Discipline in the Puritan Congregation
4
Discipline in the Puritan Congregation
Today, the question of the right administration of church discipline is both pressing and perplexing. A review of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century opinion on the subject may help us to get our bearings with regard to it.
The Necessity of Discipline
Both Continental and English Reformers were unanimous on this point. Calvin says, “As the doctrine of Christ is the life of the church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews, for on it depends the adhering together of the members of the body, each in its own place.” Discipline is “a kind of curb to restrain and lame those who war against the doctrine of Christ . . . a sort of stimulus by which the indifferent are aroused.” Calvin’s practice at Geneva was one with his teaching. During his early ministry there he refused to dispense the Lord’s Supper because of the city’s vice. Lewd citizens reacted to his uncompromising zeal by naming their dogs after him, and for three years he was expelled. On his return, he established a church court, composed of the six city ministers and twelve elders from their congregations, who met each Thursday to put under discipline “without respect of persons, every sort of evil-doer.”
Calvin’s influence upon the British Reformers in this matter was great. Knox’s Book of Discipline, Cranmer’s Prayer Books and Articles, and later the Canons Ecclesiastical of l603, show our divines agreeing with those abroad that a more general form of discipline must replace auricular confession and penance, and that such discipline, along with the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, was a true mark of the church.
In England, however, the Reformers’ desires were largely frustrated. The inherited relationship between church and state was a major reason for this. By the common law, only civil courts could enforce penalties on the excommunicated. (Today “it is doubtful how far an ecclesiastical court can pronounce sentence on a lay-person in any case whatever” [Boultbee, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 278]). This meant that the established church, while clear in its principles, was from the first very much restrained in its practice.
The Elizabethan Puritans were devout churchmen who demanded a system of discipline that should work on a parochial basis. Hence they were sometimes called Disciplinarians. Only discipline, they held, could preserve church life from ruin through congregational disorders. Later, Baxter testified of his work at Kidderminster, “The exercise of church discipline was no small furtherance of the people’s good: for I found plainly that without it I could not have kept the religious sort from separations and divisions.” The disciplinarian instinct was evidently a sound one. But the demand for discipline was based on more than a judgment of expediency; what disturbed these men most was the fact that an essential element in the New Testament pattern for the ordering of congregations was being neglected.
The Objects of Discipline
These, to the Puritans, were three.
i. To glorify God by obeying His word. He had spoken and prescribed discipline; therefore they must obey. As ever, the Puritans were more concerned about obedience than about the consequences of obedience.
ii. To safeguard the purity of the church’s faith and life, which were it not for discipline would be lost. “Christ,” says Thomas Goodwin, speaking of Revelation 2–3, “calls upon the churches to imitate the first pattern given them, and wherein they or any swerved, he reduceth them to what they had first received and learned from the apostles, as containing an immutable rule not to be swerved from. Now, if they had not liberty to swerve from them, then not we: Revelation 3:3 ‘Remember . . . how thou hast received . . . and hold fast, and repent.’ Those epistles to the seven churches do as much concern discipline as matters of doctrine; for the chief fault he doth find with them still [= always] is slackness of discipline, whereby they suffered men to teach or practice amiss.” Baxter in his Reformed Pastor accused his fellow ministers of drawing the guilt of swearing, drunkenness, fornication, and other crimes upon their own heads by neglecting to use this ordinance, which God had given “for the cure of sinners.” (No wonder his colleagues desired him to publish the book in Latin!).
Discipline was also needed to protect the weaker members of the congregation against harmful influences; for “evil company is very infectious. Wicked men, like the crocodile, slime the way to make thee fall, and when thou art down, suck out, as it were, thy blood” (Swinnock). Therefore, for the sake of the babe in Christ, a wicked man must be expelled from the congregation.
iii. To reform and recover the erring member, as we shall see more fully later.
Occasions for Disciplinary Action
Persons guilty of flagrant sins such as fornication or theft or of heresy were to be censured and excommunicated at once, unless they showed definite signs of repentance. In the system which the Puritans developed under the Commonwealth and the Nonconformists retained after the Restoration, lesser delinquencies also came under censure. Here are some examples of twentieth century relevance:
i. “Neglecting of public ordinances” was considered to be the first outward sign of backsliding. The church member was expected to be present at all functions; “oncers” were immediately suspect. In a case of persistent absenteeism, a fellow member would be appointed to look after the truant’s movements and try to bring him back.
ii. Choosing the company of persons outside the Christian fellowship was regarded as matter for censure, especially when it concerned the opposite sex and resulted in marriage with an unbeliever. “Oh the sorrow, the grief, the perplexity, the holy passion . . . that this abomination had on the good heart of Ezra!” exclaims Brooks. “If thou art a man of holiness, thou must look more for a portion of grace in thy wife, than a portion of gold with a wife: thou must look more after righteousness than riches; more after piety than money; more after the inheritance she hath in heaven than the inheritance she hath on earth; more at her being new born, than at her being high born . . . Do you think that God, that would not have an ass and an ox plough together, that he will be yoked to such wretches, may I say to such asses, whose ungodliness hath debased them below the very ox and ass?” One Baptist was suspended, if not excommunicated, from his church for thirty-six years for such a lapse. Some Puritan pastors found a remedy against mixed marriages by adopting the role of match-maker themselves!
iii. The Puritan Christian might, moreover, be admonished for the way he (or she) dressed. One of the many reasons why God visited London with the plague and the Great Fire, according to Brooks, was this: “There was (in) many professors of the gospel in London too great a conformity to the fashions of the world.” Commenting on Ezekial 23:15, he says, “They that borrow the fashions of the Egyptians may get their boils and their blotches. Certainly such as fear the Lord should go in no apparel but first, such as they are willing to die in: secondly, to appear before the Ancient of Days in; thirdly, to stand before the judgment seat in.” No doubt one reason why Charles II considered Presbyterianism “not the religion of a gentleman” was that Presbyterians judged his flamboyant royal attire unworthy of a monarch!
“Almost any fault to which frail human nature is subject,” writes G. R. Cragg, “was considered a suitable pretext for admonishing a member and exhorting him to walk more worthily. Strong passions, backbiting or railing, anger (‘without provocation’), a peevish and contentious spirit, insubordination, borrowing and not repaying, harsh treatment of fellow-members, idleness—these and many others were listed as just ground for discipline.”
The Models of Discipline
Discipline was both preventative and corrective.
Preventative discipline was exercised, first, in the careful examination of adult applicants for reception into the church. “In many congregations, reception was neither prompt nor automatic,” writes Cragg; “delay was customary, and careful scrutiny of each case the rule.” The candidates had to exhibit signs of regeneration, to be willing to make open profession as to God’s dealings with them, and ready to yield full obedience to Christ and His commands. Sometimes they would be asked to sign a form of covenant. I quote from one drawn up by Oliver Heywood: “I do also consent to be a member of the particular church whereof Mr. O. Heywood is teacher and overseer, and to submit to his teaching, his ministerial guidance and oversight according to God’s Word: to hold communion with that church in the public worship of God, and to submit to brotherly admonition of fellow-members, that so we may be built up in knowledge and holiness.”
In Scotland, the next stage in preventative discipline was “fencing the tables.” This was done by means of an “action sermon” (or sermons), preached before the sacrament was administered, warning those who were living in known sin not to approach the Lord’s Board. The Book of Common Prayer contains a strongly worded admonition to the same effect, to be read to would-be communicants: “If any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime, repent you of your sins, or else come not to that Holy Table; lest, after the taking of that Holy Sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered into Judas, and fill you full of all iniquities, and bring you to destruction both of body and soul.” “Take care,” says John Owen, “that these holy things be administered only to those who are meet and worthy, according unto the rule of the gospel. Those who impose on pastors the promiscuous administration of these divine ordinances, or the application of the seals unto all without difference, do deprive them of one-half of their ministerial office and duty.”
The stages in corrective discipline are set out in the Westminster Confession, 3.4. The offender is to be admonished, privately and, if need be, publicly. If he disregards this, he should be suspended from the Lord’s Table. This was sometimes called “lesser excommunication.” The last stage is complete excommunication from the congregation. This solemn step must not be taken hastily or frivolously; since, writes Owen, “the great rule of every church society should be, that men observe and do whatsoever the Lord Christ hath commanded, none can be justly ejected out of the society but upon wilful disobedience to His commands. And therefore the casting of men out of church-communions on light and trivial occasions . . . is contrary unto natural light and the reason of things in themselves.” Only when the offender’s guilt has been established beyond doubt and everything possible has been done to persuade him to amend his ways is he to be thus cut off from the church’s life.
Speaking of the consequences of full excommunication, Goodwin writes, “The proper inward effect that accompanies this ordinance is inward affliction and distress of conscience by Satan, which of all afflictions is the greatest punishment . . . This we see in the excommunication of the Corinthian; whose excommunication is said to be a delivering up unto Satan in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:4f.). He was to be cast out by a commission from Christ, which going forth in His name, when they published it on earth, He signed it in heaven.” Further comment on the solemnity of the act would be superfluous. In a much-used seventeenth-century phrase, it was “with lamentation and sore trouble” that this sentence was passed on offenders.
Baxter recommended a three-day period of prayer to precede it; then the congregation was to assemble. Prayer would again be offered on behalf of the impenitent; Scriptures such as Leviticus 8 and 1 Corinthians 5 would be read and commented on. After a detailed statement of the offender’s sins and the means vainly used to reclaim him, it would be declared that “he was from henceforth to be no longer a member of this congregation, but must be cast out into the world, and no longer be partaker with us in the holy mysteries of the Lord, nor in fellowship with us, nor enjoy the privileges of God’s House;—and may the Lord have mercy on his soul” (Cragg). The congregation would be admonished to treat him as “an heathen and a publican” till he should be received back, and meanwhile to pray for his soul. Sometimes this act would be accompanied by a congregational fast.
The spirit of the act must be right; the extremes of carelessness on one side, and legalistic, censorious harshness on the other, must equally be avoided. When Puritan leaders dealt with this subject, Paul’s tears were often mentioned. Pastors and their flocks were reminded that Paul had warned the Ephesians “day and night with tears,” and written to the Corinthians “out of much affliction and anguish of heart . . . with many tears” (Acts 20:19, 31; 2 Corinthians 2:4). A century before, Calvin had remarked that church censure must be “aimed at curing the disease and not destroying the sinner,” and that “the rod that is used for chastening must be a fatherly rod.” Owen makes the same point: “the nature and end of this judgment or sentence must be corrective, not vindictive; for healing, not destruction.” Baxter concurs: “prudence must be exercised in the proceeding, lest we do more hurt than good . . . we should deal humbly, even when we deal sharply, and make it appear that it is not from any ill will nor any lordly disposition, nor from revenge, but a necessary duty which we cannot conscientiously neglect.” The temptation to tyrannize is real, but must be resisted. Owen gives principles by which motives may be tried:
1. No excommunication is to be allowed in dubious cases.
2. All prejudices, all partiality, all provocations, all haste and precipitation, are most carefully to be avoided in this administration, for the judgment is the Lord’s.
3. There is also required herein a constant remembrance that we also are in the flesh and liable to temptation; which may restrain and keep in awe that forwardness and confidence which some are apt to manifest in such cases.
Since discipline is intended to reclaim the offender, nothing must be done in a spirit that puts needless obstacles in the way of his eventual restoration.
The Restoration of the Sinner
The Puritans were cautious of welcoming back the excommunicate on the first profession of penitence. They remembered that the risen Lord had subjected the erring Peter to careful cross-examination before restoring him to favour (John 11:15ff.); and they kept in view the distinction between the “godly sorrow that worketh repentance to salvation” and the “sorrow of the world” which “worketh death” (2 Corinthians 7:10). The marks of truth and sincerity in penitential confession, for which they looked in such cases, are set out by Brooks as follows:
1. True penitence is free and voluntary, not forced, nor reluctantly squeezed out, like Pharaoh’s and Saul’s confessions of sin.
2. True penitential confession is full and complete. Contrast that of Judas, who confessed his betrayal of innocent blood but not his covetousness.
3. True penitential confession is sincere, springing from the impressions of grace on the soul.
4. True penitential confession is distinct and not confused; in it offenders confess their sins wholesale and in detail, as David confessed his particular sins of adultery and blood-guiltiness.
5. The true penitent confesses the circumstances and aggravations of his lapse.
6. The true penitent is sorrowful, coming before God as Benhadad’s servants came, with ropes about their necks. “Penitential tears are undeniable ambassadors.”
7. True penitential confession is always mixed with faith, though not always with strong faith.
8. True penitence is accompanied by reformation of life.
Confession, of course, was to be made to God alone; but where these signs of “godly sorrow” were absent the applicant’s request for restoration must be viewed with suspicion.
The mode of reinstatement varied, in different congregations, but was generally simple, consisting mainly of praise and prayer that the restored member might henceforth be kept in the Way. This might be accompanied at times by the laying on of hands. In some congregations, the restored penitent was expected to express sorrow for both public and private sins in the presence of the church, and to ask public forgiveness of those he had wronged.
The “Power of the Keys”
The subject of the authority exercised in discipline was very fully discussed in the seventeenth century. The Puritan position was that the power to excommunicate and restore lodged in the word, and consequently in the church insofar as the church rightly applied the word through its duly authorized representatives.
“This excommunication,” says Owen, “is an act of church authority exerted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if so, then it is an act of the officers of the church . . . for there is no authority in the church, properly so called, but what resides in the officers of it . . . And there are two reasons which prove that the power of excommunication, as to the authoritative exercise of it, is in the elders of the church:
1. Because the apostles, by virtue of their office-power in every church, did join in the authoritative excommunication, as is plain in the case insisted on, 1 Corinthians 5; and there is no office-power remaining but what is in the elders of the church.
2. It is an act of rule; but all rule, properly so called, is in the hands of rulers only. We may add hereunto, that the care of the preservation of the church in its purity, of the vindication of its honour, of the edification of all its members, of the correction and salvation of offenders, is principally incumbent on them, or committed unto them.”
However, as a safeguard against misunderstanding, Owen hastens to add that excommunication is the elders’ act only “in point of power; for the execration of this sentence is committed unto
. . . the body of the church. According as they concur and practise, so it is put into execution; for it is they who withdraw from them (the excommunicated); or the sentence is of no use or validity. The punishment must be inflicted by the ‘many’ (2 Corinthians 2:6); who are able also to restore him who is rebuked. Wherefore, excommunication without consent of the church is a mere nullity.”
The above quotation reflects the Puritan pastor’s consciousness that he had received power to exercise rule and discipline from the great Head of the church Himself. Today this consciousness has largely been lost, and a low view of the Christian ministry prevails. This is doubtless one reason why ecclesiastical discipline has fallen into disrepute.
Some Practical Implications
It is clear that both Reformers and Puritans regarded discipline as one of the marks of the well-ordered church. Calvin emphatically repudiated the anti-disciplinarian attitude when he said, “All who wish that discipline were abolished, or who impede its restoration, whether by thoughtlessness or design, certainly are aiming at the complete devastation of the church.” If this is right, and discipline is one of the marks by which the true church is distinguished from the false, then such twentieth-century practices as indiscriminate baptism, open invitations to the Lord’s Table, remarriage of divorced persons without enquiry into their circumstances, and receiving candidates for membership unexamined, demand serious scrutiny. What of the hearty welcome so often given to lapsed members from the church next door? What of the non-church-attenders, who, to ensure “post-mortem rewards,” have had their names on our electoral rolls (or communion rolls) for years past? Are we by thoughtlessness aiming at the complete devastation of the church? If we stand convicted on this matter, are we willing to make positive efforts to amend our ways and restore the ordinance of discipline to its proper place?
Let Baxter close: “If ministers would be conscientious in performing this duty entirely and self-denyingly, they might make something of it, and expect a blessing upon it; but when we shrink from all that is dangerous or ungrateful in our work, and shift off all that is costly or troublesome, we cannot expect that any great good should be effected by such a carnal use of means; we cannot look that the gospel should run, and be glorified, when we do our duty so lamely and so defectively.” May God help us to take these words to our hearts.
FOR FURTHER READING. The Autobiography of Richard Baxter (ed. J. M. Lloyd-Thomas; an abridgement of Reliquiae Baxterianae); Oliver Heywood’s Diaries, etc. (ed. J. Horsfall Turner); Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor, The Christian Directory; John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church; Thomas Goodwin, On the Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches; Confessions of the Reformed churches; H. H. Rowdon, Puritan Church Discipline.