Book of Discipline Head 7 Clarity

[Jes_Car]

Hello,

I saw a thread recently on church discipline and examining some of the responses I was wondering if this book is relevant? Anyone want to let me know if this is a valid resource used in Presbyterian tradition or not? Also it seems to say that as soon as the sinner repents the Kirk should receive the repentant sinner back into fellowship but it’s not super clear to me so anyone want to help me interpret it? Here it is in entirety:

The seventh head of Ecclesiasticall Discipline.

AS that no Common-wealth can flourish, or long indure, without good lawes and sharpe execution of the same; so neither can the Kirk of God be brought to purity, neither yet retained in the same without the order of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, which stands in reproving and correcting of the faults, which the civill sword either doth neglect, or not punish: Blasphemie, adulterie, murder, perjurie, and other crimes capitall, worthy of death, ought not properly to fall under censure of the Kirk; because all such open transgressors of Gods lawes, ought to be taken away by the civill sword. But drunkenness, excesse, be it in apparel, or be it in eating and drinking, fornication, oppressing of the poore by exactions, deceiving of them in buying and selling by wrang met and measure, wanton words and licentious living tending to slander, doe openly appertaine to the kirk of God to punish them, as Gods word commands. But because this accursed Papistrie hath brought in such confusion into the world, that neither was vertue rightly praised, neither yet vice severely punished, the kirk of God is compelled to draw the sword {15 [51]} which of God she hath received, against such open and manifest contemners, cursing, and excommunicating all such, as well those whom the civill sword ought to punish, as the other, from all participation with her in prayers and Sacraments, till open repentance appeare manifestly in them. As the order and proceeding to excommunication ought to be slow and grave, so being once pronounced against any person of what estate or condition that ever they be, it must be kept with all severity. For lawes made and not kept, engender contempt of vertue, and brings in confusion and liberty to sinne. And therefore this order we thinke expedient to be observed afore, and after excommunication. First, if the offence be secret or known to few men, and rather stands in suspicion then in manifest probation, the offender ought to be privately admonished, to absteine from all appearance of evill, which if he promise to doe, and declare himselfe sober, honest, and one that feares God, and feares to offend his brethren, then may the secret admonition suffice for his correction. But if he either contemne the admonition, or after promise made do shew himselfe no more circumspect then he was before, then must the Minister admonish him, to whom if he be found inobedient they must proceed according to the rule of Christ, as after shall be declared. If the crime be publick, and such as is heynous, as fornication, drunkennesse, fighting, common swearing, or execration, then ought the offender to be called in presence of the Minister, Elders and Deacons, where his sinne and trepasse ought to be declared and aggreged [aggravated, emphasized] so that his conscience may feele how farre he hath offended God, and what slander he hath raised in the Kirk. If signes of unfaigned repentance appeare in him, and if he require to be admitted to publick repentance, the Minister may appoint unto him a day when the whole kirk convenes together, that in presence of all he may testifie his repentance, which before he professed. Which if he accept, and with reverence confesse his sinne, doing the same, and earnestly desiring the Congregation to pray to God with him for mercy, and to accept him in their societie notwithstanding the former offence: Then the Kirk may and ought to receive him as a penitent. For the Kirk ought to be no more severe, then God declares himselfe to be, who witnesses that in whatsoever houre a sinner unfainedly repents, and turnes from his wicked way, that he will not remember one of his iniquities. And therefore ought the Kirk diligently to advert that it excommunicate not those whom God absolves. If the offender called before the Ministerie be found stubborn, hard-hearted, or in whom no signe of repentance appeares, then must he be dimitted with an exhortation to consider the dangerous estate in which he {52} stands; assuring him that if they finde in him no other tokens of amendment of life, that they will be compelled to seek a further remedy. If he within a certaine space shew his repentance to the Ministerie, they may present him to the Kirk, as before is said: If he continue not in his repentance, then must the Kirk be advertised, that such crimes are committed amongst them, which by the Ministry hath bene reprehended, and the persons provoked to repent, whereof because no signes appeare unto them, they could not but signifie unto the Kirk the crimes, but not the person: requiring them earnestly to call to God to move and touch the heart of the offender, so that suddenly and earnestly he may repent. If the person maligne, the next day of publick Assembly, the crime and the person must be both notified unto the Kirk, and their judgements must be required, if that such crimes ought to be suffred unpunished among them; request also should be made to the most discrete and nearest friend of the offender to travell with him to bring him to knowledge of himselfe, and of his dangerous estate, with a commandement given to all men to call to God for the conversion of the unpenitent. If a solemne and speciall prayer were drawne for that purpose the thing should be more gravely done. The third Sonday the Minister ought to require, if the unpenitent have declared any signes of repentance to one of the Ministrie; and if he have, then may the Minister appoint him to be examined by the whole Ministry, either then instantly, or another day affixed to the Consistorie: and if repentance appeare, as well for his crime, as for his long contempt, then he may be presented to the Kirk, and make his confession to be accepted as before is said: But if no man signifie his repentance, then ought he to be excommunicated, and by the mouth of the Minister, and consent of the Ministry, and commandement of the Kirk, must such a contemner be pronounced excommunicate from God, and from all society of the Kirk. After which sentence may no person (his wife and family onely excepted) have any kind of conversation with him, be it in eating and drinking, buying and selling; yea, in saluting or talking with him, except that it be at commandement or licence of the Ministerie for his conversion, that he, by such meanes confounded, seeing himselfe abhorred of the godly and faithfull, may have occasion to repent and so be saved. The sentence of excommunication must be published universally throughout the Realme, lest that any man should pretend ignorance. His children begotten and borne after that sentence, and before his repentance may not be admitted to Baptisme, till either they be of age to require the same, or else that the mother, or some of his speciall friends, {53} members of the Kirk, offer and present the child, abhorring and damning the iniquity, and obstinate contempt of the impenitent.



If any man should thinke it severe that the child should be punished for the iniquitie of the father: let him understand that the Sacraments appertaine to the faithfull and their seed; but such as stubbornly contemne all godly admonition, and obstinately remaine in their inquitie, cannot be accounted amongst the faithfull.



The order for publick Offenders.



WE have spoken nothing of them that commit horrible crimes, as murtherers, manslayers, adulterers; for such, as we have said, the civill sword ought to punish to dead: But in case they be permitted to live, then must the kirk as is before said, draw the sword, which of God she hath received, holding them as accursed even in their very fact. The offender being first called, and order of the Kirk used against him in the same manner, as the persons for their obstinate impenitency are publickly excommunicate. So that the obstinate impenitent after the sentence of excommunication, and the murtherer or adulterer stand in one case, as concerning the judgment of the Kirk. That is, neither of both may be received in the fellowship of the kirk to prayers or Sacraments (but to hearing the word they may) til first they offer themselves to the Ministrie, humbly requiring the Ministers and Elders to pray to God for them, and also to be intercessors to the Kirk that they may be admitted to publick repentance, & to the fruition of the benefits of Christ Iesus, distributed to the members of his bodie. If this request be humbly made, then may not the Ministers refuse to signifie the same unto the Kirk, the next day of publicke preaching, the Minister giving exhortation to the kirk, to pray to God to perform the worke which he appeares to have begun, working in the heart of the offender, unfaigned repentance of his grievous crime & offence, and feeling of his great mercy by the operation of the holy Spirit. Therafter one day ought publickly to be assigned unto him to give open profession of his offence & contépt, & so to make publick satisfactió to the kirk of God: which day the offender must appear in presence of the whole Kirk, with his own mouth damning his own impiety, publickly confessing the same: Desiring God of his mercy & grace, & his Congregation, that it would please them to receive him in their society, as before is said. The Minist. must examine him diligently whether he findes a hatred or displeasure of his sinne, as well of his contempt, as of his crime: which if he confesse, he must travell with him, to see what hope he hath of Gods mercies, & if he finde {54} him reasonably instructed in the knowledge of Christ Iesus, in the vertue of his death, then may the Minister comfort him with Gods infallible promises, and demand of the Kirk if they be content to receive that creature of God whom Satan before had drawen in his nettes, in the society of their bodie, seeing that he declared himselfe penitent. Which if the Kirk grant, as they cannot justly deny the same, then ought the Minister in publick prayer commend him to God, confesse the sinne of that offender before the whole Kirk, desiring mercy and grace for Christ Iesus sake. Which prayer being ended, the Minister ought to exhort the Kirk to receive that penitent brother in their favours, as they require God to receive themselves when they offend. And in signe of their consent, the Elders, and chiefe men of the Kirk, shall take the penitent by the hand, and one or two in the name of the rest shall kisse and imbrace him with reverence and gravitie, as a member of Christ Iesus. Which being done, the Minister shall exhort the received that he take diligent heed in times comming that sathan trap him not in such crimes, admonishing him that he will not cease to tempt and trie by all meanes possible to bring him from that obedience which he hath given to God, and to the ordinance of Iesus Christ. The exhortation being ended, the Minister ought to give publick thankes unto God for the conversion of their brother, and for all benefites which we receive of Christ Iesus, praying for the increase and continuance of the same. If the penitent after he hath offered himselfe unto the Ministerie, or to the Kirk, be found ignorant of the principall points of our Religion, and chiefly in the Articles of Iustification, and of the Office of Christ Iesus, then ought he to be exactly instructed before he be received. For a mocking of God it is to receive them to repentance, who know not wherein standeth their remedie, when they repent their sinne.



Perſons ſubject to Diſcipline.



TO Discipline, must all the estates within this Realm be subject, as well the Rulers, as they that are ruled: yea, and the Preachers themselves, as well as the poore within the Kirk: And because the eye and mouth of the Kirk ought to be most single, and irreprehensible, the life and conversation of the Minister ought to be diligently tryed, wherof we shall speak after that we have spoken of the election of Elders and Deacons, who must assist the Minister in all publick affaires of the Kirk. {55}

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Right, so from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.

To accomplish the second prayer of the petition the Reformed ministers and the leading Protestant nobles met at Edinburgh on 20th December 1560. This was a purely church meeting; parliament had in it no part whatsoever. Even in its birth the Scottish Church announced its independence. It will, however, be observed that there were in the forty-six members comprising it but six ministers. At this assembly was drawn up the First Buik of Discipline, which, though not accepted by the privy council, was on 27th January 1561 signed by the great majority of the members, and by the chiefs of the great Protestant families, on the noteworthy condition that the deposed prelates were allowed to enjoy their benefices during life. This book, which was a grand effort to reconstruct society, and for which, its authors asserted, "they took not their example from any kirk in the world, no, not from Geneva," was nevertheless on the Genevan principle. It deals solely with the congregation; the idea only of synods may be traced. As regards the relations of church and state, the eldership, and the economy of the church generally, especially the supervision of life and manners, its views are those of Calvin.

The last 450yrs have seen this book updated and reproduced among the various Presbyterian bodies across the world. Some form of the Book of Discipline is a part of most of our Book(s) of Church Order. The excerpts above (as the spelling indicates) belong to an early edition (perhaps the earliest). Recall that this period was that of one state-church, and the establishment of the Reformation era "Church of Scotland" would have organized the legitimate church for the whole realm, and formalized its social duties as a part of "Christendom."

Now I will reproduce one portion from above, hopefully to cover your question.

If signes of unfaigned repentance appeare in him, and if he require to be admitted to publick repentance, the Minister may appoint unto him a day when the whole kirk convenes together, that in presence of all he may testifie his repentance, which before he professed. Which if he accept, and with reverence confesse his sinne, doing the same, and earnestly desiring the Congregation to pray to God with him for mercy, and to accept him in their societie notwithstanding the former offence: Then the Kirk may and ought to receive him as a penitent. For the Kirk ought to be no more severe, then God declares himselfe to be, who witnesses that in whatsoever houre a sinner unfainedly repents, and turnes from his wicked way, that he will not remember one of his iniquities. And therefore ought the Kirk diligently to advert that it excommunicate not those whom God absolves.

That is, upon what does seem like genuine repentance, one who was formerly judged a serious offender is to be received back among the whole flock. He may be required to make his repentance public, most likely if the sin for which he was excommunicated was also just as publicly known and scandalous, injuring the whole body. But in no case is the penitent sinner, who is received by God for nothing but faith in Christ, to be maintained an alien and shunned by the church, especially when God has already immediately withdrawn his heavenly objection.

In a further section, you read how an unpenitent person is to be socially rejected--to denying him every social conversation, even buying and selling, affecting him from one end of the country to the other. Such restrictions simply do not comport with anything but a "Christiandom" setting, which assumes the society is "Christianized" and the church's social teaching affects effectively every citizen of the realm. It is an attempt to make church-discipline as blanket as civil-discipline over all life. I suggest that many changes in the social situation of nations and the church within them in the last few centuries has prompted the various Presbyterian denominations to constrain their application of discipline to the jurisdiction of the church itself, pulling back to more biblically definite borders.

 

[jwithnell]

If I may add a question; the reference to baptism puzzles me. Children suggest the presence of a wife. If she is an innocent in the husband's offense, wouldn't children still be viewed as covenant and therefore could (should) be baptized? Though I'm not familiar with this document of the kirk, the inclusion of one believing parent seems to have a long history in Presbyterianism. (And I am keeping to the historical reference of the OP; I'm excluding modern practice.)

 

[Poimen]

If I may add a question; the reference to baptism puzzles me. Children suggest the presence of a wife. If she is an innocent in the husband's offense, wouldn't children still be viewed as covenant and therefore could (should) be baptized? Though I'm not familiar with this document of the kirk, the inclusion of one believing parent seems to have a long history in Presbyterianism. (And I am keeping to the historical reference of the OP; I'm excluding modern practice.)

The Book of Discipline (as quoted above) asserts that, conditioned upon their rejection of his sin, this was possible (emphasis mine):

"His children begotten and borne after that sentence, and before his repentance may not be admitted to Baptisme, till either they be of age to require the same, or else that the mother, or some of his speciall friends, {53} members of the Kirk, offer and present the child, abhorring and damning the iniquity, and obstinate contempt of the impenitent."

 

[Northern Crofter]

In a further section, you read how an unpenitent person is to be socially rejected--to denying him every social conversation, even buying and selling, affecting him from one end of the country to the other. Such restrictions simply do not comport with anything but a "Christiandom" setting, which assumes the society is "Christianized" and the church's social teaching affects effectively every citizen of the realm. It is an attempt to make church-discipline as blanket as civil-discipline over all life. I suggest that many changes in the social situation of nations and the church within them in the last few centuries has prompted the various Presbyterian denominations to constrain their application of discipline to the jurisdiction of the church itself, pulling back to more biblically definite borders.

"...if he refuse to hear the Church also, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a Publican." (Matthew 18.17b)

"...he denieth the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Timothy 5.8b)

"Be not unequally yoked with the infidels: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the believer with the infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the [r]living God: as God hath said, I will dwell among them, and walk there: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and separate yourselves, saith the Lord, and touch none unclean thing, and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6.14-18)

"But now I have written unto you, that ye company not together: if any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such one eat not." (I Corinthians 5.8)

I have always taken these passages together to mean that the cutting off of an unrepentant sinner who once professed faith is total, other than to continue to call them to repentance. Christ sat at table with publicans, sinners, hypocrites, and even the one He knew would betray Him, but I do not see any evidence of Him sitting with them once they rejected Him. I have cut off association with an unrepentant brother, and that has included no longer doing business with him. Maybe the old ways are worth revisiting - the Biblically defined borders seem to extend much further than they are practiced today. Whether or not one lives in a "Christianized" society seems irrelevant to this aspect of Church discipline - cutting the impenitent off as completely as possible seems to be the duty required in Scripture.

 

[jwithnell]

The Book of Discipline (as quoted above) asserts that, conditioned upon their rejection of his sin, this was possible (emphasis mine):

"His children begotten and borne after that sentence, and before his repentance may not be admitted to Baptisme, till either they be of age to require the same, or else that the mother, or some of his speciall friends, {53} members of the Kirk, offer and present the child, abhorring and damning the iniquity, and obstinate contempt of the impenitent."

Hand smacked firmly on forehead. I read this section several times and missed the reference to mothers. Thank you for the correction!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"...if he refuse to hear the Church also, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a Publican." (Matthew 18.17b)

"...he denieth the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Timothy 5.8b)

"Be not unequally yoked with the infidels: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the believer with the infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the [r]living God: as God hath said, I will dwell among them, and walk there: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and separate yourselves, saith the Lord, and touch none unclean thing, and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Corinthians 6.14-18)

"But now I have written unto you, that ye company not together: if any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such one eat not." (I Corinthians 5.8)

I have always taken these passages together to mean that the cutting off of an unrepentant sinner who once professed faith is total, other than to continue to call them to repentance. Christ sat at table with publicans, sinners, hypocrites, and even the one He knew would betray Him, but I do not see any evidence of Him sitting with them once they rejected Him. I have cut off association with an unrepentant brother, and that has included no longer doing business with him. Maybe the old ways are worth revisiting - the Biblically defined borders seem to extend much further than they are practiced today. Whether or not one lives in a "Christianized" society seems irrelevant to this aspect of Church discipline - cutting the impenitent off as completely as possible seems to be the duty required in Scripture.

Shall the Christian store clerk serve his adulterous neighbor, who has never darkened the church, but refuse to sell to the next man in line at the counter--who is an excommunicated former church=brother? Even if you think this would be appropriate, and that no store clerk in the country should sell to the man--for all citizens are members (or former members) of the church in that country--the fact remains that we don't live in that world, Christendom is gone and may never be seen again before Christ returns.

What "revisiting" is aimed at? It might be possible to eject a man from your storefront, and not get chased yourself by a lawyer hollering "Discrimination!" But it might not be. Maybe such a Christian should be willing to suffer for his faith and practice, and face the local judges. I don't see the wisdom in making a blanket-call on the issue for every case. But regardless, my point is valid: that Presbyterian churches of necessity have pulled back their jurisdictional oversight into the bounds set for them by their providential sitz im leben. At some point in past time, that jurisdiction grew--or appeared to--extending out beyond the church proper and its members into the wider social sphere. There is time and place for debate about what or how much good was accomplished by that jurisdictional expansion, or if we or anyone in the world now or future should hope to see such again.

But we don't live there now. We live in a world having much in common with the first century church having its setting in a hostile or indifferent world. We mostly live in societies where you can refuse to serve all who enter without "shoes and shirt," but not just people you don't like for any reason you like. We can stand on the side of photographers and cake-bakers who risk legal challenges for refusing to lend their unique contributions to folks celebrating sin; but can we say the local supermarket manager can keep the same people from browsing the produce section, dressed modestly and keeping decorum like all the rest of the crowd? What could be encouraged by churchmen in 16th century Protestant Scotland, with its inheritance of culture from the Roman dominated Middle Ages, in many individual cases is different from what will support and strengthen the church and its witness in the present time.

Perhaps today, it is still better for John Christian to tell Peter Apostate to find another plumber, as he will not make that housecall. Hopefully he will not get notice of pending litigation. Probably he won't, but people can be vindictive even when it would be cheaper and in their best interest not to be. It also says in the the Bible that we should, as far as lies in us, live at peace with all men--not excepting the excommunicated. As Christians we cope with life in a world that is fundamentally at odds with us and with our first allegiance. It takes wisdom to live here, and now, as much as there then and ever; and we should concentrate our efforts at finding the wisdom we need today, rather than writing prescriptions for how a future age should find its way. Perhaps they will learn from the past--our time and our fathers' time.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Shall the Christian store clerk serve his adulterous neighbor, who has never darkened the church, but refuse to sell to the next man in line at the counter--who is an excommunicated former church=brother? Even if you think this would be appropriate, and that no store clerk in the country should sell to the man--for all citizens are members (or former members) of the church in that country--the fact remains that we don't live in that world, Christendom is gone and may never be seen again before Christ returns.

What "revisiting" is aimed at? It might be possible to eject a man from your storefront, and not get chased yourself by a lawyer hollering "Discrimination!" But it might not be. Maybe such a Christian should be willing to suffer for his faith and practice, and face the local judges. I don't see the wisdom in making a blanket-call on the issue for every case. But regardless, my point is valid: that Presbyterian churches of necessity have pulled back their jurisdictional oversight into the bounds set for them by their providential sitz im leben. At some point in past time, that jurisdiction grew--or appeared to--extending out beyond the church proper and its members into the wider social sphere. There is time and place for debate about what or how much good was accomplished by that jurisdictional expansion, or if we or anyone in the world now or future should hope to see such again.

But we don't live there now. We live in a world having much in common with the first century church having its setting in a hostile or indifferent world. We mostly live in societies where you can refuse to serve all who enter without "shoes and shirt," but not just people you don't like for any reason you like. We can stand on the side of photographers and cake-bakers who risk legal challenges for refusing to lend their unique contributions to folks celebrating sin; but can we say the local supermarket manager can keep the same people from browsing the produce section, dressed modestly and keeping decorum like all the rest of the crowd? What could be encouraged by churchmen in 16th century Protestant Scotland, with its inheritance of culture from the Roman dominated Middle Ages, in many individual cases is different from what will support and strengthen the church and its witness in the present time.

Perhaps today, it is still better for John Christian to tell Peter Apostate to find another plumber, as he will not make that housecall. Hopefully he will not get notice of pending litigation. Probably he won't, but people can be vindictive even when it would be cheaper and in their best interest not to be. It also says in the the Bible that we should, as far as lies in us, live at peace with all men--not excepting the excommunicated. As Christians we cope with life in a world that is fundamentally at odds with us and with our first allegiance. It takes wisdom to live here, and now, as much as there then and ever; and we should concentrate our efforts at finding the wisdom we need today, rather than writing prescriptions for how a future age should find its way. Perhaps they will learn from the past--our time and our fathers' time.

I do not support returning to the old ways simply because they are old, but I am opposed to abandoning Biblical concepts simply because our culture has changed and/or made it difficult.

Cultural changes seem to have changed the Western Church's concept of excommunication - it has become largely limited (in people's minds and in practice) to barring someone from the Lord's Table. But "excommunication" Biblically has always entailed unrepentant brethren being cut off from the community, starting with Cain.

And it is not that such an action is impossible today. It is in fact still very functional within our society. I grew up in an area saturated by Amish and Mennonites, and their practice of "shunning" seems to fit the Biblical concept of excommunication that what we find in most Reformed circles. I admit the former apply it wrongly (they shun someone for leaving their traditions, not the Christian faith - I am in no way advocating shunning/excommunicating someone for leaving their Baptist church for a Presbyterian one, or vice versa) but perhaps the issue for the former latter is that they (we) are not living in as close community as we should - too afraid, as portrayed above, to offend someone or get sued.

(The experience of shunning is quite personal for me - my maternal grandfather was shunned when he left the Mennonite church, and I grew up never knowing any of that part of my family. Had he been shunned for unrepentant sin, I would have understood.)