26. The Christian Discipline

Members should be publicly received into all societies. They are so in practice. It is a matter of record. When a person is regenerated and desires to be enrolled among the disciples meeting in any one place, if his confession of salvation or immersion has not been publicly known to the brethren, reason says those who have been privy to the fact, who can attest his confession, ought to introduce him to the congregation, and he ought to be greeted or received as such by the brethren with whom he unites. This the slightest attention to propriety, reason, and the nature of things fully and satisfactorily demonstrate. Letters of recommendation are the expedient which, in apostolic times, was substituted for this formal introduction when a citizen of the kingdom visited any community where he was personally unknown to the brethren.

A person cannot be under the oversight or discipline of a congregation unless he voluntarily associates with the brethren meeting in that place, and unless it is a matter of notoriety or record among the brethren that he is one of them. There can be no formal exclusion if there is no formal reception. If there is no visible and formal union, there can be no visible and formal separation. In truth, there can be no discipline in any congregation unless it is an organized body; and no body can be organized unless it is known who are members of it. On a matter of such plain common sense perception, we have seldom thought it necessary to say a word, and would not have noticed it at all now, had we not found some societies that cannot tell their own members, which even hesitated about the necessity of a formal reception of any person into them, or of having it on record who belonged to them. They demanded a positive command or precedent for such a reception. They might as pertinently have demanded a positive command for persons to be formally married before they could be recognized as husband and wife, as to ask for a positive command for one of the most common dictates of reason, though, indeed, every command addressed to the Christian congregations on relative duties and privileges assumes the principle that those who belong to any society are known to each other to belong to it; otherwise, they could not even perform the first duty to one another — they could not know when they were assembled — they could not "wait for one another."

Whether there shall be a record in print, in writing, or in the memory of all the congregation is a question that must depend on circumstances. If all the members are blessed with infallible memories, so as never to forget who are members, when they became such, when anyone was received, when anyone was rejected — I say, if every brother and sister can so well remember these matters that, when the discipline of the congregation or any particular question regarding any case of discipline arises, they can infallibly remember all about it; then, and in that case, it is unnecessary to have any record, church book, secretary, or anything written or printed. But if otherwise, there must be a record; because questions involving peace and good order of society may arise, and have arisen, which require infallible testimony or the most satisfactory evidence on questions of fact; such as, Was A B ever a member of your community? When did he become a member? When was he excluded? When was he restored? When did he stop attending the assembly of the brethren? Was he a husband at the time of his removal? etc.

Two things are paramount in all cases of discipline before being brought into the congregation — the Fact and the Law. The fact is always to be established by good testimony or by the confession of the transgressor. The thing said to have been done, or the fact being established, the next question is, What is the law in the case? The president of the congregation states the fact proved and lays the law before the brethren. They are to be judges of both the fact and the law, and when both are clearly presented the question is put. The congregation decides. — This is the oracle of reason — of civil law in all civilized countries; and it is the oracle of the Savior and his Apostles. Private offenses, public offenses, and those that are mixed, are to be decided according to what is written in the Book. This must be known; therefore, after the formation of a congregation, the first lessons to be learned are those which concern the relative duties of the brethren; and discipline among these first lessons stands out clearly. It is too late to have to learn the law after a case occurs. When there are no cases of discipline in a congregation, that is the time for the brethren to be taught the will of the Lawgiver, so they may be prepared to act with promptness and prudence when required.

"Offenses must come;" and, if possible, they must be healed. To cut off an offender is good; to cure him is better; but to prevent him from falling is best of all. The Christian spirit and system alike encourage vigilance in preventing; all speed in healing offenses; and all firmness in removing incorrigible offenders. Its disciplinary code is exceedingly simple, rational, and benevolent. It teaches us to regard all offenses as acts of impiety or immorality; sins against our brethren, or sins against God alone; the omission of right, or the commission of wrong.

Trespasses against our brethren are all matters of aggression upon their persons, property, or character. They are either private or public. We can only offend against the person, the property, or the character of a brother; and we can do this only privately or publicly. Christ's legislation on private or personal offenses, as recorded in the 18th chapter of Matthew, commends itself to the approval of Jew and Gentile all over the world. It is as plain and as excellent as his golden rule of moral feeling.

Without giving any rules to decide who is the aggressor or the aggrieved, allowing either party to view the matter as he pleases, he commands him who supposes himself to be aggrieved to go to the aggressor and tell him his fault privately. If restitution is made and reconciliation effected, the matter ends. If not, he takes with him a second or a third person, states the facts of the case, reasons, and remonstrates. If this also fails, then he is commanded to inform the church of the matter; and if the aggressor will not listen to the church, then he is to be treated as a heathen man or a tax collector.

Some, indeed, imagine a difficulty in this case; for after "tell" there is no it in the original; and ask, 'What is to be told to the church — the original fault, or simply that the aggressor will not make restitution?' The most natural construction of the sentence favors the simple statement of the fact — that an offense had been committed and restitution refused, without going into the details of the trespass. But a second difficulty has been suggested on the manner in which the congregation is to be informed. Is it to be told to the whole community in full assembly? Or to those appointed by the congregation to hear and adjudicate such matters? Certainly the congregation has ears as well as a tongue, and it is not all ears nor all tongue. Every well-organized church has its eldership, who hear all such matters and who bring them before the whole assembly only when it is absolutely necessary, and even then at a convenient time.

The elders hear the matter; and if the case requires a special committee, which Paul calls "secular seats of judicature," 1 Cor. 6:4, they appoint it; then, and not until then, if their decision of the matter is refused, they bring it before the whole congregation, and he is excluded from among them, so that he may be as a heathen man and a tax collector — one entitled only to civil, and not to Christian respect — one whose company is to be avoided rather than welcomed.

The whole community can act, and ought to act, in receiving and excluding persons: but as a whole, it can never become judges of offenses and a tribunal trial. Such an institution was never set up by divine authority. No community is composed only of wise and discreet adults. The Christian church includes old men, young men, and babes in Christ. Should the voice of a babe be heard, or counted as a vote in a case of discipline? What is the use of bishops in a church if all are to rule — of judges, if all are judges of fact and law? No wonder that quarrels, jealousy, and scandals of all sorts disturb these communities ruled by a democracy of the whole — where everything is judged in public and full assembly. Such is not the Christian system. It ordains that certain persons shall judge and rule, and that all things shall "be done decently and in order."

Besides matters of private trespass between brethren, there are matters of public wrong, or acts of injustice toward the whole Christian community, and also toward those outside it. Drunkenness in a professing believer, for example, is a sin against God and against all the Christian brotherhood. It is, moreover, a public nuisance to all people, as far as it is witnessed or known. The transgressor in such a case, if he is not repentant and reformed, must be convicted of the offense. An attempt to convict him of the offense is not to be made until he fails to acknowledge it. A failure to acknowledge, or an attempt to deny, calls for conviction and precludes the idea of repentance.

In all cases of conviction, the church is to be addressed through its leaders. No private individual has the right to accuse any person before the whole community. The charge, in no case, is to be preferred before the whole congregation. Such a procedure is without precedent in the Law or the Gospel — in any well-regulated society, church, or state. If, then, any brother falls into any public offense, those privy to it notify the elders of the church, or those presiding over it at the time, of the fact and of the evidence on which they rely. The matter is then in the hands of the proper persons. They investigate it; and on the denial of the accused, seek to convict him of the allegation. When a person is convicted of any offense, he is unworthy of the confidence of the brethren; for conviction implies concealment and denial; and these, of course, are evidence of impenitence. We do not say that such a person is never again to be worthy of such confidence; but that until he has given satisfactory proof of genuine repentance, he is to be treated as one not of the body of Christ.

In all cases of hopeful repentance, the transgressor is to be restored with admonition. The acknowledgment of an offense, and of repentance for it, are, in all cases, to be as public as the sin itself. Peter's sin and repentance are as public as his name. So was David's. So should be those of all transgressors. Those who have caused the Savior and his faithful followers to blush ought themselves to be made to blush before the world; and if their sorrow and amendment are genuine, they will do it cheerfully and fully. "Those who sin you are to rebuke before everyone, so that the others may also fear." 1 Tim. 5:20.2

On the subject of exclusion, or what is commonly called excommunication, which places the subject of it in the attitude of a pagan or tax collector to the whole Christian community, all the Protestant sects seem to be of one mind. The Baptist Discipline, appended to the Confession of Faith taken from the works of Dr. John Owen, Dr. Goodwin, and other Congregationalists and Independents, speaks in full harmony with our views — 9th edition, 1798, p. 20. — "The manner of proceeding unto this great and awful instituted ordinance is, the church being gathered together, the offender also having notice to come to make his answer and defense (if he does not come, he aggravates his offense by despising the authority of Christ in his church) the body of the church is to have knowledge of the offender's crime fully, and the full proof thereof as of plain matter of fact; and after mature deliberate consideration, and consulting the rules of direction given in the word of God, whether the offender be present or absent, the minister or elder puts the question to the whole church, whether they judge the person guilty of the crime now proved upon him, is worthy of the censure of the church for the same? To which the members in general give their judgment; which, if it be in the affirmative, then the judgment of the members in general being had, or the majority of them, the pastor, minister, or elder sums up the sentence of the church, opens the nature of the crime, with the suitability of the censure, according to gospel rule; and having thus proceeded, a proper time is fixed to put the sentence in execution; at which time the pastor, minister, or elder of the church, as his place and duty require, is to lay open the heinousness of such a sin, with all the aggravating circumstances thereof, and showing what an abominable scandal such an offender has become to religion, what dishonor it is to God, etc. applying the particular places of scripture that are proper to the case, in order to charge the offense home upon the conscience of the offender, if present, that others also may fear; showing also the awful nature of this great censure, and the main end thereof, for the salvation and not the destruction of the soul, and with much solemnity in the whole society, calling upon God for his gracious presence, and his blessing upon this his sacred ordinance, that the great end thereof may be obtained. Still expressing the deep sense the church has of the fall of this brother, with the great humiliation of the church, and great sorrow for, and detestation of, the sin committed. The said pastor, minister, or elder, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the presence of the congregation, and by and with the consent, and according to the judicial sentence of the church, cuts off, and secludes such an offender by name, both from the union and communion of the church, because of his offenses; so that such a person is not henceforth to be looked on, deemed, or accounted as a brother or member of such a church, until God shall restore him again by repentance."

Whether it may always be prudent in the early stages of every case of discipline to have open doors, or whether some cases may not require closed doors, are questions referred to human prudence; but in the case of the ultimate decision of the congregation, and in that of exclusion, there can be but one opinion on the necessity and usefulness of its being done in the presence of all who may choose to attend.

1 1 Tim. 3:5; 1 Tim. 5:17. Acts 20:28-31. Heb. 13:17, etc. etc.

2 By a reference to an Extra on ORDER, published 1835, the curious reader may find other useful hints on the subject of discipline.