West Port Experiment

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

CHAPTER VIII. Showing What Is Especially Required of Christians When Offenses Abound

It is useful to inquire what is especially required of Christians living in times when offenses greatly abound, and when there is an unusual readiness both to give offense and to take it. It would be impossible to descend into every particular case. Nevertheless, because the subject is highly profitable, and because Scripture speaks so fully concerning it—especially in Romans 14 and throughout both Epistles to the Corinthians—we may propose several general directions.

First, a Christian ought not merely to satisfy his own conscience concerning the lawfulness of what he does, but should also have sincere regard for the satisfaction of the consciences of others, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 10:29. The neglect of this duty opens the door to countless evils. If men were truly grieved whenever others stumbled through anything they had done, as Paul himself was, there would be far fewer offenses. It ought to pierce our hearts whenever we hear that any brother has been made weak or grieved through our conduct. This inward sympathy is one of the principal remedies against giving offense. Where such tenderness exists, wisdom will not be lacking. Paul’s own spirit ought to be ours: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” Were such compassion deeply rooted within us, we would sooner expose ourselves to personal suffering than knowingly become the occasion of another person’s spiritual hurt.

Secondly, as Christians ought carefully to avoid giving offense, so they ought also to guard themselves against taking offense unnecessarily or stumbling when stumbling blocks are cast before them. It is often a mark of our own folly that we complain loudly about the abundance of offenses and condemn those who give them, while all the while we ourselves are stumbling through them. Thus we allow our love toward godly brethren to grow cold, become discouraged in duty, take sinful liberty in speaking rashly or judging others—even questioning the spiritual condition of those at whom we are offended—or permit ourselves to be stirred up to passionate resentment and desires for revenge. Rarely are many active offenses given without many passive offenses being taken also. Our Lord therefore pronounces those blessed who are “not offended” in Him. In seasons when offenses abound, such steadfastness is both an excellent grace and a comparatively rare one.

It may be further objected that sometimes circumstances are so arranged that, whatever course is taken, someone will claim to be offended. Thus, if Paul accepted financial support, some accused him of preaching for personal gain. If he declined such support, others concluded that he loved the Corinthians less than the other churches. Again, if a minister reproves one offender, some complain that he is too severe; if he refrains, others accuse him of negligence. In such situations, what course ought a Christian to follow?

I answer that, in these cases, we must distinguish between true scandal and mere displeasure. Every complaint is not an offense in the scriptural sense. The question is not whether some person will dislike what is done, but whether the action itself is naturally fitted to become a stumbling block and to injure another’s spiritual welfare.

Accordingly, where every possible course is attended with some dissatisfaction, a Christian ought to choose that course which is most agreeable to the rule of God’s Word and most conducive to the spiritual edification of others. Even though some may continue dissatisfied, their displeasure is not properly chargeable upon him if he has faithfully sought their good according to God’s rule.

Indeed, this was Paul’s own practice. He did not regulate his ministry according to the changing opinions of men. Sometimes he accepted support; at other times he declined it. In each case he was governed, not by concern for his own reputation, but by what he judged would most advance the Gospel. Thus he became all things to all men, not by yielding to every demand, but by wisely adapting indifferent matters to the spiritual benefit of those among whom he labored.

Hence we may gather another useful rule: whenever different lawful courses lie before us, that one ought ordinarily to be preferred which is least liable to become an occasion of stumbling and most likely to promote the peace, unity, and edification of the Church. Christian liberty was never given that every man might insist upon his own preferences, but rather that believers, being freed from unnecessary bondage, might more willingly serve one another in love.

It may also be asked whether a person is always bound to give an account of his actions whenever another professes to be offended by them.

I answer that this depends upon the circumstances. Sometimes Christian charity plainly requires us to explain our conduct. Many offenses arise merely through misunderstanding, and a brief, humble explanation may entirely remove them. To refuse such satisfaction, when it can be given without prejudice to truth or duty, often betrays more pride than wisdom.

On the other hand, there are occasions when repeated explanations serve only to nourish contentiousness. Some men inquire, not because they sincerely desire instruction, but because they seek continual opportunities for dispute. In such cases, after sufficient pains have been taken to satisfy them, further contention ordinarily produces more heat than edification. Even then, however, a Christian ought never to dismiss them with contempt, but should bear patiently with their weakness so far as truth and duty permit.

Therefore great prudence is required to discern when silence best promotes edification and when further explanation is necessary. Both extremes are dangerous. Some excuse themselves too quickly, refusing every account of their conduct; others spend themselves endlessly attempting to satisfy those who have no intention of being satisfied. Christian wisdom seeks neither its own ease nor its own vindication, but the true spiritual profit of those with whom it has to do.

From all that has been said, it plainly appears that this whole doctrine of scandal rests upon the great law of Christian love. The believer is not called merely to inquire, “May I lawfully do this?” but rather, “Will this glorify God? Will it benefit my brother? Will it adorn the Gospel? Will it advance peace, holiness, and mutual edification?” Whenever these questions sincerely govern our conduct, many controversies concerning Christian liberty will resolve themselves with comparatively little difficulty.

It may be further asked, What ought to be done where there is a real dispute between parties, particularly concerning a civil right or temporal interest? Since a man, in seeking what lawfully belongs to him, may irritate another person, is he nevertheless bound to abstain from pursuing his claim in order to avoid giving offense?

I answer, first, that there is no question that, in some circumstances, a Christian ought rather to surrender his own private right than, by insisting upon it through legal proceedings, become the occasion of scandal. This is especially true where such litigation would cause the Gospel to be spoken against or would harden ungodly men in their opposition to religion. On this very ground the Apostle condemns the Corinthians for carrying their disputes before unbelieving judges, asking plainly, “Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7).

Nevertheless, we must carefully distinguish between displeasing, or even provoking anger, and giving offense in the biblical sense. Our chief concern ought not to be merely to avoid displeasing others, but to avoid causing them to stumble. A person may become angry where no true offense has been given. Suppose, for example, that someone is frustrated because he is prevented from unjustly injuring another in his person or property. His dissatisfaction is not his edification, and his displeasure is not the kind of offense spoken of in Scripture.

So it is in the present case. When a man seeks what is lawfully his by proper means, he does not thereby furnish just grounds of offense.

First, the action itself is neither sinful nor does it have the appearance of evil. On the contrary, it has God’s own approval, since He has appointed magistrates for the hearing and redressing of injuries. Such conduct is also approved by the light of nature, which teaches men to preserve themselves against injustice. True scandal ordinarily arises, not in matters so plainly sanctioned by both God and nature, but in actions whose lawfulness is doubtful, or at least doubtful under the particular circumstances. That is not the case here.

Secondly, it is no offense for a man, in a proper spirit, to bring before the Church courts the misconduct of one who has wronged him, even though the offender may resent it. Since this is a lawful and appointed remedy, the same principle applies in civil matters.

Thirdly, to condemn every lawful defense of one’s rights would itself become an occasion of offense. It would encourage covetous and malicious men in their oppression of others. Accordingly, both Paul and other servants of God approve the lawful use of civil protections for preventing or remedying injuries, even though malicious opponents may be greatly irritated by such proceedings.

Yet where both parties are ministers of the Gospel, or persons of eminent Christian profession, much greater caution ought to be exercised. In such disputes it almost inevitably appears that one of them must be in the wrong, and this cannot but become an occasion of stumbling to many observers. For that reason, extraordinary prudence, humility, and a sincere desire for reconciliation ought to characterize their conduct.

Thirdly, Christians ought carefully to avoid despising or judging one another. Instead, they should use every proper means to cultivate and strengthen mutual love, which in this respect is truly the bond of perfection. The Apostle gives this direction in Romans 14:3: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” He that eateth is the stronger believer, who has attained greater clarity concerning what is lawful and unlawful. Such persons are especially tempted to despise weaker brethren who cannot yet go as far as they do. On the other hand, he that eateth not is the weaker believer who, lacking the same degree of understanding, is apt to judge the stronger as careless and untender because he practices what the weaker cannot yet bring himself to do.

These two evils almost invariably arise wherever offenses abound. They are the very fuel that keeps such offenses alive. If there were not pride and contempt on the one side, and untenderness, rash judgment, and groundless suspicions on the other, the misery occasioned by offenses would never become so great within the Church. Yet both of these dispositions stand in direct opposition to the law of Christian love, which ought to govern us both in directing our own conduct and in interpreting the conduct of others. In a word, love—which is the fulfilling of the law—is likewise the fulfilling of this command. As John says, “He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him” (1 John 2:10). Offenses would neither be given nor taken if brotherly love remained vigorous among us.

Fourthly, we ought carefully to avoid encouraging unnecessary or intricate disputes. Such controversies have always proved exceedingly harmful to the Church and have hindered edification no less than error or open profanity. This is the Apostle’s first direction in Romans 14:1: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Such debates ordinarily produce strife and often stir up sinful passions in those who engage in them rather than promoting holy zeal.

In such circumstances it is often better for a believer quietly to retain his own settled judgment, while accommodating his practice to the weakness of others, than by pressing his opinions at an unsuitable time to confuse those who are less established. This appears to be the meaning of Romans 14:22: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” That is, if a man has attained clear conviction concerning some particular indifferent matter, he should often be content to make personal use of that liberty without troubling weaker brethren by continually asserting it.

Indeed, the history of the Church plainly shows that a contentious spirit and the multiplication of offenses have commonly advanced together. Such disputes can scarcely fail to hinder the growth of weaker believers, grieve the stronger, and become stumbling blocks to all. For this reason it is generally wiser, in seasons of widespread offense, to refrain from raising new controversies, reviving old ones, or introducing novel expressions that are likely to be misunderstood. The injury occasioned by men’s mistakes or by their taking advantage of such expressions often far outweighs any possible benefit that might otherwise have resulted.

Likewise, at such times it is frequently more prudent to overlook certain lesser inaccuracies in the writings of others than unnecessarily to provoke public controversy over every expression that seems unsatisfactory. This practice has become far too common. Meanwhile, the Church’s avowed enemies are often left in peace, while controversies rage almost exclusively among those who are fundamentally agreed in the principal articles of the faith but differ only in comparatively smaller matters.

Fifthly, during times when offenses abound, Christians ought voluntarily to abstain from things that are matters of controversy, whether in doctrine or in practice, provided they are not necessary duties. This is the course the Apostle repeatedly recommends in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The reason is evident. Those who possess greater knowledge are generally the ones persuaded that such things are lawful, whereas the weaker brethren remain doubtful. It is therefore both safer and more equitable for the stronger to condescend to the weaker, since such condescension lies within their power, rather than attempting to force the weaker to rise immediately to the stronger’s measure of understanding, which would only overdrive them.

Sixthly, at such seasons Christians ought to devote themselves especially to the study and practice of the weightier and more essential duties of religion—those things that belong to the very life and power of godliness. We see that when offenses greatly multiplied in the apostolic age, Paul directed believers away from excessive concern with circumstantial questions and toward the great work of “working out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).

Experience teaches us that offenses most commonly arise—and indeed can arise only—in matters that may lawfully either be done or omitted, such as the questions concerning meats and similar practices that troubled the primitive Church. We also observe that wherever these matters become the occasion of greatest contention, men ordinarily place an exaggerated value upon them while, at the same time, assigning too little importance to faith, repentance, prayer, communion with God, and other substantial duties of the Christian life.

Accordingly, the Apostle reminds us in Romans 14:17 that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,” that is, it does not consist in eating or abstaining from particular foods, much less in disputes concerning such things. Rather, it consists in “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” In other words, true religion consists chiefly in the substantial duties of godliness. Therefore he immediately adds that “he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.” This plainly shows that many had come to place too much of religion in these outward matters while neglecting those things that are truly fundamental. Necessary duties rarely become occasions of offense, and sincere believers seldom stumble at them.

Seventhly, special care ought to be taken to preserve peace—especially the public peace of the Church—and to maintain due respect for Christ’s ordinances, particularly the ordinance of discipline. Church discipline is the appointed remedy for the removal of offenses, as our Lord teaches in Matthew 18:17, and without unity it can scarcely exercise its proper authority.

Indeed, offenses naturally tend to produce divisions. On the other hand, where unity is preserved, many who otherwise would have fallen are upheld. For this reason the Apostle exhorts us in Romans 14:19: “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” Throughout Scripture, peace and edification are frequently joined together, teaching us that peace powerfully restrains offenses, which are themselves directly opposed to the edification of Christ’s Church.

Eighthly, when offenses abound, it is often safest for Christians to appear as little as possible in matters that are not required by their calling. As Solomon teaches, “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin;” and so likewise, in much unnecessary activity there is seldom an absence of offense. Experience confirms this. Men ordinarily give and take offense more readily by what is done than by what is left undone.

This rule, however, must never be extended so far as to excuse the omission of any necessary duty. Rather, it applies chiefly to matters that are indifferent and not required, especially those which, at the particular time, have become the most common occasions of stumbling.

Accordingly, although the Apostle vigorously refutes error when essential doctrines are at stake—as, for example, in defending the doctrine of justification—there are other questions which he urges believers rather to avoid than to multiply. He speaks of doubtful questions (Rom. 14:1), endless questions (1 Tim. 1:4), controversies that only produce strife, and “foolish and unlearned questions” which are to be shunned (2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 23). Although every question has truth on one side or the other, and the diligent study of necessary truth is always profitable, yet with respect to such speculative controversies, considering the contention they ordinarily produce and the difficulties attending them, the Church often gains more by prudent silence than by eager and prolonged disputation.

Ninthly, in such times every person ought diligently to attend to the duties of his own calling and keep himself within the proper bounds of that station in which God has placed him. As the Apostle exhorts in 1 Corinthians 7:20, every man should “abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” By doing so, occasions of offense are greatly diminished.

When magistrates faithfully discharge the duties of magistrates; ministers those of ministers; masters, servants, husbands, wives, and every other class of persons those duties peculiar to their respective stations, there is ordinarily little occasion for offense. But when men either overstep those bounds or give others reason to suppose that they have done so, their conduct readily becomes offensive and causes the Gospel to be spoken against. For this reason the Apostle repeatedly urges subjects, wives, servants, and all Christians to adorn the Gospel by faithfully performing the duties appropriate to their several callings, thereby silencing those who seek occasion to speak evil of the Christian profession.

Tenthly, there ought to be mutual faithfulness among Christians. Those who have taken offense should freely, soberly, and lovingly admonish those by whom they have been offended; and those who have given offense, or at whom offense has been taken, ought with equal readiness to remove whatever occasion of stumbling they have caused, or are thought to have caused. This is our Lord’s express rule in Matthew 18:15 and the verses following.

Few duties are more necessary when offenses abound, yet few are more commonly neglected. This neglect itself greatly multiplies offenses. What can be more contrary to Christian love than for one person secretly to harbor offense against another, while never making any sincere attempt to recover his brother from the snare into which he has fallen, thereby endangering the souls of both? Or, on the other hand, when a person who has given offense is faithfully admonished, what can be more unbecoming than stubbornly refusing either to acknowledge the offense or to assist in removing the stumbling block from his brother’s path?

Eleventhly, every sincere endeavor to remove offenses ought to proceed according to the order prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18. If private admonition and brotherly reasoning do not succeed, then the matter should proceed, step by step, until it comes before the Church. Since public scandals properly belong to another part of our discussion, we shall reserve fuller treatment of that subject for later. At present we shall only observe three things concerning those offenses that require such private admonition.

First, these offenses are not confined to wrongs committed directly against ourselves. A man may be seriously stumbled by witnessing another person’s sinful conduct toward someone else. Thus the immediate injury may be suffered by one individual, while the offense is taken by another who observes it.

Secondly, this duty of admonition ought always to be discharged without heat, prejudice, contention, or any spirit of revenge. It must proceed in the spirit of Christian love, seeking the offender’s spiritual good with the same sincere affection with which we would pray for him. Indeed, brotherly admonition and prayer spring from the same principle of love and are equally necessary Christian duties.

Thirdly, Christ’s appointed order must never be reversed. No one ought to proceed to public accusation until the private means which our Lord has prescribed have first been faithfully and genuinely attempted.

Twelfthly, in all things—but especially during times of widespread offense—we must be careful to maintain singleness of heart, making the glory of God our principal aim. This is necessary not only for our own peace of conscience but also for the conviction and edification of others.

Our lack of singleness frequently makes us careless about giving offense; and the appearance of mixed motives often causes others readily to stumble at our conduct. On the other hand, the actions of those whose sincerity is generally acknowledged are not so easily misunderstood or taken amiss.

Accordingly, the Apostle expressly joins these two duties together in 1 Corinthians 10:31–32: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense, neither to the Jew, nor to the Gentile, nor to the church of God.” At such times, therefore, every Christian ought diligently to examine his own heart and ask what motive truly governs his conduct. Very often selfish aims quietly mingle themselves with what we imagine to be the purest zeal. For that reason, self-interest must be especially watched against and denied whenever offenses abound.

Thirteenthly, great care should be taken to preserve the authority and honor of all Christ’s ordinances. These are the appointed lights and means by which believers are directed so that they do not stumble, and by which they are strengthened and comforted in their spiritual life. Whenever offenses arise, Satan almost invariably seeks to bring these ordinances into contempt. Once men are deprived of their proper guides, they necessarily walk in darkness and are much more likely to fall over the stumbling blocks placed in their way.

Accordingly, the very ordinances appointed for the life of the Church often become the chief objects of offense. Questions arise concerning the ministry, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day, the singing of psalms, the constitution of the Church, church discipline, and similar matters. By causing men to stumble at these ordinances, or by turning them into stumbling blocks, Satan effectively cuts them off from the ordinary means by which they might otherwise receive instruction, correction, and consolation.

For this reason the Apostle Paul so earnestly labored to vindicate both himself and his ministry from the false accusations brought against them (2 Cor. 12:19). Likewise, throughout Scripture we find repeated directions urging believers to maintain the honor of Christ’s ordinances even in the most difficult and perplexing circumstances, as in Song of Solomon 1:8; Ephesians 4:12–13; Hebrews 13:7–8, 17; and especially Matthew 18:17–18. On the other hand, believers are equally commanded to avoid false teachers and those who create divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine they have learned (Rom. 16:17). Such seasons call for careful discernment of spirits, holy vigilance against snares, and hatred of every garment spotted by the flesh. Both Scripture and experience testify that these two duties always belong together: separating ourselves from those who propagate false doctrine while steadfastly adhering to faithful ministers and the ordinances Christ has appointed.

Fourteenthly, especially in times when offenses abound, Christians ought to cultivate a spirit of sympathy, condescension, and mutual forbearance toward one another. This is what the Apostle means when he exhorts us to “bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves; let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom. 15:1–3).

A stubborn attachment to our own opinions and an unwillingness to yield in indifferent matters frequently both produces offenses and prevents their removal. Yet nothing is more common during such seasons than for men to insist upon their own judgment under the name of Christian liberty or conscience, refusing to accommodate themselves in matters which they themselves acknowledge to be lawful. Nothing, however, is less becoming in followers of Christ. As Solomon says, “Only by pride cometh contention” (Prov. 13:10). This disposition to please ourselves is one of the chief causes by which offenses are nourished within the Church.

The Apostle Paul’s own example stands in striking contrast. In 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 he willingly became “all things to all men” for their edification. In the use of things indifferent he made his own liberty entirely subordinate to the spiritual good of others. He denied not only his own personal preferences and inclinations, but, so to speak, even the exercise of his own superior knowledge whenever the edification of his brethren required it.

Although this duty belongs to every Christian, it rests in a special manner upon those who are stronger and more mature in the faith. Thus Romans 15:1 declares, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,” and Galatians 6:1–2 presses the same obligation. It is therefore a serious mistake to suppose that, in matters merely circumstantial or indifferent, the weak are always expected to conform themselves to the strong, and that their being offended is of little consequence. Scripture teaches precisely the opposite. The strong are to carry themselves toward the weak as men handle frail and delicate vessels—with tenderness and carefulness lest they be crushed. Accordingly, all these directions especially concern those believers whom God has furnished with greater knowledge and stability, that they may go before others in humility, patience, and self-denial.

CHAPTER IX. Showing What Ought to Be the Conduct of Ministers When Offenses Abound

Fifteenthly and lastly, when offenses abound, ministers are called in a special manner to exert themselves in restraining and removing this flood of scandals, just as they are bound to oppose every other prevailing sin. Indeed, we know of no instrument more suitable or comprehensive for accomplishing this end than the faithful and wholehearted intervention of the ministers of Christ.

This is one of the principal reasons for which Christ has given ministers to His Church, as has already been shown, and it forms an essential part of their charge to watch over souls with special regard to the prevention and healing of offenses. Accordingly, throughout both his public teaching and his private conduct, the Apostle Paul insists upon scarcely any duty more frequently than this—that the Church should be preserved from scandals and offenses. This has already appeared from his Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and elsewhere.

Nor does he address any class of persons more earnestly concerning the restraint of strife, contention, quarrels about words, and all those things that generate offenses than he does Timothy and Titus. He charges them not merely to conduct themselves wisely as individual Christians, but, as ministers of the Gospel, to labor diligently that these evils might be prevented among the people committed to their care. There can be no reason for this repeated emphasis except the great importance of the matter itself, together with the remarkable influence which faithful ministers possess, by virtue of their office, either to restrain or to increase scandals and offenses within the Church.

Does not the blessed Prince of Pastors Himself frequently address offenses in His preaching? Sometimes He reproves them; sometimes He exposes their evil; and often He deliberately insists upon instructions designed for this very purpose—that His disciples should not be offended, as in John 16:1. Likewise, by His own example He graciously condescended to prevent even the offense of unspiritual men (Matt. 17:27). He also repeatedly teaches this doctrine by giving directions both for preventing and removing offenses, especially in Matthew 18.

In particular, He commands the mortification of sin by cutting off the right hand and plucking out the right eye, and the like. If these instructions were carefully studied and faithfully practiced, they would furnish a summary of nearly every other direction necessary for this purpose, so wisely are they suited to it—as indeed all our Lord’s instructions are.

All this plainly shows that when offenses abound, much rests upon ministers at such times. This applies not only to their personal conduct but also to the faithful discharge of their ministerial office. Indeed, it concerns their entire manner of life, both in their relationships with one another and in their dealings with all kinds of people. We may briefly note several particular duties.

First, their conduct ought then to be especially grave, sober, holy, self-denying, and exemplary in every duty required of private Christians under such circumstances. As their lives are more closely observed than those of others, so their faults are more readily seen; and when they become visible, they more easily harden and stumble others.

For this reason the minister is commanded to be “an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit,” and in every other grace (1 Tim. 4:12). On the same principle, ministers are especially bound in difficult times to flee youthful lusts—particularly contention, strife, and similar sins—even when these seem to pursue them. Instead, they must diligently follow after righteousness, faith, charity, and peace, even when these virtues appear difficult to attain, as the Apostle exhorts in 2 Timothy 2:22. Both of these passages have special reference to perilous times, as their immediate context makes clear.

If ministers themselves fail in these things, what can reasonably be expected of the people? And without such a life, how can either their conduct or their public ministry carry the weight necessary to restrain offenses?

Secondly, ministers ought to be watchful not only against sins but also against offenses—even those offenses that are merely taken and not given—lest either through themselves or through others any should stumble. This was both our Lord’s own practice and that of His apostles, as the passages already cited demonstrate.

To be offended is itself an infirmity and spiritual sickness, even where the offense is merely taken without just cause. Therefore, for a minister to remain unaffected by such cases reveals a disposition altogether contrary to the pastoral office. This is the very concern the Apostle expresses as one of the principal burdens of his ministry: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:28–29).

The report of a brother’s stumbling ought to pierce the heart of a sympathetic minister as though a fire had been kindled within his own breast.

Indeed, if this one grace were vigorous—a genuine, heartfelt sympathy with those who are offended—it would naturally introduce all the other pastoral duties connected with this subject. It would lead ministers to pray earnestly that offenses might be prevented, as our Lord does in John 17 and as Paul does in Romans 15:5. It would make them exceedingly careful not to give offense themselves, not to make light of the offenses of others, not to despise those who have stumbled, much less to spread reports, encourage contentions, or exaggerate the faults of others in such a way that the flood of offenses is increased rather than restrained.

Thirdly, ministers ought to labor diligently to preserve unity, both among themselves and among the people of God. There is no effectual way to prevent offenses apart from this, for strife and contention are the fuel by which this plague of scandal is kindled and sustained.

Accordingly, when offenses were multiplying in Corinth, the very first direction Paul gave was this: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you…” (1 Cor. 1:10). And after writing at length in both Epistles to correct their many disorders, he concludes with this exhortation: “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).

Nor does he merely exhort them. After giving his extensive instruction concerning offenses, he also prays for this very blessing: “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (Rom. 15:5).

This likewise was the course taken by our blessed Lord Himself. He not only commended unity to His disciples but earnestly prayed for it, lest the world should be stumbled and hindered from acknowledging Him, and lest the beauty of the Church should be obscured so that its members might no longer be recognized as His disciples. This appears throughout the Gospel, and especially in John 17.

Fourthly, ministers should carefully divert people from those things that ordinarily breed offenses—such as striving about words, endless wrangling over controversies of little consequence, rash judging and condemning of others, and similar practices. Instead, they should devote themselves, and encourage others to devote themselves, to those things that most directly promote the power of godliness and the life of true religion.

This was Paul’s own practice. Although no one was more capable of disputation when necessary, yet nothing is more evident from his Epistles than his desire to turn believers away from barren controversies and toward faith, holiness, love, and a good conscience. He expressly charges Timothy to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they produce strife (2 Tim. 2:23), and to refuse foolish controversies and contentions that are unprofitable and vain (Titus 3:9).

Indeed, experience abundantly confirms the wisdom of this course. Whenever men become chiefly occupied with debates, disputes, and the censuring of others, the life and power of religion ordinarily decline. But where they are exercised in repentance, faith, prayer, communion with God, self-examination, mortification of sin, and the practical duties of holiness, offenses commonly lose much of their strength, because men’s hearts are more engaged in their own spiritual condition than in observing and aggravating the failings of others.

Therefore ministers ought always to strive that the principal weight of their preaching and private instruction may lie upon those truths which most directly tend to humble sinners, exalt Christ, strengthen faith, increase love, and advance holiness. Such doctrine, accompanied by the blessing of God, is one of the most effectual means for preventing and healing offenses within the Church.

The hearing of a person’s stumbling ought to pierce—and indeed will pierce—the heart of a sympathetic minister, as though it were a fire in his own bosom. If ministers were truly affected in this way, there would be fewer offenses given. It ought to strike us like a sharp pang at our hearts whenever we hear or see that anyone has been offended. This inward sympathy is one of the chief remedies for such evils. Where that tender concern exists, there also will be wisdom and direction for dealing with them, according to that word, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” We would sooner put our own heads into the fire than knowingly hazard the offending of anyone, if only this spirit truly governed us.

The second Scripture is 1 Corinthians 9:19–23: “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more… To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” Here Paul’s condescension toward others, his use of every lawful means to win the affections of people, his eager desire to edify and save souls, and his endeavor by his own example to engage others in the same self-denying course, are all abundantly set forth as an excellent pattern to be followed, especially by ministers, who in such times ought to study the edification of the Church with the greatest seriousness.

The third Scripture is 2 Corinthians 6:1–11. There is a remarkable expression in verse 3: “Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed.” For carelessness with respect to offenses exposes the ministry to contempt. He then adds, “But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,” thereby describing a ministerial life that seeks more the honor of the Master, the credit of His ordinances, and the good of souls—both one’s own and others—than the pleasing of men or making oneself merely agreeable in ordinary conversation. He continues, “In much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; by pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned; by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left; by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.”

In all these particulars, as by so many successive steps, the Apostle sets before us the pattern of his ministerial conduct for the preventing of offense. It is a most excellent description of a patient, diligent, faithful, self-denying, impartial, single-hearted, and powerful preacher, whose principal aim is to press forward the great work of reconciliation. This is evident both from the close of the previous chapter and from the beginning of this one. Such a course is here commended as the proper work of a minister among such a people and at such a time, when the prevention of offense especially calls for it.

The fourth Scripture is 2 Corinthians 11:28–29, which has already been cited and deserves to be engraved upon every minister’s heart: “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” No man was ever more earnest to quench a fire in his own house than Paul was to remove offenses and recover those who had stumbled. He was not only careful to give no offense himself, nor merely to restrain others from giving offense, nor only to remove those offenses that had been taken at his own conduct, nor even merely to satisfy stronger believers who had offended others. The stumbling of the weakest, most ignorant, and simplest believer—even when without just cause—affected him as though he himself had been pierced. It is impossible to imagine that he could have remained indifferent to men’s thoughts of him, to their grief, to their being weakened, or to their stumbling in any other way, as, alas, too many seem to do today. It was no matter of amusement to him to hear that anyone had been cast down, even through mistake; nor could his own mind find rest until that infirmity had been healed.

These passages, together with many others, when soberly considered according to their matter and scope, will give every conscientious minister a clear understanding of a great part of his duty, and perhaps of no small part of the sin for which he has reason to be humbled in such times. The observations of the Reverend Mr. David Dickson upon this subject also deserve careful attention, for they confirm these truths more fully. Happy would those ministers be who possessed such a spirit and walked in such a way; and happy would the Church be under their care. O that it might once be so!

PART II. Concerning Public Scandals, or Scandals as They Are the Object of Church Censures; and More Particularly, as They Are Practical, or in Practice.

It now remains that we speak something concerning scandal as it is the object of Church discipline. This also is implied in the present passage, namely, that the scandal given by the Nicolaitans was of such a nature that it ought to have been taken notice of by the officers of the Church. For the Lord reproves them for neglecting it, and in such a case private admonitions alone are not sufficient.

We shall therefore speak briefly to these questions: (1) When is a scandal to be considered public, so that it ought to be taken notice of by a church judicatory? (2) What order ought to be observed in proceeding against it? (3) What is to be regarded as a sufficient ground for removing such an offense, either so that all ecclesiastical process may cease, or so that a sentence already passed may be removed? (4) What is the duty of private Christians when Church officers appear, and perhaps truly are, deficient in reference to this matter?

CHAPTER I. Showing That Every Offense Is Not Public, and When It Is So

Concerning the first question, we lay down these principles.

First, not everything that is offensive is public, or ought immediately to be brought before a church judicatory.

Of this sort are, first, sins of infirmity. These may indeed be offensive for a time; yet when the general course of the person’s life is considered, they are to be regarded as proceeding from infirmity, since they are incident even to those who in a serious manner watch over their ways. Therefore they are not properly the object of Church discipline, whose design is to curb and restrain the grosser corruptions of professors. Otherwise the exercise of discipline with respect to infirmities would prove an intolerable entanglement both to officers and members, and would occasion more stumbling, contrary to Christ’s purpose.

Secondly, offenses that arise in disputable practices, or that flow from misconduct in matters indifferent, are not properly the object of Church censure, because there is no sound means of fully convincing the offending party. Hence we see that, in these disputes concerning indifferent things, or concerning practices arising from them, the Apostles rebuke men’s lack of tenderness, yet never make such matters, considered in themselves, the ground of Church censure, unless they are aggravated by some additional circumstance. Of this sort also are offenses arising from men’s conduct in legal proceedings and civil contracts. Such conduct may offend others, yet the offenders cannot legally be convicted of violating any rule when the general course of their conduct is lawful, although it may nevertheless be sinful before God and should be reproved by private admonition wherever there is opportunity.

Thirdly, some offenses are gross and may indeed be known by certain persons to be true, yet there is no convincing way of demonstrating their truth to others. In such a case it is safer and more edifying to refrain from publicly mentioning the scandal than to prosecute it, since doing so may only provoke the offender further and weaken the authority of the Church rather than promote edification.

Fourthly, some scandals are gross and may be proved by two or three witnesses, yet they are not immediately to be brought before the Church publicly unless the offender continues in obstinacy and refuses to satisfy those two or three who have admonished him. This is especially to be observed if his general conduct is otherwise blameless. This is Christ’s express rule in Matthew 18, and to bring such a matter immediately before the Church is inconsistent with the love we owe one another. Charity requires that a brother first be admonished, and that, if he hears, the matter should go no further. Otherwise, when those who were offended have been satisfied, bringing it into public would awaken a scandal rather than remove one.

At present, however, we are especially considering what constitutes a public scandal with respect to its nature. Afterwards we shall inquire when a scandal is to be accounted public with respect to its notoriety, and consequently when it ought immediately to be brought before the Church publicly. These two things are certainly distinct and ought to be carefully distinguished, as was noted previously. A scandal may, in one sense, be public because of its notoriety, while not being public with respect to its nature.

Secondly, scandals may be of such a nature that it is fitting for the Church to take public notice of them and to pursue them with ecclesiastical censures until they are removed. This is evident from the Lord’s rebuking these churches for neglecting public discipline. His reproving them because they “had” such persons among them, and because they “suffered” them, as is said in the next epistle, can scarcely be understood in any other sense than that they failed to cut them off from the Church’s fellowship by ecclesiastical censure, a duty that is abundantly confirmed elsewhere.

This is true in the following cases.

First, when a scandal is in its own nature gross and infectious, like a little leaven ready to leaven the whole lump.

Secondly, when the matter is clear and the facts cannot reasonably be denied. The former is necessary in order that the conscience may be convinced of the evil itself; the latter is necessary for applying the consequences of such an evil to the particular offender.

Thirdly, an offense becomes public, even though it was not originally so by its own nature, if it is afterwards aggravated by circumstances such as obstinacy, contempt of private admonition, frequent relapses into the same sin, and the like, as Christ’s rule in Matthew 18 and the general nature of scandal plainly confirm. Scandals thus aggravated—and these alone—are properly the object of Church discipline and should be taken up by church judicatories.

From this we may see a great difference between an offense as the object of private discretion and an offense as the object of Church discipline.

By gross evils of an infectious nature I mean those that are contrary to a clear law of God and that exert such an influence upon a man’s Christian walk that any sober person acquainted with the Word of God, reflecting honestly upon his conscience, cannot but acknowledge them to be sinful, destructive to the work of grace where they exist, and likely, if allowed to spread, to mar the beauty of the Church and hinder the edification and salvation of her members. Such sins as Sabbath-breaking, profane swearing, and whatever directly contradicts the moral law are plainly subject to Church censure.

Upon this occasion I cannot but express my astonishment and regret at the unwarranted statements—at least as they concern matters of fact—made by the learned Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake (p. 130). His words are these: “In some Countries, where some oaths are grown customary and of no great evil repute, it is possible for a godly man to be long guilty of them, as it is known that many well reputed of for godliness are in Scotland,” etc. In this he misrepresents the Church of Scotland in at least two respects. First, he writes as though certain forms of swearing had become so common in Scotland that they even abounded among godly people. Secondly, he writes as though such sins were not taken notice of, or were not regarded as scandalous. Perhaps this was the information given him; but surely Christian charity should have required that such reports not be received against a brother without convincing evidence, much less published as a known fact concerning a Christian Church. However afflicted and divided the Church of Scotland may be, and however exposed to reproach in other respects, she nevertheless has a witness in heaven and on earth concerning her zeal against this sin, and concerning her innocence in this matter, so far as those who are even outwardly godly are concerned. Nothing is more abhorred by a truly godly heart, nor regarded as a clearer evidence of profanity among us, than the habitual and irreverent use of the holy name of God and every form of profane swearing. Although we confess that we are in many ways guilty before God, even in this respect, yet we believe the Church of Scotland may hold up her face in this matter alongside any church on earth.

Thirdly, we say that even among those scandals which in this sense are properly public, considerable distinctions must be made in the way they are prosecuted.

First, some scandals are of such a gross nature and so publicly known that they cannot be passed over without at least some public rebuke, even though the offender appears sincerely to repent of his sin, because regard must be had not only to his restoration but also to the edification of others.

Secondly, some scandals are such that an authoritative admonition is sufficient to remedy them. In such cases, if the offender hears the admonition of the Church’s rulers and receives it, no further proceedings are necessary.

Thirdly, in some cases offenders must be pursued even to the highest censure of excommunication when public rebukes prove insufficient, as we see in the case before us and in other examples recorded by Paul. We maintain that every scandal deserving so severe a sentence ought to be clearly established, both with respect to the grossness of the sin itself and the certainty of the evidence, so that both the offender and others are convincingly persuaded of the justice of the sentence. Otherwise this great ordinance may be brought into contempt if it is employed upon doubtful or disputable grounds. Nor can it naturally accomplish its proper end upon the offender, for the first work of Church discipline is to bring him convincingly to the sense of his fault, as Christ says in Matthew 18:15. Neither can such discipline be expected to carry due weight with others, whose attitude toward those under censure ordinarily depends upon how weighty or how slight they judge the grounds of the sentence to be.

The nature of this ordinance likewise confirms the same point. As divines commonly teach, excommunication is added to confirm God’s threatenings just as the sacraments seal His promises. It therefore presupposes a clear divine threatening to which it is appended. Such a threatening cannot rightly be applied unless both the sin in its own nature and the fact of its commission are clearly established. Indeed, every example of excommunication found in Scripture is of this character: it is both rare and reserved for the most manifest and grievous offenses.

I cannot express this matter better than the Reverend Mr. Thomas Hooker of New England has done in his Survey of Church Discipline, Part III, p. 39: “Such evils … which are either heinous and abominable, as fornication, murder, adultery, incest, treason, etc.; or, if not so gross, yet carry the face of evil in their forehead upon the first serious and well-grounded consideration of reason, and have been pertinaciously and obstinately persisted in after the improvement of all means for conviction and reformation—these only deserve excommunication by the rules of Christ (1 Cor. 5; Matt. 18:17).” Thus far he. Observe that what we have said here concerning a public scandal relates to its nature. What is to be accounted public with respect to its manifestness and notoriety remains to be considered afterward.

CHAP. II. Concerning what order is to be keeped in the following of publick Scandals.

The second thing, namely, what order and manner is to be observed in the following of public scandals, is not easily determinable, there being such a variety of cases in which the Lord exercises the prudence and wisdom of His Church-officers. Indeed, the gift of government (so to speak) especially manifests itself in the right managing of discipline with respect to the several humors and constitutions (if I may so speak) of the men with whom they have to do. For, as in bodily diseases the same cure is not suitable for the same disease in all constitutions and seasons, and as ministers in their doctrine are to press the same truths in diverse manners upon diverse audiences, so this cure of discipline is not to be applied equally to all persons, nor even to those guilty of the same offenses. For that which would scarcely humble one may crush another, and that which might edify one might become a stumbling block to another of a different temperament.

Therefore, we suppose there can be no peremptory determination of rules for every case here. Rather, the manner of procedure in the application of these rules must necessarily be left to the prudence and conscientiousness of Church-officers according to the particular circumstances of each case. Yet we may lay down these general principles.

1. All public proceedings against scandalous persons, or judicial taking notice of scandals, ought to be conducted with respect to the ends for which discipline was appointed, and in such a way as may attain those ends. This, I suppose, cannot be denied, for the means must be suited to the end.

Now the ends of public censure are these.

1. The vindication of the honor of Jesus Christ, who suffers in the miscarriage of a member.

2. The preserving of the authority of His ordinances and the chastening of disobedience to them. Therefore it is called, in 2 Corinthians 2:6, “the punishment that was inflicted,” and in chapter 10, verse 6, it is said to “revenge all disobedience,” being appointed as an ecclesiastical whip to maintain His authority in His house, and thereby to mark those who are unruly therein (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14).

3. It is for the good of the offending person, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 5:5, “for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved,” so that by this means admonitions, reproofs, and even threatenings may carry greater weight for the person’s humiliation and awakening, constraining him at least to a more orderly walk in the Church, as the Apostle says in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14.

4. It is for the good of the Church, that the leaven of profanity may not spread, and that others may thereby learn to fear. This reason is given in 1 Corinthians 5:6–7 and following, and in 1 Timothy 5:20.

Now, when we speak of the end of public trial and censure, respect is to be had to all these ends, but especially to the more public and general ends, while the particular edification of the offending person is not neglected. Therefore, in proceeding, special regard should be had to that manner—whether by meekness or severity, by forbearance or by proceeding—which is most likely to attain these ends.

Hence, secondly, we say that the same offenses, materially considered, are not equally, nor at all times, nor in all persons, nor perhaps in all places, to be pursued in the same manner. The reason is plain, because according to circumstances, that manner which is edifying at one time and in one case may be destructive in another, and therefore ought not to be followed. For the power which God has given is for edification, and never for destruction (2 Corinthians 13:10).

Accordingly, we see Paul in some cases censuring corrupt men, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20). At other times he threatens and yet spares, although the scandal in itself deserved censure, as when he says, “I wish they were cut off who trouble you” (Galatians 5:12), and yet he does not proceed to that length because he judged that the edification of the Church did not require it. So likewise in 2 Corinthians 10:4, 6, he says that he had “in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” Yet he did not think it fitting at that time to do so, lest it should provoke greater disobedience, produce a more serious division or schism, diminish the weight of the authority of the ordinances, and thus frustrate his purpose, which in all things—including this forbearance—was their edification, as he expressly declares in chapter 12, verse 19: “Brethren, we do all things… for your edifying.”

When I speak of edifying, I do not mean pleasing people, for that may often prove destructive both to them and to others. Rather, I mean that it ought to be weighed with Christian prudence whether, considering the time and place in which we live, the nature of the person with whom we have to do, and the character of those among whom we live, it is more fitting to proceed in this way with such a person at such a time, or in another way. Accordingly, as it appears most probable that one course will honor God more, more fully vindicate His ordinances, gain the person from sin to holiness—or at least to a regular walk—and most edify others, so Church judicatories ought to take that course which most probably leads to that end.

Therefore, such differences in Church procedure ought not always to be accounted partiality. Yet these things must by all means be guarded against.

First. Nothing should be done with respect to persons, nor even appear to be done with respect to persons; that is, no one should receive gentler treatment than another because of outward, civil, or natural considerations. Nothing is more derogatory to ecclesiastical authority or more offensive to the people than this.

Secondly. This difference in procedure ought rather to concern the manner and circumstances of proceeding with certain offenses than the neglect of what is materially required. It should apply only to those offenses where no settled rule exists, and in which Church-officers have greater latitude.

For example, some offenses are of such a public nature that they ordinarily require a public rebuke. Such cases cannot conveniently be passed over in any ordinary conceivable circumstance, such as fornication or other offenses of that kind. Yet there may be condescension in the manner of citing and dealing with the offender, or in the expression or timing of the rebuke. But to omit the rebuke altogether would endanger the neglect of that ordinance of public reproof, which would injure the edification of the Church more than it would benefit any particular individual.

Other offenses, however, are more occasional, and with respect to them there is no definite law or settled practice. Suppose, for example, someone speaks reproachful words against another person, whether an officer or otherwise. In such cases there is greater liberty to condescend in whatever manner may be most convincing to the offender.

Lastly, in determining what course will be most edifying, we are not to look to one end alone—that is, either the particular good of the individual or only the public good—but to consider all the ends together and seek how they may best be attained jointly.

Thirdly. From this also it will appear that Church-officers ought to conduct themselves with such tenderness, love, and sympathy in public censures that not only they may have the testimony of a good conscience themselves, but also that those who have offended, together with others who observe their conduct, may likewise be convinced of the sincerity of their intentions. For if this is lacking, what benefit can their censure accomplish? And if it is necessary for a minister in preaching to study this, it is in some respects even more necessary here, because men, through their corruption, are ordinarily more ready to mistake the intentions of others in matters of discipline.

We therefore conceive that the procedure of a Church judicatory ought plainly to differ from that of a civil court. A civil court censures merely out of justice with respect to the commonwealth, for whose good, in some cases, even the most penitent offender must suffer the penalty and cannot be reprieved. But the Church acts with the purpose of preserving itself from offenses while seeking that the offending member may, with all tenderness, be restored and healed. Indeed, experience shows that Church censures often carry weight precisely because they are understood to proceed from love.

We also conceive that the following directions may have much influence in attaining this end.

First. Nothing should be rashly or hastily brought before the public except that which is a convincing scandal in itself, clear as to the matter of fact, and, if the scandal is not very gross and public, only after private dealing with the offender and observation of his conduct afterward. Hasty exposure before the public only irritates. If a private admonition from minister and elders might gain a brother, what need is there for anything further? By acting in this manner, the offender is convinced that the minister or elder sincerely desires his amendment, and, if possible, desires to cover rather than expose his offense.

Secondly. There should be no rigid insistence upon matters that are merely personal with respect to members of the judicatory. Suppose, for example, that officers receive snarling answers, unbecoming words, or irreverent behavior. In such cases there ought to be condescension. Whatever is otherwise offensive should indeed be dealt with, but these merely personal affronts should be passed over.

It is true that the authority of Christ’s ordinances must always be maintained. Yet this is not always best accomplished by rigidly prosecuting personal insults. On the contrary, Christ’s ordinance often appears most truly in its proper character when meekness prevails, and thereby, in the end, acquires greater weight. Many people cannot distinguish between officers seeking to vindicate their own authority and officers seeking to vindicate the authority of Christ’s ordinances. Consequently, when the offense arises from a personal affront directed immediately against an officer, vigorous prosecution often appears to observers to be merely carnal and vindictive, giving the appearance of evil, and therefore ought to be avoided.

This may be observed also in Paul’s conduct, and in the practice of many of the most zealous servants of God, who never dishonored Christ’s ordinances by refusing to vindicate their own personal dignity. Church-officers especially ought to watch themselves in this matter, because in our warmest passions it is often regard for our own authority rather than zeal for Christ that moves us. This is evident from the fact that a practical contempt of the ordinances when exercised in our own hands frequently stirs us more deeply than many gross immoralities, doctrinal blasphemies, or contemptuous actions immediately directed against others, although those sins may in themselves be far more dishonoring to Christ.

Thirdly. In order to attain this end, the utmost rigor of legal procedure ought not always to be insisted upon. If a person fails to appear on an appointed day, yet afterward willingly submits; or if he speaks rashly or behaves irreverently at one time but afterward manifests a different spirit, such matters ought not rigidly to be pressed. Otherwise Church-officers may seem, under the pretense of discipline, merely to be taking advantage of the offender. On the contrary, it is an evidence of sincerity when they readily condescend in such matters.

This principle, however, is to be observed only where the conduct appears to arise from weakness or infirmity. If, instead, the offender is subtle, deceitful, and dissembling, using professions of repentance merely to advance his own designs, then such condescension may become harmful to the Church of God by allowing a dangerous opportunity to slip away, and therefore ought not to be admitted.

Fourthly. It likewise contributes to this end that public appearances and public rebukes should not be frequent, nor employed except in cases where both the nature of the offense and the evidence of it are convincing, and only after private admonitions have proved fruitless. We suppose that the intermediate step in Christ’s direction in Matthew 18 warrants this: “Take with thee one or two more, before thou tell it unto the Church.”

Hasty public rebukes are commonly interpreted as a desire to shame the offender. But when they are rare, observed in Christ’s appointed order, and accompanied with a clear explanation why such a public rebuke is now just and necessary—because private means have failed and the condition of others requires it—they greatly diminish that prejudice. Every person possesses both reason and conscience, though many seldom exercise them.

We also find that public rebukes are comparatively rare in Scripture. Although a public appearance may at times seem most edifying to the congregation, yet, first, if they become frequent, they inevitably lose their weight. Secondly, one public rebuke conducted in this careful manner will accomplish more than many indiscriminate censures. It is not the number of rebukes that edifies, but the convincing character of the manner in which they are administered. Therefore we judge that public rebukes ought never to be multiplied merely because scandals have multiplied. Rather, a few representative cases should be selected in which the greatest public edification may be attained, while private dealing with others should be carried on all the more diligently. This, likewise, was the judgment of the great Augustine.

Thirdly. People are offended at the omission of public rebukes when they suppose that such omission proceeds from carelessness, negligence, partiality, or some similar fault in the officers. But if, through established practice, it becomes known among a congregation that the officers diligently observe these matters, are faithful in dealing privately with scandalous persons for their conviction, and deliberately choose this course because they judge it to be the most loving and tender means of gaining them, then such a manner of proceeding will prove far more convincing and edifying than if the matter were immediately brought before the public.

For people generally approve of tenderness and condescension in Church-officers, recognizing it as the spirit of those who truly desire the salvation of souls. Consequently, they attach much greater weight to the public censures of such officers, even when directed against others, because they perceive that these men have, as it were, been constrained to proceed to that point. On the other hand, there is scarcely anything more offensive than the absence of such tenderness.

It must, however, be carefully guarded that this tenderness does not become a cloak for negligence or unfaithfulness. Diligence and faithful dealing ought to be exercised with offending persons no less—and indeed even more—than if they had already been brought before the public. This forbearance is to be employed only as a means of making that private diligence and freedom more successful. Otherwise, whether the matter is publicly pursued or privately forborne, the result will still be harmful.

Likewise, when one of these prevalent scandals, or one particularly scandalous person, is publicly rebuked, the minister should so gravely and zealously expose the evil that, in one respect, all who are guilty of the same sin may feel themselves reproved. His holy indignation against the sin should be so evident that this single rebuke may serve in place of many, while the forbearance shown toward others leaves the door open for some of them to abandon the same offense without ever requiring a public censure.

Fourthly. It is also to be remembered that the exercise of discipline for restraining scandals is to be subservient to the preaching of the Word, which is the principal and great ordinance appointed for edification. Therefore discipline ought always to be administered in such a manner that it promotes, rather than hinders, the ministry of the Word. In reference to this, several things deserve careful attention.

First. No censure ought ever to be administered blindly or merely by form. Rather, with respect both to the offending party and to others, there ought to be instruction, exhortation, conviction, and similar applications of the Word either preceding or accompanying the censure. In this respect, though not in the strict sense, Church censures may be viewed as resembling sacraments in certain particular cases, because they possess both a signifying and a confirming use when considered in relation to the end for which Christ appointed them.

Secondly. Church-officers, and especially ministers, ought not to make discipline their principal occupation, lest it become an entanglement to them or divert them from the ministry of the Word. The great Apostles, in Acts 6, judged it unfitting that they should be diverted by serving tables. Instead, they appointed deacons for that purpose, in order that they themselves might devote their chief attention—and, as they themselves express it in verse 4, continue steadfastly—to prayer, that is, to its private exercise, and to the ministry of the Word, namely, its public preaching.

From this we may observe, first, what the principal work of a minister truly is. It consists in secret prayer—under which are included reading, meditation, and all other duties necessary for his own spiritual condition and for preparing himself to discharge the duties of his office, as may be gathered from 1 Timothy 4:13–15—and in the public preaching of the Gospel.

Secondly, we may observe that although ministers are, in a certain respect, both elders and deacons, as the Apostles themselves were, they ought nevertheless to regulate the exercise of those additional responsibilities so that they never interfere with these two principal duties.

Thirdly, elders and deacons, in governing the Church and caring for the poor, ought to make it one of their chief concerns to preserve ministers from unnecessary burdens in these matters, so that they may have freedom to devote themselves to the ministry of the Word as their principal calling. Indeed, they ought to enjoy ample opportunity for retirement and solitude, which are not only highly necessary but eminently suitable to the ministerial office. This is one of the principal ends for which these officers were appointed, and in this respect they are “helps” (1 Corinthians 12:28), both to the congregation and to the ministers themselves.

A third matter requiring attention is that contentious and irritating disciplinary proceedings should be conducted in such a way that they do not create prejudice in the minds of people against the preaching of the Word, or render it less profitable. It is true that such proceedings are sometimes necessary for the good of the Church and for vindicating Christ’s ordinances. Yet, as far as possible, they ought to be avoided. Ministers especially should conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve room in the affections of those concerned for the reception of the Word.

We also judge that multiplying and prolonging disciplinary processes—except where grave and weighty reasons make it necessary—and that method of examining members, penitents, or those seeking admission to the sacraments which some advocate, if carried into practice, could scarcely fail to entangle ministers greatly. Indeed, it would become a heavier and more intolerable burden to them than the preaching of the Word itself, and would inevitably hinder that ministry, contrary to the very nature and purpose of Church discipline as already explained.

A fourth matter requiring attention is that Church-officers ought carefully to distinguish between those scandals that are truly ecclesiastical and those that properly belong to the civil magistrate. Although the same act may sometimes fall under both jurisdictions, yet the Church is not to concern herself with offenses merely because they are punishable by the civil law, but because they are sins and scandals in themselves. Neither is the civil magistrate to concern himself with matters merely because the Church has censured them, but because they disturb civil order or violate the laws committed to his charge. Thus each ordinance of God ought to move within its own proper sphere, neither invading the province of the other nor neglecting its own duty.

Hence also it follows that Church discipline is not to be measured by the severity or leniency of civil punishments. Civil penalties are appointed for maintaining outward peace and justice within the commonwealth, whereas ecclesiastical censures are spiritual remedies appointed by Christ for the healing of souls, the preserving of His Church in purity, and the maintaining of obedience to His ordinances. Therefore the one ought never to be made the rule of the other, although both may sometimes concur in reference to the same offense.

A fifth thing to be remembered is that Church discipline ought always to be accompanied with much prayer. It is not enough that officers deliberate wisely or proceed according to rule. They have need continually to seek direction from Him whose ordinance they administer. For often the same case, outwardly considered, may admit of different methods of procedure; and nothing but spiritual wisdom, sought from God, can rightly determine which course will most glorify Him and most edify His Church. Therefore officers ought not only to pray before entering upon such matters, but should carry throughout the whole process a continual dependence upon the Lord for light, tenderness, courage, and faithfulness.

Neither should they be discouraged if, after all their diligence, they do not immediately obtain the desired success. The Lord sometimes sees fit to bless one admonition and not another, one rebuke and not another, according to His own sovereign pleasure. It is therefore the duty of His servants to be faithful in the use of the appointed means, leaving the event unto Him who alone gives the increase. Sometimes a person who appears altogether unaffected by discipline is afterward brought to repentance through the remembrance of those very admonitions which at the time seemed altogether fruitless. At other times, one who appeared deeply humbled afterward returns to his former course. In all such cases the servants of Christ are not to judge their faithfulness by immediate success, but by their careful adherence to His rule.

It is likewise of great importance that Church-officers preserve unanimity among themselves in the administration of discipline. Divisions and personal differences among those entrusted with government greatly weaken the authority of every censure and encourage offenders to harden themselves in their sin. Therefore, although there may be diversity of judgment during deliberation, yet when the matter has been orderly determined, officers ought, as far as conscience permits, to carry themselves with one heart and one mouth before the congregation, lest the authority of Christ’s ordinance suffer through their divisions.

Furthermore, great care ought to be taken that discipline be administered without respect of persons. The rich must not be favored because of their wealth, nor the poor neglected because of their low condition. Neither ought long acquaintance, natural affection, worldly advantage, nor fear of displeasing men to have any influence in such proceedings. Christ is no respecter of persons, and those who administer His government must imitate their Master in this respect. Nothing more quickly brings discipline into contempt than the suspicion that different measures are used for different persons according to outward considerations rather than according to the rule of Christ.

Finally, Church-officers should remember that they themselves are under the same authority which they administer to others. They are not lords over Christ’s heritage, but servants of the Chief Shepherd. Therefore, while they are bound faithfully to rebuke sin wherever it appears, they ought always to do so with humility, remembering their own infirmities and considering themselves, lest they also be tempted. Such a spirit both adorns the ordinance itself and renders their admonitions far more acceptable than any severity accompanied by pride or self-confidence.

By this means discipline will most clearly appear to be what Christ intended it to be: not an instrument of domination, but an ordinance of love; not a means of gratifying personal resentment, but a spiritual remedy appointed for the glory of God, the honor of Christ, the purity of His Church, the recovery of offenders, and the edification of all His people.

A fourth matter requiring attention is that Church-officers ought so to carry themselves in all these proceedings that no unnecessary prejudice is raised against the ordinances of Christ. Even when discipline must be exercised with firmness, it ought to be evident that the design is not to triumph over offenders but to recover them. The manner of proceeding should therefore manifest gravity, tenderness, and impartiality, so that those who observe it may be constrained to acknowledge that the authority exercised is Christ’s, and not merely that of men.

It is likewise of great importance that the several officers of the Church preserve unity among themselves in these matters. Nothing more weakens the authority of discipline than visible differences among those who administer it. Therefore, although there may be freedom of debate while matters are under consideration, yet, when a determination has been orderly reached, it ought to be carried out with one heart and one mind, so far as conscience allows, for the honor of Christ and the peace of His Church.

A fifth thing to be remembered is that all these proceedings ought to be accompanied with much prayer and dependence upon God. The wisdom required for the right exercise of discipline is not merely human prudence, but spiritual wisdom. Officers ought therefore continually to seek direction from the Lord, that they may know not only what ought to be done, but also when, and in what manner, it ought to be done. The same rule may require different applications according to the differing circumstances of persons and times, and only the Lord can give that wisdom by which His servants may rightly discern the most edifying course.

Neither ought Church-officers to judge the success of discipline merely by its immediate effects. It often pleases the Lord to delay the fruit of admonitions and censures. What appears for a time altogether unsuccessful may afterward prove the very means by which an offender is brought to repentance. On the other hand, an appearance of present submission may afterward prove insincere. Therefore ministers and elders are to measure their own faithfulness, not by the visible success of their labors, but by their careful adherence to Christ’s rule.

In all these things they ought especially to remember that they themselves are under the same authority which they administer to others. They are not lords over Christ’s heritage, but servants entrusted with His ordinances. Consequently, while they are bound faithfully to rebuke sin wherever it appears, they ought always to do so with humility, meekness, and a continual sense of their own infirmities, considering themselves lest they also be tempted.

By this means discipline will most clearly appear to be what Christ appointed it to be—not an instrument of severity for its own sake, nor a means of gratifying personal resentment, but a spiritual ordinance designed for the glory of God, the vindication of Christ’s honor, the preservation of the purity of His Church, the recovery of offenders, and the edification of His people.

CHAP. III. Shewing that Christs order and method, Matth. 18. is to be keeped, and what it doth imply.

The fourth general principle concerning proceeding in public scandals which we would lay down is that Christ’s order in Matthew 18 be indispensably observed. We conceive that, when compared with other Scriptures, it implies these things.

1. That offenses, whether they concern lesser particulars or more gross matters, if they are known only to a few, are not immediately to be brought before the public (unless some circumstance makes this necessary for greater edification). This order is to be observed both by officers and by private persons.

Therefore, when any accusation is brought by an elder, or any complaint by a private professor, it would not be inappropriate to inquire whether they have observed this rule with such a person. Have they, first alone and then with some others, lovingly and reasonably endeavored to convince him? If not, they should be directed to follow that course. If they have done so, it should then be asked whether their efforts had any effect, or whether the person has nevertheless continued in the offense. If neither of these things can be said, there is still no ground for publicly bringing forward the scandal. We suppose this would prevent many unnecessary proceedings and prove much more edifying.

2. It is clear from that passage that the offenses to be complained of are not injuries or wrongs done to us merely as personal injuries, but offenses that are sinful in their own nature and considered under that aspect, whether any personal wrong was intended against us or not.

It is not suitable for a Church court merely to hear persons complaining of injuries done to themselves—for example, that they have been cursed, defamed, or otherwise wronged—while failing to take notice of what is truly scandalous, namely, that God’s honor has been dishonored, the profession of the Gospel reproached, and stumbling blocks laid before both themselves and others. This is to neglect scandals while giving attention only to slanders, which, as we have already said, differ from scandals.

Hence such complainants ordinarily pursue their complaints with much bitterness and never attempt privately to convince the offending party. We therefore judge that such direct complaints, so circumstantiated, ought not to be admitted, at least under that consideration, lest Christ’s ordinance be made subservient to men’s private passions and interests.

It is therefore much more fitting that such offenses be considered abstractly from these personal complaints and be brought forward according to the same order by which other scandals are introduced, of which we are now speaking.

3. It is also clear from Christ’s order in Matthew 18 that when the offending person accepts the admonition, nothing further is to be said about the matter. Indeed, it ought not even to be privately reported if it is not otherwise known.

4. If private admonition does not prevail, then the offended person is to take two or three others with him before the matter comes to the Church. This is not to be done superficially or merely to discharge one’s conscience, but in a convincing manner and with a sincere desire for the offender’s edification.

Therefore, we do not think this should be restricted to a single meeting, either in private or before the two or three witnesses. One conversation alone may accomplish little. Since the Church itself is to continue dealing patiently with a person before giving him over and proceeding further—before it can truly be said that he refuses to hear them—so also it ought to be in these first two steps, since Christ uses the same language in each case.

Again, this dealing ought to be truly convincing. They should reason with the offending brother, as the word itself implies, and not rest satisfied with a passing word or brief admonition.

Furthermore, these two or three should be selected as those most suitable for this purpose and most likely to have influence with him. We think it would often be appropriate for at least one elder, or even two, to be among them. This should be undertaken deliberately, gravely, and seriously, as Christ’s words, “Take with thee,” plainly indicate.

All this ought to precede the bringing of a scandal before the Church, and if these efforts succeed, the matter ought to end there.

From this we may also observe, 5. that every scandal known to two or three persons is not thereby to be regarded as a public scandal or immediately brought before the Church. Christ expressly supposes that these two or three may know of the offense, and yet it may never rightly come before the public if the offender hears them.

This appears inconsistent with the practice of immediately bringing before the Church those scandals in which scarcely two witnesses can even be obtained. Indeed, when an offense has become widely known, is notorious, and the presumption of guilt is strong, such matters ought publicly to be taken notice of even though the formal proofs are not so complete.

6. If these means still do not accomplish their purpose, and the offender remains obstinate, although the two or three witnesses are convinced both of the grossness of the offense and of the offender’s guilt, then the matter is to be brought before the Church, either immediately by the offended person or by an elder—for which reason we said it was fitting that one of the former witnesses should ordinarily be an elder.

When the matter comes before the Church, we think it appropriate that, together with the parties themselves, one or more of those who witnessed the private admonitions should also be called, so that the judicatory may receive from them an impartial account of the case. They are likely to be more impartial than the immediately offended party.

This also contributes greatly toward obtaining a clear understanding of the matter, since it enables the court to know what has already taken place and at what point those earlier proceedings ended. It likewise gives greater weight to private admonitions and to those who witness them. Knowing that their conduct during those meetings may afterward become known to others encourages both parties to behave more reasonably and soberly from the outset.

A person will know that what he says privately may later be repeated before two or three witnesses, and what he says before those witnesses may afterward be impartially reported to the eldership.

We believe this is one reason, among others, why Christ calls them witnesses—witnesses by whom the matter is established. This establishment occurs less in their accompanying the offended brother privately than in their afterward bearing testimony before the Church.

When someone brings such an offense before a public judicatory, he must establish two things:

First, that the person has actually committed the offense.

Second, that he has faithfully admonished him and that the offender has refused to hear him or give satisfaction.

The first point may be established by other witnesses, but the second can ordinarily be proved only by those whom he himself called to accompany him. For that reason our Lord calls them witnesses with special respect to this part of the process.

When this has been done, every effort is still to be made for the offender’s conviction and recovery. To that end, pains are to be taken with all patience, gentleness, and long-suffering.

If these efforts succeed, no further proceedings are required.

If they do not, then public admonitions and rebukes are to be added.

If nothing prevails, then the sentence of excommunication is to follow, provided that the offense is truly scandalous in its own nature and clearly established by sufficient evidence, as was formerly stated.

Indeed, where this orderly progression is faithfully observed, it will seldom happen in any Church that matters actually proceed to excommunication.

If an offense is of such a nature that, because of its circumstances and aggravations, a public rebuke is necessary, then it ought not to be neglected.

Yet it is not necessary that every offense brought before the eldership—even offenses known by many people—should always receive a public rebuke.

If the admonition of the session or eldership has its proper effect upon the offender, what further necessity is there with respect to him? And if there is no danger that others will be infected by the offense or encouraged by the example, there is not always any necessity with respect to them either, especially where it is already well known that such offenses are not simply overlooked.

For this is one purpose of public rebukes, according to 1 Timothy 5:20: “That others also may fear.”

Indeed, we further judge that many offenses may properly proceed as far as public rebukes which nevertheless ought not to be carried forward to excommunication, even though complete satisfaction may not yet appear.

The reasons are these.

First, that sentence ought never to proceed except upon weighty and convincing grounds, as has already been stated.

Second, even where the cause is sufficiently convincing, it is reasonable to hope that an offending person may afterward come to acknowledge his fault upon further reflection, although present prejudice or passion may for a time prevent him from doing so, as experience frequently demonstrates.

But where the case is such that it threatens to infect others, and the offenders are contemptuous and eager to spread their leaven—as was true both of the doctrine and the practices of the Nicolaitans—the sentence ought to proceed, and that more summarily.

I say, more summarily in comparison with the ordinary process, though not absolutely without process.

Paul permits that a heretic be admonished once and again (Titus 3:10). Likewise, in this chapter the Lord gives Jezebel time to repent, and here these corrupt persons are exhorted to repent before He comes to fight against them with the sword of His mouth (v. 16), which, as we understand it, refers to the same sentence.

We are not prepared absolutely to deny that something more summary may at times be done when the crime is especially atrocious, the evidence unmistakable, the scandal exceedingly great, and the offender’s former and present conduct has rendered all hope of recovery so desperate that there is scarcely any opportunity even to obtain a hearing or to pursue the ordinary course of conviction, while the danger to the Church does not admit of delay.

In such extraordinary circumstances, we will not deny that something more summary may be done for the Church’s edification.

Nevertheless, we are certain that, ordinarily, the course laid down by Christ is to be faithfully followed.

CHAP. IV. Holding forth the frame wherewith Church-Officers should proceed in Censure, and helps towards the same.

In the last place, the manner of proceeding in all this is especially to be regarded, without which all the rest will be of little weight.

Therefore, throughout the whole procedure, Church-officers especially ought to conduct themselves with a zealous, serious, grave, and authoritative demeanor, carrying weight and authority even in their very looks and words, accompanied by all gravity. For can an admonition have weight with others if it does not appear to have weight with those who give it? Or can scandalous persons be serious in hearing when they are not convinced that those who speak are themselves serious and deeply affected?

Ministers especially, and likewise elders in their place, ought therefore to endeavor, with all tenderness toward the offender, yet with earnest zeal, to express their indignation at and abhorrence of such sins, as was commended in the church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:6), that they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans.

Certainly, Christ’s court ought to resemble Christ Himself and the work committed to it. It ought to bear a different character from every other court. Nothing weakens the authority of a sentence more than the lack of this spirit.

For promoting it, we propose these directions.

1. The lives of those who take notice of scandals in others ought themselves to shine with holiness.

Without this there can be no true weight, because the authority to be cultivated here is that which convinces the conscience rather than compels the outward man. On this account, it is not the most honorable or wealthy who give Church judicatories the greatest authority, but those whose conduct is most exemplary and convincing, especially in relation to this trust. Outward rank may indeed secure greater outward respect, but holiness alone carries the greatest weight upon the conscience, which is the principal object of ecclesiastical authority.

2. We ought to beware of grounding this authority upon carnal considerations, or placing its chief weight there—such as the power or authority of men, or even upon our own office, gifts, or influence—and thus, as it were, boasting of these rather than persuading and convincing.

Such things may sometimes produce outward conformity, but they always diminish the native weight of Church authority. Ministers and elders, therefore, in the exercise of discipline, ought to rest the whole weight of their proceedings upon this: that it is Christ’s ordinance, and that they act in His name.

3. In every part of this procedure they ought especially to deal with men’s consciences, seeking to convince them rather than merely contending with their corruptions or overcoming them outwardly.

4. The honor of the Master ought always to be kept before everyone. His name should be reverently and frequently mentioned, so that all may continually remember that this is His ordinance, appointed by Him for this very purpose. The more room Christ Himself has in every meeting, the greater weight the proceedings of His servants will possess.

5. Ministers and elders especially ought to pray for God’s blessing upon discipline no less than upon the ministry of the Word, and they ought to pray particularly for offending persons, even for those who appear most stubborn.

Such conduct well becomes their ministerial authority, for in it they acknowledge their dependence upon Christ. It is likewise the appointed means of obtaining His presence in the midst of them, without which they can expect no true authority. The more clearly the Master is seen, the greater authority His servants will possess.

6. It also contributes greatly to the weight of discipline that both the matter itself and the evidence supporting it be convincing.

Therefore, matters that appear self-serving, partisan, or entangled with civil disputes and controversies ought to be avoided, or at least not insisted upon. A matter that is plainly convincing ordinarily carries its own impression upon the conscience.

Accordingly, we find in Scripture that public proceedings are generally, if not always, founded upon scandals arising from positive acts of sin and of the nature already described.

It is true that omissions may also become proper subjects of discipline. For example, if someone refuses to pray, or if an omission is openly defended and cannot be attributed merely to infirmity—as idleness was in the church at Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3)—then such omissions, because of their circumstances, become virtually acts of commission and, after due admonition and upon sufficient grounds, are properly convincing matters for public discipline.

7. In every part of the proceedings there ought to appear weight, gravity, impartiality, self-denial, and genuine affection, so that Church-officers may plainly appear to be servants of Jesus Christ seeking the good of His people.

Consequently, foolish jesting, laughter, idle or trivial questions, passionate language, angry outbursts, personal attacks, and similar conduct are highly derogatory to the authority of a Church judicatory. Such behavior destroys the force of every sentence upon the conscience.

Daily experience abundantly proves this. Indeed, censures are sometimes administered and received in such an irreverent manner that, in substance, they amount to taking the name of the Lord in vain.

8. Throughout all these proceedings there ought to be holy boldness and fearless courage with respect to men.

Whenever difficulties arise, Church-officers ought to remember the authority of Him whom they represent. Yet this boldness must plainly arise, both in their own consciences and to the conviction of others, from a sense of duty and holy zeal—not from a fleshly burst of passion, pride, or merely natural courage.

Such natural boldness may make Church-officers appear manly, but it does not make them resemble their Master.

For as His kingdom is not of this world in these respects, so His officers ought to administer it in a manner altogether different from worldly rulers. Our weapons are not carnal, but spiritual and mighty through God, and therefore they ought always to be employed as spiritual weapons.

The last general direction concerning this matter. When scandals are to be dealt with in this manner, the proceedings ought also to be carried on with expedition.

By this I do not mean that we should proceed rashly or contrary to the former directions, but rather:

1. That, after notice of an offense has been received, the first steps of the process should be undertaken with all reasonable promptness.

2. That there should not be long intervals between the successive steps, although particular admonitions may require to be repeated several times.

3. That persons should not be kept under process for a long time, nor should their appearances before the judicatory be unnecessarily multiplied, except where doing so is likely to produce real benefit.

The reasons for this are evident.

First, while offenses are fresh, both the offender and the offended, as well as others, are usually most deeply affected by them. If much time passes, that edge is lost, and whatever the eventual outcome may be, it seldom proves equally edifying.

Second, people naturally grow weary, and thereby lose that zealous and serious spirit which ought to characterize such proceedings. Our spirits are not long able to maintain the same fervency, and this diminishes the weight of the whole matter.

Third, prolonged proceedings often become irritating and burdensome to the offending party instead of convincing him, so that the very end of discipline is defeated.

Fourth, lengthy and multiplied processes also burden and distract Church-officers themselves. They begin to resemble the proceedings of civil courts, especially in those very respects in which civil litigation is commonly grievous to those who are compelled to attend it.

To conclude, we judge that, for the authority of Church judicatories, the weight of admonition, and the edification of God’s people, it would be highly desirable that there should be some officers especially set apart for the work of government, even though they should be comparatively few. Oh, that this might be attained!

The ordinary involvement of elders in common secular occupations greatly diminishes, in the minds of many, the dignity of this ordinance, unless the elder’s conduct in those ordinary affairs is singularly exemplary and convincing.

Until such an arrangement can be attained, there is all the greater need for Church-officers to engage as little as conveniently possible in common business and ordinary conversation with those over whom they are placed, so that they may have greater opportunity to converse with them in the character of officers.

When necessity requires ordinary interaction, they ought to conduct themselves with gravity and circumspection, lest they diminish the weight of their official ministry at other times.

Likewise, Church-officers in their meetings among themselves ought always to conduct themselves with gravity and seriousness, remembering that they are engaged in an ordinance of Jesus Christ.

CHAP. V. Concerning what is to be done, when offending persons give no satisfaction.

If it is asked, then, what is to be done if persons give no satisfaction even after they are brought before the Church?

This is indeed a difficult question and will, no doubt, perplex every conscientious Church-officer. Yet we suppose that public offenses may be divided into three classes, and that an answer may then be given accordingly.

1. Some offenses concern matters that are less heinous and scandalous and come nearer to sins of infirmity, though they remain scandals because they are persisted in—for example, officious lying, angry and passionate words, and similar offenses repeatedly committed.

In some cases such persons are to be publicly rebuked. Yet if they are not contemptuous, or if the offense is not otherwise aggravated, we do not see how there can be grounds for proceeding to excommunication upon such offenses alone. Excommunication is a chastisement appointed for singular offenders and not for offenses that are so common, as has already been observed.

Of this sort may be a lack of liberality among Church members in giving to the poor, when they contribute less than they ought according to their ability, though they do not altogether shut up their compassion.

Such conduct may rightly become the object of admonition, but we think it can scarcely justify excommunication unless it is accompanied by gross contempt, thereby threatening, through evil example, to undermine Christ’s appointed order for the care of the poor in His Church—a work for which He has appointed deacons. If public charity were restrained under any pretense, the whole institution would become ineffective, which certainly reflects greatly upon Christ and constitutes a grievous scandal.

We find that the Reverend Mr. Hooker, in Part II, chapter 2, page 57, lays down these two conclusions:

First, that the Church ought itself to determine the proportion of its members’ charitable contributions and freewill offerings.

Second, that if, after the deacons have privately labored with a member, the required contribution is still withheld, they ought to bring the matter before the Church.

Although we regard such lack of charity as a great sin and an offense deserving reproof, and although a person who is plainly deficient in giving according to his ability may justly be admonished, we do not yet find warrant in Scripture for the Church, by its own authority, to impose a fixed assessment upon each member and enforce it under ecclesiastical censure.

We willingly concede that liberty to the civil magistrate. Where he does not exercise it, we acknowledge that much may still be accomplished through mutual Christian condescension.

Indeed, we are persuaded that if anything of this kind were found in the Presbyterian form of government, it would long ago have been denounced as tyranny and as an encroachment upon the magistrate’s office. Yet, when wisely administered, it may perhaps not be any great corruption in another form of Church government.

A second class of offenses consists of sins which are in themselves gross and public, though not especially atrocious or aggravated by contempt—for example, fornication, particular acts of drunkenness, and similar offenses.

If the offender is not obstinate but sincerely acknowledges his sin and promises amendment, there is no ground for proceeding to the highest censure, though there may certainly be occasion for a public rebuke.

Indeed, even though his acknowledgment is not altogether satisfactory, if after the public rebuke he abstains from those sins and does not repeat the offense, the process ought to come to an end and proceed no further.

This is so for several reasons.

First, in such a case it cannot properly be said that he has refused to hear the Church, since his subsequent conduct demonstrates submission.

Second, the purpose of a public rebuke is not always to furnish complete evidence that the offender has already been fully restored.

Rather:

1. It is intended to be a means of recovering him.

2. It constitutes, in itself, a public acknowledgment of the offense and a virtual engagement to abstain from it.

3. It serves as a solemn warning and certification to the offender should he afterward continue in his sin.

If he does not continue in it, then it cannot be said that he has incurred the threatened censure or rendered the rebuke altogether ineffectual.

Accordingly, when a public rebuke has been accepted in such cases, it properly brings the process to a close.

Such public rebukes are not exercises of the keys by which persons are admitted into the Church who were formerly outside it. Therefore they do not require the same degree of exactness as is necessary in first admitting heathens, or even in restoring excommunicated persons who have been bound and shut out of the Church.

Rather, a public rebuke is the warning of a Church member, intended to prevent his eventual exclusion.

Since the rebuke itself excludes him from nothing, there can be no necessity here for minutely examining the sincerity of every acknowledgment or profession.

We therefore make no question that persons publicly rebuked before the congregation, who afterward abstain from such offenses, ought still to be regarded as members of the Church, enjoying all its privileges notwithstanding their former sin.

Although the offense rendered them scandalous before the rebuke, they were not thereby actually bound or excluded from any Church privilege. The offense merely furnished grounds upon which exclusion might afterward proceed if contempt should follow.

Neither does the public rebuke itself bind or exclude anyone if no further censure is afterward added. Its very design is to prevent both exclusion and excommunication.

Accordingly, a person who has merely been publicly rebuked for such an offense, and who afterward neither continues in nor repeats it, retains a full right to every Church privilege, since Christ has excluded him by no ordinance. Public rebuke is appointed rather to prevent others from falling through the same occasion.

A third class of offenses consists of those which are gross in their own nature and clearly established by sufficient evidence—for example, drunkenness, fornication, profane swearing, pernicious errors, and the like—where, after much labor has been expended, the offender nevertheless remains obstinate and refuses to hear the Church.

In such cases the rule is plain. Unless some extraordinary circumstance requires a temporary delay for the Church’s greater good, the sentence of excision ought to proceed.

If it is asked when a person is to be regarded as obstinate and as refusing to hear the Church, we answer that this may appear in four cases.

1. When a person contemptuously refuses or declines to appear, whether to receive private admonition or to answer before the public judicatory concerning the removal of his offense.

This ought not to be judged contempt merely because of one or two refusals, even where no sufficient excuse is offered. Offenders are sometimes unsettled while under the power of their passions, and Church-officers ought to show much tenderness in receiving reasonable excuses and in accommodating themselves to such persons, as may best promote their edification, just as mothers and nurses bear patiently with children—comparisons which Scripture itself sometimes employs.

2. Contempt likewise appears when a person comes before the judicatory and yet either justifies his offense as though it were no sin, denies an evident fact, or refuses in any way to remove the offense he has given.

Even then, however, patience and gentleness ought for a time to be exercised, so that both the offender’s own conscience and the consciences of others may clearly perceive that his offense has become inexcusable.

3. Contempt may also appear when offenders attend the judicatory but, by proud behavior, haughty reflections, irreverent expressions, or similar conduct, display such contempt in their manner that they occasion even greater offense than by their original sin—or even than if they had refused to appear altogether.

Such conduct more directly dishonors Christ’s ordinance, for it is as though they affronted Him in His own presence, like the soldiers who mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews.”

4. A fourth instance of contempt, and of refusing to hear the Church, occurs when a person appears, outwardly acknowledges his offense with seeming respect—for example, drunkenness, slander, fornication, and the like—yet nevertheless continues in, or frequently repeats, the same sins.

Such offenses cannot reasonably be regarded as mere infirmities, especially when they recur so frequently and after repeated admonitions.

The purpose of the Church’s admonition is not only to obtain acknowledgment of past sin, but also to prevent the recurrence of the same offense. Where that result is absent, it cannot be said that Christ’s ordinance has been given due weight.

Indeed, to accept verbal acknowledgments as sufficient while visible sins continue would expose Christ’s ordinance to reproach and frustrate its very purpose, which is to remove and prevent offenses. In such a case scandals would only multiply.

It would also encourage hypocrites to continue in their profaneness, knowing that by making verbal professions they might always escape the sentence of excommunication. Thus profane persons could abound in Christ’s Church, to the dishonor of His name and the reproach of the Gospel, while His officers would have no effective means, according to Christ’s own ordinance, of purging them out.

Since such a practice would be ridiculous in any human court, which would never regard such a man as having truly received correction, it would be no less absurd to maintain it in the Church.

If it is further asked what ought to be done when the original offense is comparatively slight, resembling a sin of infirmity, yet is afterward aggravated by contempt in one or more of these respects, we answer:

First, as has already been said, it is difficult to justify excommunication upon such an initial offense alone.

Second, Church-officers ought to deal very cautiously with such offenders, taking care that they themselves give no appearance of provoking contempt.

Much patience and even a measure of overlooking offenses—so far as faithfulness permits—ought to be exercised toward some persons. There is often considerable disadvantage in taking formal notice of such scandals and afterward being unable to proceed satisfactorily. At the same time, it is not always edifying to prosecute them.

We therefore judge it wiser not always to take judicial notice of every such offense, but rather to continue earnest and affectionate private dealings with such persons, since more rigorous proceedings might injure both them and the Church rather than edify either.

Third, if the matter does come before the Church, repeated efforts should first be made with the offender before his conduct is finally judged to be contempt.

Then, if it should afterward become necessary to proceed further, the contempt will have become so manifest and aggravated that all may clearly perceive that the edification of the Church requires the process to continue.

In such a case it is the contempt, rather than the original offense itself, that chiefly bears the weight of the sentence.

Therefore that contempt ought to be so evident that every conscience may recognize it as altogether intolerable.