. 18) to teach this very point, for having taught that none should offend or scandalize his brother
(Matt. 18:6); in the tenth verse, He shows them what is to be done, if any man did offend his brother, by injuring or wronging him—to wit, that he is to reprove him. II. He makes him that suffered the wrong, a witness, not an accuser, when he says, "If he hear thee not, take yet with thee one or two, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be confirmed" (Matt. 18:16). He bids him take "one or two," that so it may be confirmed by the testimony, not of one or two, but of two or three. Therefore the party offended is one of the witnesses. III. If it were unlawful to reprove men for injuries offered us, what course should he take that is secretly wronged, one being privy to the wrong but himself and the party offending? Thus men would be emboldened to sin, seeing they could by no means be controlled, and so men might frustrate the commandment of Christ.
I add further that he which is injured is fitter to reprove him that offered the injury than any other. I. Because the offence, both for substance and circumstance, is better known unto him than to any other. II. Because the reproof (in all likelihood) will take the better place when as the offender shall have coals of fire heaped upon his head, when he shall see that the party wronged is desirous of his good and ready to requite good for evil in seeking his amendment,
whereas he sought his hurt. And whereas it might seem, that it savors of revenge to reprove those that wrong us, I answer, though many in reproving revenge themselves, yet the one may be done without the other, and the right use of a thing is not to be neglected because of the abuse thereof.
Objection: Authors of heresies, schisms, dissensions are to be avoided (Rom. 16:17), therefore not to be reproved. Answer. General places of Scripture are to be expounded, according to particular limitation in other places. Now that general text (Rom. 16:17) is restrained and limited, "Avoid an heretic after once or twice admonition" (Titus 3:10).
Objection: Paul commands the Corinthians that without any more ado, they should proceed forthwith to the public censure of excommunication against the incestuous person, and as it may seem, without any former reproof (1 Cor. 5). Besides, he commands that we should not eat, that is, familiarly converse with notorious persons of scandalous life (1 Cor. 5:11), and that we should "withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately" (2 Thess. 3:6). Answer.
[1.] Paul's practice is not contrary to Christ's precept. He purposed indeed to excommunicate the incestuous person if he persisted in his sin, yet mark how, "in the name, and by the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (1 Cor. 5:4), in which words the form or proceeding against him is limited, and that according to Christ's institution, "the name and power of Christ" signifying the word and institution of Christ
(Matt. 18).
2. Paul does plainly expound himself in other places, what his practice was in that behalf, as 2 Corinthians 13:1–2, where he signifies that he did not excommunicate unclean persons, fornicators, wantons (mentioned chapter 12:21) before the third
admonition—making his third coming unto them instead of three admonitions or witnesses against them.
It will be said that Paul threatens when he comes he will not spare "the rest" (2 Cor. 13:2); therefore it seems he was resolved to excommunicate without former admonition. Answer. When Paul says, "I write to them which have sinned, and to all others, that if I come again, I will not spare," by "all others" he means not some which he purposed to excommunicate without former admonition
(for in writing this epistle to them, he admonishes them all to repent, lest when he came he should use severity) but those which lived securely in the open breach of the law, to whom he threatened to come with a rod if they did not amend (1 Cor. 4:21); and when he now again admonishes, threatening that if he come the third time, he will not spare. Besides this, Paul should be inconstant and unlike himself, if he should admonish unclean persons, fornicators, wantons, and that three times before excommunication, and should at the first excommunicate certain others without any precedent admonition.
3. The word there used signifies reproof in word, as it is taken, "If thy brother sin against thee, rebuke him" (Luke 17). Therefore "the reproof by many, or of many" (2 Cor. 2:6) mentioned may signify as well the grave, serious, and effectual reproof of the church, by which the incestuous person was reclaimed from his sin, and so prevented the thunderbolt of excommunication; as the real ejection out of the church. And those words, verse 10, "if you forgive anything," may as well signify receiving into favor and familiarity before excommunication upon his repentance, as restitution after excommunication.
4. Be it granted he were indeed excommunicate (as it is most probable he was) yet hence it cannot be inferred that they did proceed against him without precedent admonition. The Scripture is silent in this point. Therefore the reason is not good. It is not recorded, therefore it was not practiced.
5. Though the apostle command that we should have no familiarity with inordinate livers (2 Thess. 3:6), but that we withdraw ourselves from them, yet he adds withal that if there were any amongst them that would not obey his sayings, they should note him by a letter (v.
14), and he expressly commands that they should "admonish the inordinate" (1 Thess. 5:14) for that was his practice, as it may appear:
"Those that are such," that is, inordinate livers, "we exhort and command by our Lord Jesus Christ, that they work with quietness, and eat their own bread" (2 Thess. 3).
III. Who are to reprove?
It is a duty which concerns all men; our Savior Christ says, "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him"—and the commandment is general, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but shall rebuke him plainly" (Lev. 19:17). Now all Christians are brethren (as I have showed), therefore all men are bound to reprove their brethren, as occasion shall serve. Secondly, all Christians are members of the same body whereof Christ is the head, therefore they are to help and further one another, as members of the natural body do. And this is done by admonition and reprehension. Thirdly, the bond of charity ties all men to help their brethren in what they can for their good, and therefore (if need be) to reprove them. And albeit some may seem to be unfit or unworthy reprovers of others, being tainted with as great or greater sins themselves, and so cannot cast out motes out of other men's eyes, they having beams in their own;
yet we must know, that sin frees none from this duty. Indeed, none ought to reprove, either with scandal to others, or with hurt and hindrance of him that is reproved; yet no man is exempted from this duty. For every man ought to be clear and blameless, specially of open crimes, that so he may more freely and fruitfully reprove his neighbor; but though he be not, yet he remains still bound to the performance of this duty. Our Savior says not that he which has a beam in his eye is therefore freed from pulling forth the mote out of his brother's eye, but, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see to pull out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
They therefore are severely to be censured, nay deeply to be condemned, who say with Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" [Gen.
4:9], as though it concerned them not a whit whether he sink or swim—as though every man were to look to himself alone for his own behoof and benefit, and not upon the things of his brethren for their good [Phil. 2:4]. Or as though God had not made every man a guardian to his brother. The dim candlelight of corrupt nature condemns these men, which teaches that he which may save and does not, does in effect as much as kill or destroy. The duty therefore lies upon all, but chiefly upon of the pastors and ministers of the word. For they are to inquire into the lives of men, specially of those that are committed and commended to their charge. For which cause they are called the Lord's overseers, or watchmen (Ezek. 33–34).
And if they do not "strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken, bring again that which was driven away, nor seek that which is lost," etc., he will "require his sheep at their hands" (Ezek. 34:4,
10). Paul enjoins the pastors the church of Ephesus, that "they should take heed to themselves, and to the flock whereof the Holy
Ghost had made them overseers" (Acts 20:28); and he commands Timothy, that he "should be instant in season, and out of season; that he should improve, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and
doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2); and Titus, that "he rebuke and exhort with all authority" (Titus 2:15).
Further, it is to be observed that though all men are bound to reprove their neighbors if they offend, yet in five cases they are not bound.
I. If a man be ignorant of the offence. For a man that reproves another must be certain of the fault, otherwise he does purchase to himself a blot. And private persons are not to pry into other men's actions that so they may have matter to reprove (Prov. 24:15). For we are bound to reprove, as we are bound to give alms. Now we are not bound in giving alms to seek some to whom we may give; if we give to those whom we meet that stand in need of our alms, we have done our duty. The like is in reproofs. And although reproof be a debt which we owe our neighbor, yet it is no debt due to any private person (for then we were bound to search out the party, and discharge the debt); but it is a public debt which we owe to all. And therefore it is not necessary we should seek them out. If we discharge it to those we meet withal, it is sufficient. St. Augustine says well,
Admonet Dominus non negligere invicem peccata nostra, non quarendo quod reprehendas, sed videndo quod corrigas.
II. If he have repented of his act, he is not to be reproved, for the end of reproof is to reclaim him; therefore if he be reclaimed already, there is no place left for reproof. Although the magistrate may punish and correct him in regard of the common good.
III. A man is not to reprove, if he be certain his reproof will do no good. For when the end ceases, all things tending to the end do likewise cease; therefore if there be no hope of amendment (which is the end of reproof), reproof is to be omitted; specially if it be so far from bettering the party, that it make him much worse. Solomon says, "He which instructeth a scorner, getteth himself reproach, and
he that reproveth a wicked man, purchaseth to himself a blot" (Prov.
9:7). And then he adds in the next verse, "Rebuke not a scorner, lest he hate thee; rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." And verily it were great folly to spend labor in vain in telling them of their faults, when our schooling will not better them but incense them more and more. It were better to be silent or to separate from them, than to stir up hornets or to thrust our hands into a wasps' nest. It is well said of one, that he which shall bestow the seeds of wholesome admonitions on such cursed and unprofitable ground, shall reap nothing for his pains, but the thorns of mocks and reproaches.
It will be said, the judge ceases not to punish malefactors, though they be not bettered by their punishment; therefore seeing brotherly correction is commanded, it must not be omitted, though the party reproved be not bettered but offended thereby and made worse. I answer. The reason is nothing alike; for the judge in punishing does principally intend the good of the commonwealth, which cometh by chastising or by cutting off malefactors, though they themselves be nothing bettered. But the end of reproof is the amendment and good of him that is reproved. Therefore a man may not be reproved except it be for his private good, though the magistrate may punish him in regard of the common good.
IV. Reproof may be omitted, if it be certain that the party will either presently redress his fault without reproof, or that some others will admonish him thereof, whom it does more nearly concern. As the giving of alms may be omitted, if it be certain that the party that is in want will provide for himself, or that he will be sufficiently relieved by others.
V. If it may be done more conveniently and profitably another time, it may be omitted for the time. Except in these five cases, he that
does not reprove his brother is guilty of his sin (Lev. 5:1).
IV. Point. In what manner are men to be reproved?
The manner to be observed in reproving, I will lay down in ten rules.
I. A man must so reprove his brother as that it may be most for the advancement of God's glory, best for the winning of him to God, and least to the defaming of him abroad in the world. And that it may appear unto him that he does it of love (aiming at nothing but his good) not of any malicious humor, or sinister affection of revenge, or vain-glory, etc., and that this may be done, two things must be practiced. First, he that reproves another must pray that God would so guide his tongue and move the other's heart, that his reproof may be profitable unto him. For without God's blessing our admonitions are but words spoken in the wind, "If any see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, let him pray," etc. (1 John 5:16). Secondly, we may not traduce him to others, either before or after our reproof (1
Peter 4:8). This rule is general; the rest following are more special.
II. Every reproof must be grounded upon a certain knowledge of the fault committed. For we may not go upon private surmises and supposes, or flying reports or rumors blazed abroad. No nor upon vehement suspicions, or strong presumptions (Deut. 13:14), for in so doing, we shall but offend the party, who knows himself to be innocent of the crime objected, and purchase to ourselves a blot of indiscretion in being zealous without knowledge. Therefore for secret sins men are not to be reproved. Secret I call those that are known only to God and the conscience of the doer—or only to others, but not to us. This was practiced by St. Paul, who reproved not Peter till he was thoroughly informed of his offence (Gal. 2:14). Which condemns the common practice of the multitude, who censure and reprove others, specially public persons as magistrates and ministers, upon
false reports or wicked surmises, when as no accusation may be admitted against such under two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19). Yet a man may reprove upon credible information, as Paul did the Corinthians for their contentions, grounding his reproof upon the report of the house of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), which he believed to be true in part (1 Cor. 11:18). If the report be not certain, we must only reprove hypothetically and not peremptorily.
III. In reproving others, we must consider ourselves, specially our own weakness, and begin the reproof in ourselves, if not for the same fault we reprove in our neighbor, yet for as great as that (if not greater) in another kind. This manner of reproving is enjoined by St.
Paul, when he says, "Considering thy self, lest thou also be tempted."
And a man is to consider himself in three respects: in regard of the time past, present, and to come. In regard of the time past, that he was as wicked, profane, and graceless as another; yea that he was (as the apostle speaks) "darkness," and the "child of wrath as well as others." Paul shows the force of this consideration when he persuades men to be soft and gentle, showing all meekness to all men
—a reason taken from the consideration of our own frailties and sins in time past. "For" (says he) "we ourselves also were in times past unwise, disobedient, deceived, serving the lusts and divers pleasure, living in maliciousness and envy, hateful, and hating one another"
(Titus 3:2–3). In regard to the time present, that he is but a frail man, ready to fall ever moment, that he is not able of himself to think the least good thought, much less to resist the least temptation, and that whatsoever he is, he is it out of himself by grace in Christ, as Paul says, "By the grace of God I am that I am." So that were it not for this preventing and cooperating grace, he would fall into as great enormities as other men. In regard of the time to come, "Consider thyself, lest thou also be tempted."34 Remember Paul's item, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12).
For if you have not been overtaken with the like sin, yet you may be hereafter. Therefore as you would have others to be compassionate toward you, if you were in the like case, so be you to them. The not observance of this rule is the cause that there are so many censorious
Catoes, so many severe Aristarchs of other men's actions, so many that are sharp-sighted and eagle-eyed in spying motes in other men's eyes—and as blind as moles or beetles in discerning the great beams that are in their own eyes.
IV. It is very requisite and expedient that the reprover be not tainted with the same or the like fault which he reproves in another, lest it be said unto him, "Physician cure thyself" (Luke 4:23). "In that thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself" (Rom. 2:1). Therefore
David says not, Let the wicked smite me, or let him that is as deep in fault as myself reprove me: but, "Let the righteous smite me, for that is a benefit, and let him reprove me, that shall be as precious oil that shall not be wanting to my head" (Ps. 141:5). For albeit in regard of the reproof itself, it be not greatly material, yet it is not so expedient, nor so profitable in regard of the reprover: (1) because he seems unworthy to reprove another, who is to be reproved himself, being as deep in fault as any; (2) because it will be thought, that he which makes no conscience to redress himself, will not be so ready to reclaim others, of love to their persons, or hatred of their sins, or zeal of God's glory; but for pride, or busyness in other men's matters, or vanity, or some such sinister ends.
V. All reproofs must be so ministered as that the party reproved may be brought to a true sight of his sin—as also to a lively sense and feeling thereof, and so to a compunction of heart, by reason of it, and of the wrath of God, which attends upon him for his sin. For the performance of this rule, we have the example of God Himself: "I will reprove thee, and set thy sins in order before thee" (Ps. 50:21); as
also the prophet Nathan, who by the parable convicted David's conscience, and so made him condemn himself (2 Sam. 12). And the precept of St. Paul, commanding Timothy that he should so reprove as that he convict the conscience of the sin, when he says, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:2].
Now this is done by showing the true meaning of the law, and the curse of God annexed to every breach thereof, and so by unfolding the horrible greatness of sin to the conscience of him whom we do reprove. For reproofs which are not thus qualified are but cold and perfunctory, such as was that of Eli in reproving his lewd sons, "Why do ye such things? For of all this people, I hear evil reports of you. Do no more my sons; for it is no good report that I hear" (1 Sam. 2:23–
24)—being a means rather to cherish sin in them, than to reclaim them from it. These kinds of reproofs not unfitly may be compared to hot or hasty healing salves, which draw a fair skin over a foul wound, which, because it is not soundly cured from the bottom, but only healed up, does afterward apostemate or fistulate37 and becomes more dangerous and desperate than ever before.
VI. The vinegar of sharp reprehension must be allayed and tempered with the oil of mild and gentle exhortation. We may not only use the corrosives of the law, but withal we must apply the cordials of the gospel. Bitter pills of reproof must be sugared over with loving and affectionate persuasion, lest the patient abhor the physic. Every man in this case is to follow the skillful chirurgeon who does not only use section and ustion39 in lancing the wound with sharp instruments, but mollifying ointments, mundifying waters, to cleanse and supple the wound and heal the sore. Paul says that "the servant of the Lord must be gentle toward all men," and that he must "instruct with meekness them that are contrary minded" (2 Tim. 2:25–26). And in this place he commands the Galatians that they should "restore their brethren with the spirit of meekness." The word translated "restore"
is very emphatical. For it signifies to set a bone that is broken, or any member of the body that is out of joint. And therefore we are to deal with a man that is fallen and by his fall has disjointed some member of the new man, as the chirurgeon does with an arm or a leg that is broken or out of joint, to handle it tenderly and gently, so as it may be most for his good and least for his pain. More particularly, this may be done four ways.
1. When a man does propound the reproof in his own person, as Paul did: "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied unto mine own self and Apollo's, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man presume above that which is written," etc. (1 Cor. 4:6).
2. When a man does not directly reprove another in plain terms, but closely shows a mislike of the fact and conveys a reproof in an exhortation, and so laps up pills (as it were) in sugar. As when a man swears; not always to say, "You," etc., but, "Yea and nay shall serve betwixt us: what needs this vehemency betwixt us two? I will as soon take your word, as your oath," etc.
3. When the reproof is propounded in a parable. As Nathan dealt with David (2 Sam. 12), and as our Savior Christ by the parable of the two sons reproved of the Pharisees (Matt. 21:28).
4. When we reprove a man directly (as at the length Nathan did, "David, thou art the man," 2 Sam. 12:7), we must so carry ourselves as that the party may see himself rather reproved by God than by us.
And not to proceed bluntly to work, to rebuke and censure at the very first, but to use some preface beforehand; as, that we do that which we do in love of his person, for his good, wishing him well, both temporally the reputation of his name, and eternally the salvation of his soul; and that we consider ourselves herein, how that we may
easily be overtaken as he was. These cautions observed, the inferior may reprove his superior (as 2 Kings 5:13).
VII. Every reproof must be fitted to the quality and condition of him whom we reprove and to the nature of the offence for which he is reproved. We shall fit the reproof to the person reproved, if we consider that a man may reprove another four ways. First, by friendly admonition. And thus one equal is to reprove another.
Secondly, by reverent and submissive exhortation. Thus the younger must reprove the elder, the inferior their superiors. It is God's commandment that we should "not rebuke an elder, but exhort him as a father" (1 Tim. 5:1). And thus kings and great potentates are to be reproved, they being patres patriae. That saying of the Philosopher, ἢ ἣκισα, ἢ ἣδισα, has place in this case. Thirdly, by sharp reprehension. Thus elders or superiors are to reprove their inferiors, specially if the fact be notorious, scandalous, or dangerous.
Paul commands Titus that he should "rebuke the Cretians ἀποτόμως, sharply, that they might be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:13). Fourthly, by due chastisement and correction. Thus the superiors must reprove their inferiors over whom they are set, as the father the child, the master the servant, the magistrate the subject, etc., and thus the inferior cannot reprove his superior, nor one equal another, though he do it with never so great mildness.
Secondly, we shall fit our reproof to the offence committed, if in spiritual wisdom and discretion we put a difference betwixt sin and sin, as the apostle teaches us, "Have compassion on some putting difference. And others save with fear, pilling them out of the fire"
(Jude 22–23). Sins committed of human frailty or through ignorance must be distinguished from those of malice, of pride, and presumption. Both must be reproved, yet after a different manner.
For the one must be won with gentleness; the other, with sharpness.
The one, with lenity; the other, with severity. To the one we must come with the pleasant pipe of Christ; to the other, with the lamentation of John Baptist. To the one in the spirit of Elijah; to the other in the spirit of Moses. When gentle admonition would take no place, Christ thunders out threats against Chorazin and Bethsaida.
And Paul threatens severity, when lenity will do no good (2 Cor. 13).
VIII. Every reproof must be administered in fit time when we may do the most good. Therefore if in wisdom we shall foresee fitter opportunity to win our brother, we are to take that time and to omit the present. Not to tell him of his fault being drunk, or in the heat of his passion, but after, when he comes to himself, as Abigail dealt with Nabal (1 Sam. 25). For the commandment of God touching reproof, being affirmative, binds not to all times, but only to that which in spiritual discretion we shall judge the fittest, both to reclaim him and save his credit. Solomon says that "a word spoken in due time is like apples of gold with pictures of silver" (Prov. 25:11). Now if this be true of a word spoken in due time, it is much more true of a reproof delivered in due season. "There is a time for all things" (Eccl.
3:1). And surely if everything that comes to pass in the world have his set time and opportunity, reproof must needs have his time and season.
IX. Secret sins known only to you or to a few must be reproved secretly, betwixt you and the party alone. They must not be divulged, but concealed in love, which covers a multitude of sins. For if you have offended, or "if thy brother hath ought against thee, go thy way, and be reconciled to thy brother" (Matt. 5:23–24). If he have trespassed against you, or you have ought against him, "go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone" (Matt. 18:15). And albeit
Solomon say that "open rebuke is better than secret love" (Prov.
27:5), yet it makes nothing against this rule. For he understands not
that reproof which is uttered before witnesses, but that private reproof which is given to his face and not behind his back, betwixt them two alone. But open sins are reproved openly: "Them that sin, rebuke openly, that the rest also may fear" (1 Tim. 5:20). Which text of Scripture must rightly be conceived. For it is not a general commandment given to all (as some have thought, in alleging it to prove that they may lawfully reprove open swearers and offenders, and that openly). But it is a special commandment given to the pastors or governors of the church that they should reprove those elders, and so consequently all such as were convicted of any crime by witnesses, and that before all men, that is, before the whole church, and not before all men in every place and assembly where they offend. For we have no warrant in Scripture so to do. Secondly, this open disgraceful rebuking of men will rather harden them in their sins, than any way reclaim them from sin. Augustine says well,
Praepudore incipiet defendere peccatum suum, et quem vis correctionem, facis pejorem. Thirdly, they might as well say, a man is to be reproved for every sin and that openly before all men, as for open sins, because Paul says not, "Them that sin openly, rebuke before all men," but, "Them that sin, rebuke openly." Fourthly, the words depend upon the former verse, where it is said, "Receive not an accusation against an elder, under two or three witnesses." And then it follows: "Those that sin, rebuke openly." That is, those elders that sin, and have been first privately admonished, and after that before witnesses, if they be accused by two or three witnesses, then reprove them openly before all men—that is, before the whole church.
X. We must carefully observe the order set down by our Savior Christ (Matt. 18:15). First, we must try whether by private reproof our brother will be reclaimed or not. If he be, we must proceed no further, for then we have attained the main end of all reproofs: "If he
hear thee, thou hast won thy brother." If not, we must take one or two which may witness the fact, and that for sundry causes. The first is given by St. Jerome upon the place, that they may witness that to be a sin for which he is reproved and that he is worthily reproved for the same. The second is laid down by St. Augustine (Epistle 109), to convince the party offending of the act committed, if he should iterate the same again. The third, by Chrysostom (Homily 6 in Matthew), to witness that he which reproves has discharged his duty and done what in him lay to win his brother. If he be reclaimed at the second reproof before witnesses, we must proceed no further, but rest there, as before. If not, we must relate it to the church. If he hear the church, there is no further proceedings to be used. If he hear not the church, he is to be excommunicated and holden as a heathen.
Offenders therefore are not to be excommunicated at the very first, but orderly to be proceeded against, and lovingly to be dealt withal, and patiently to be endured, according as the apostle commands,
"Reprove with all long suffering" (2 Tim. 4:2). It may be objected that Paul bids Titus he should "avoid an heretic after once or twice admonition" (Titus 3:10). Therefore we are not to proceed against offenders according to Christ's commandment. Answer. That text makes nothing against this order proceeding commended unto us by our Savior Christ. For first this commandment is not given to all, but only to the pastors (as here to Titus) or bishops, who, representing the whole church, are to give sentence of excommunication.
Secondly, it is to be understood of public admonition in the face of the church, after that the party has been privately dealt withal; and if after this admonition, he do not recant his errors and reform himself, then is he to be rejected as an heretic, that is, αὐτοκατάκριτος,
"condemned of his own self" (Titus 3:11).
Nevertheless, there be certain cases, in which we are not bound to follow this order or manner of proceeding in our reproofs, and they
are principally three.
I. When the sin committed tends to the hurt of the church or commonwealth, and there be danger in delay, as also danger to the party that is privy to it and does not detect it; and small hope of hindering of it (as when a man does plot treason, or intermeddles in treasonable practices). In this case the party offending is not first privately to be reproved, but publicly to be detected, and so to be dealt withal of the magistrate according to the nature and quality of his offence. For the common good is to be preferred before any one man's private good: better it is that one man perish, than that the bond of unity should be broken.
II. When the fault is greater if it be committed, than the loss of his credit that committed it, though it be published. For an example, if one intend to slay another and lie in wait for him. In this case, we are not bound privately to admonish the party intending murder or bloodshed, but to detect him to the magistrate. For his life is to be preferred before the man's credit that sought his life. When Paul's kinsman (to wit his sister's son) heard that above forty men had conspired together and bound themselves with an oath, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul, he does not go and reprove them for this fact, but relates it to Paul [Acts 23:12–18].
And Paul, hearing of it, does not counsel him to go and reprove them first, and if they would hearken to him, to take two or three witnesses, etc., but sent him straight to the chief captain, that he might take order to prevent their bloody attempt.
III. When a man is assured private reproof will do no good, and that the party offending will not brook it nor take reproof at his hand, he is not to follow that order and manner of reproof, but to acquaint them with it that can and will redress it. Thus Joseph (as it may