Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

How the Puritan Views of Church Discipline Support a Practical Theology of Forgiveness

Joshua Lamb

324: Puritan Theology

March 16, 2015

Introduction

One of the fundamental distinctives of the church is that it exercises discipline on its members. While contemporary views of church discipline are often negative, it is really borne out of a motive of love. Church discipline seeks both the clear distinction between the church and the world, as well as loving chastisement and restoration when members of the church go astray. However, Puritan theologians held different viewpoints as to the nuances of how church discipline is to be carried out. This paper examines these nuanced views among the Puritans, examines the statements of censures in major reformed creeds, as well as identifying some practical implications for the lives of individual believers. How can the Puritan views of church discipline serve as a model for seeking forgiveness and restoration in church member relationships?

Puritan Viewpoints

The Puritans largely agree that church discipline is an essential “mark” of the church, alongside preaching and the administration of the sacraments. These three marks originate in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession of 1561, which states:

“The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: (1) The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; (2) it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; (3) it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.¹”

The Puritans differed significantly as to how this was to be administered, including who has the authority to administer church discipline in its various stages. Additionally, there were heretics such as Erastus that presented views far from orthodox which only served to muddy the waters. The first question the Puritans had to contend with was the boundary between the Church and the Magistrate.

Church and Magistrate

Puritans including John Owen emphasized the need to obey the government as well as the authority of the church. The Puritans also recognized that men were bound by only two things: sins and laws². However, they clearly identified the differences between the two bodies of authority. The first difference is the prerogatives pertaining to each institution. The motivation of the church is always restoration, whereas the motivation of the magistrate is judicial punishment. Contemporary reformed literature also recognizes that the purpose of discipline by the civil government is to “bear the sword in punishment”, which differs from the church’s goal of chastisement with the hope of reconciliation³. This followed along John Calvin’s view that “discipline is a fatherly rod”⁴.

Owen also believed that not only were the motivations of the church and magistrate different, but also their realm of control. The church could not control the activities of those under church discipline while they were outside the church⁵. This means that the church could not place restrictions on personal property or employment, areas that clearly fall under the realm of civil government. This view was contrary to that of men such as Thomas Erastus, who believed the church’s authority to “cut off” meant “to kill”, even in New Testament times⁶! Owen’s view of church and state as being separate bodies of authority was orthodox in the minds of most Puritans, but who in the church has that authority was the subject of much division.

The Power of the Keys

The source of authority that Puritans recognized was referred to as the “Power of the Keys”. This is in reference to when Christ said to Peter “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19) What was contended by Puritan pastors and theologians was who in the church had this power. Was the power of the keys given only to officers? Was the power given to the whole church? To every individual believer? This question was cited as the primary exegetical dispute at the Westminster Assembly and marked a key difference between Presbyterians and Congregationalists⁷.

On one side were men such as John Cotton, Jeremiah Burroughs, and Samuel Rutherford, who believed that Christ’s command was to Peter as a believer and not a church officer⁸. This meant that through extension every believer has the power of the keys. Rutherford used the example of 1 Corinthians 5 to illustrate that when the Corinthian church as a whole was rebuked, it meant the whole church had power in church discipline.

On the other side were men such as Thomas Hooker, George Gillespie and Samuel Clarke, who contended that the power was given to church officers⁹. However, even men on both sides had a mix of interpretations. Hooker believed that women and servants were not part of the “binding and loosening church”, but Rutherford countered that elsewhere in their writings Hooker and Cotton had stated that women were granted the power of the keys¹⁰. However, as the subject was debated, other writings were published which helped to clarify the difference in positions.

The Presbyterian work, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici (The Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry) distinguished between what it called the subject and object of the keys¹¹. A church congregation was considered the object, while the church officers were regarded as the subject. It was also argued that there is a sense in which the body at large had power because it voted in the church officers. Although Puritan theologians held differing views on the topic of keys, the Presbyterian understanding won out in the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith. That is, the understanding that the power of the keys was granted to Peter as an officer, and by extension to officers of the church. Assuming that church officers are responsible for the discipline of the church, there were also varying views on how church discipline was to be conducted.

The Excommunication Process

The Puritans also held differing views on the excommunication process. John Owen held that based on his exegesis of Scripture there was only one level of excommunication¹². In contrast, Georgie Gillespie drew on several extra-biblical sources from Jewish history a three-level view, based on writings from historians such as Grotius and Josephus. Gillespie claimed that this was based on Jewish tradition as recorded in the Talmud and other writings. The levels were נדוי (niddui), חרם (cherem), and שׁמתא (schammata)¹³.

Drawing on earlier work from Hebrew Professor Bonaventura Cornelius Bertramus, Gillespie understood the first level of niddui to be a suspension from the sacrament. At this level, Gillespie understood that the individual could still participate in teaching but was looked on as being outside the community of faith. In Gillespie’s interpretation, this was for more minor offenses.

The next level of cherem was someone who, in addition to not participating in the sacraments, was not able to hear the teaching or even to go near to the temple. He was considered even more cut off from the community. In fact, someone under cherem was even less privileged than a heathen publican, who was at least allowed onto the outer court. Individuals only reached this stage if they continued in unrepentance under niddui.

The final level of schammata was considered the final cut off between someone and the community of faith. The person was suffered to stand in the gate, and to be nowhere near the temple or to be in any way a part of the community. Other interpretations state that this level of excommunication was the giving of the person over to death. As a community, the Jews had Shammatised the Cuthrites (Samaritans).

These three levels continued under some churches using the titles of excommunicatio minor, major, and maxima¹⁴. Excommunicatio minor, corresponding to niddui, was the restriction of the believer from the Lord’s Supper. Excommunicatio major, akin to cherem, was the throwing out of the person from the church. Excommunicatio maxima, corresponding to schammata, was the delivering of the flesh to destruction.

It needs to be restated that although Gillespie’s view has compelling evidence of a three-level view of church discipline that ultimately this was drawn from extra-biblical sources of tradition. Jewish and early church practice can be helpful in some instances, but the seriousness of church discipline makes it imperative that the rule of sola scriptura is followed. This makes John Owen’s view of suspension more accurate to Scripture. Either someone is in the community of faith or they are not.

In summary, many of the puritans agreed on the mutual exclusion of power between the church and state in manners of discipline. The differences emerged in relation to the power of the keys as well as how the process of church discipline was to be conducted. It is at this point that an examination of reformed creeds helps us to understand the development and variance of church discipline orders.

Creeds and Confessions

A chronological review of major creeds and confessions serves to illustrate how the understanding of church discipline grew until the discussions which took place between Puritans at the Westminster Assembly.

Belgic Confession

The Belgic confession of 1561 laid a groundwork for the terminology of the “true marks” of the church, in which the “third mark” of censures was first mentioned and defined. This description takes place in Article 29, followed by Article 30 on church government, Article 31 on church officers, and finally Article 32 on church discipline¹⁵. However, this article does not state any process for church discipline, only that excommunication is required to preserve unity in the body. However, the definition of the true marks put forward a major contribution in thinking that would be picked up and utilized by divines at Westminster.

Heidelberg Catechism

Moving forward in time two years, the Heidelberg Catechism addresses in Question 83 the subject of the keys, and church discipline in Question 85¹⁶. At this point, the subject of the keys is treated in terms of defining what the keys are, but not who in the church holds this power. Question 85 then goes on to define the conditions for church discipline, in that any member, or appointed person in the church that does not behave in accordance with Christian principles is barred from the Lord’s Table and in the same manner excluded in Christian fellowship. Here the confession bolsters John Owen’s argument that there is only one level to church excommunication.

Church Order of Dordt

The Church Order of Dordt in 1619 represents a big step forward in caveating various aspects of why, how, and when to conduct church discipline¹⁷. The order devotes the fourth and final section to the subject of censures in articles 71-86. The Order begins by clearly delineating the differences between the spiritual act of church discipline and any separate acts legally taken by the government against the individual. A clear distinction between the authorities of church and state is evident.

The Order then begins to unfold nuances of procedure in accordance with Matthew 18, such as ceasing discipline upon repentance between one or two brothers. Here it is made evident that the church at large need not be informed of petty offenses between members that could easily be resolved in private. The distinction between private and public sins is acknowledged, with responsibility for judging public sins given over to the consistory. Here in the Order we see in action how Matthew 18 is overlaid onto the Presbyterian form of government. It is easily inferenced that the Synod of Dordt interprets Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18 to “tell it to the church” as being a statement to report the offense to church officers, and not simply to the entire gathered congregation. This point was argued by Samuel Rutherford against Thomas Hooker in his survey of Hooker’s Summe of Church Discipline¹⁸. They held differing views based on the opposing presuppositions about whether a church can function without officers, Hooker arguing to the affirmative.

The Order then in effect sets forth a bi-level view of church censorship. In the first level, the member is barred from the Lord’s Table and admonished by the consistory. If admonishment is to not avail than the second level of being excommunicated is considered and applied. The Order shows evidence of Christian love as it also instructs member of the church to be prayed for to that they may be re-admitted. Article 77 contains instructions to finally announce to the congregation the name of the sinner so that excommunication can take place. It is here that the Order makes a useful interpretation of Matthew 18. Whereas Hooker and Rutherfod debated the meaning of “telling it to the church” in reference to the assembled body or to officers, the Order makes an important clarification in process. The Order states that first the sins are told in private to the consistory (officers), then after failed admonishment to the entire congregation. This logically flows out of Matthew 18 in answering the question “How can a member truly be excommunicated if the congregation is not aware which member is sinning?”. Therefore, the 1619 Order of Dordt was a significant leap forward in terms of the practical understanding of Matthew 18.

Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)

These earlier creeds and orders together provided a good historical foundation for the debates at Westminster regarding the keys, the levels of censures, and the relationship between the church and the magistrate. Chapter 30 of the Westminster Confession of Faith reflects the Presbyterian understanding¹⁹. The first paragraph establishes the “visible” government as distinct from the civil magistrate, as well as referencing that the source of this power is Christ, drawing on passages such as Isaiah 9:6 which clearly establish the Lordship of Christ over the church.

The second paragraph defines the keys as belonging not to all church members, but to officers of the visible church. The paragraph also contains similar language to Question 83 of the Heidelberg Catechism in defining the bi-fold power of the keys: that of preaching and that of censorship. The illustration of the open and shut door to the kingdom of heaven is utilized for both preaching and censures.

The third paragraph expands upon the Heidelberg by explaining not just the process of censorship but the why of censorship. The confession cites the following reasons for church discipline: reclaiming lost brothers, preventing similar offenses by others, not allowing the “leaven to affect the lump”, vindicating the honor of Christ, and for preventing the wrath of God²⁰. The earlier creeds lacked this expansive reasoning and thus the Westminster Confession added a much clarified understanding of the why behind Matthew 18.

The fourth paragraph sets forth a concise definition of how discipline is to be administered, incorporating similar elements to the Church Order of Dordt. However, the WCF does not incorporate the detailed statements regarding “telling the offense to the whole church”.

Summary

Taken together, it is evident that prior creeds helped to serve as a basis for the statements that would be incorporated into the Westminster Confession. While divines such as George Gillespie held to a three-fold (niddui, cherem, schammata) view of the church discipline process, the two-fold view of restriction from the Lord’s Table and excommunication was the final statement in the confession. The differences between Congregationalists and Presbyterians regarding the power of the keys was also written into the confession in favor of the Presbyterians.

What emerges is the following majority understanding of Matthew 18. Firstly, that the believer is to go to an offending brother in private and attempt to reconcile with full privacy in the matter. He is not to tell the consistory or any other parties, due to the motivation of love that should pervade the entire church discipline process. If this fails, he is then to go to the church officers, who hold the power of the keys and bring the matter before them, fulfilling the first understanding of “tell it to the church”. The consistory, maintaining discretion, then approaches the offending brother to be reconciled. If he refuses, he is then barred from the Lord’s Table while attempts continue for some time. If the brother remains impenitent, the church officers then fulfill the second understanding of “tell it to the church” by informing the congregation of the general nature of the offense, establishing excommunication, and leading the congregation in continuous prayer for the sinning brother. If the brother arrives at genuine repentance he is to be welcomed again with grace, fulfilling one of the goals of church censures.

Practical Theology of Boundaries and Forgiveness

It is clear how Puritan writings and earlier church creeds led to the fuller understanding of Matthew 18 listed above. The question now becomes “how can this understanding be applied in the context of personal relationships affected by church discipline?” If a believer has reported these offenses to the church, can these concepts be further used to form redemptive boundaries and to seek reconciliation? There are two lay-member viewpoints that can be informed by the church censure process, that of the offended brother, and that of the offending brother.

Offended brother

Taking note of the normative process listed in the last section, how should the relationship between the offended and offending brother look like at the various stages of the church discipline process? The first question arises at the point of the offense. Was the offense intentional or unintentional? How significant was the offense?

One of the reasons Matthew 18 has the offended brother go to the offending brother is so that the weightiness of the offense can be measured by the brother who is offended. Simply put, if it isn’t worth taking the time to talk to your brother about it, then it can perhaps be dismissed or forgiven²¹. The root question that needs to be answered is “If this goes unaddressed, will it cause me to become bitter?” If the answer is “No”, then the offended brother can simply forgive through prayer and move on.

However, if the offense is serious enough to confront the brother, then this should be prayerfully and graciously sought out. It should be noted here that Samuel Rutherford and Thomas Hooker disagreed on whether or not a believer had a right to rebuke a member who was not of his own congregation²². Rutherford interpreted Leviticus 19:17 gave a universal right for believers to rebuke other believers. It should be emphasized the imperative to tell the offending brother. Jay Adams notes the importance of approaching the offending brother in humility²³. How many misinterpretations or miscommunications could be cleared up by performing this step instead of resorting to gossip or withdrawing fellowship²⁴? Former Reverend of Westminster Chapel, G. Campbell Morgan, stresses that it is the duty of the offended brother to tell the offending brother the fault between them²⁵.

What if the offending brother does not respond? At this point, boundaries in the relationship may be wise for the offended brother to establish, especially if the incident represents a pattern that could be repeated with harmful effects to others. It may be appropriate at this point to reach out to two or three brothers and arrange a meeting with all parties. This is another point at which the Puritan understanding of the formal church censure process can be carried over into personal relationships. The goal is the same corporately and individually – restoration and reconciliation of the members. Additionally, the “barring from the sacrament” principle can be carried over into a “barring from benefits” of friendship. While maintaining a redemptive outlook, it is appropriate to withhold favors of friendship that may have been more common, in the hopes that the seriousness of the offense is properly communicated.

According to Matthew 18, the additional brothers that are to be brought in are there to witness and also to counsel. They should attempt by all means to resolve the issue at this point between the two parties. If however, this does not get accomplished, there is a mutual responsibility to tell it to the church. Following on the Puritan understanding, this means they must inform the office-bearers.

As the church discipline process continues, the offended brother should maintain their boundaries of personal relationships, but at this point it could be debated whether or not to treat the offended brother as a “publican” until the process is resolved. At the point of excommunication is when this is clearly allowed.

When the step is taken that the church is informed by the elders to treat the offending brother as a publican is when the activities and responsibilities of the offended brother are clarified.

Firstly, he has an ongoing responsibility of prayer. While this may seem unfair that the one being offended must labor, it is important to recognize that both belong to the body of Christ and it is in the best interests of the body that the brother is regained.

Secondly, he has a responsibility admonish even when treating the other brother as a publican. In the course of daily life, if their paths cross, the offended brother still has the responsibility to graciously warn him of unrepentant sin and offer hope of reconciliation.

Thirdly, he must accept a valid repentance if it does eventually come. He cannot hold a grudge or refer back to the incident in the future as a way to gain leverage over the offending brother. True repentance merits true forgiveness. This process will be easier if the heart-motivation has been a sincere reconciliation.

Offending brother

The other viewpoint to consider is that of the brother accused of the offense. He may be willfully rejecting of the accusation, or see the matter in a different light. In either case, what are his responsibilities towards his brother and the rest of the body?

Firstly, the same task of prayerful consideration is warranted for the brother being accused of wrongdoing. Even if the accusation does not seem to have much merit, perhaps there is still a seed of truth in it? It is important to consider that if another brother takes the time to point out a way in which they have been wronged, especially in a spirit of humility, that perhaps there is substance in the accusation. Responding harshly to criticism adds merit to the accusation even if it is false.

Secondly, he has the responsibility to uphold the reputation of the one accusing him and not to spread gossip and dissension. Even if the accusation is baseless, responding with slander only heaps sin on top of sin. This is a wrong way to handle accusation and could lead ultimately to a church split²⁶. As gossip spreads, teams begin to form and it is inevitable that this would cause tension and clashes within the congregation.

Thirdly, the member needs to see the wisdom of the church discipline process as restorative in nature, and not punitive. Being accused of a sin by another member can easily cause a person to go into “defensive mode” and look for ways to counterattack. However, this mindset is not in line with the Puritan understanding of Matthew 18. Repeatedly, the consensus of Puritan divines was that church discipline was for unity and restoration. This understanding gives great aid to the brother in both the categories of rightfully and wrongfully accused. Either way, repentance leads to life. This can be a great comfort to the person battling false accusation because the discipline process is not slanted in favor of the accuser or the accused, but instead has a different goal in mind, the true unity of Christ’s church.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Puritan divines saw that church discipline was clearly an essential mark of the church. While many shared the conviction that the church’s power was separate from that of the magistrate, the viewpoints differed on who in the church had that power. As a result of this difference, Puritan pastors held varying positions on how the church discipline process was to be exercised. This is where a brief study of the development of reformed confessions in the area of church discipline helps us. The expansion of the confessional statements over time, eventually to the era of Westminster, reveals a full understanding of how church discipline is to be conducted.

The Puritan viewpoints and the confessional standards also aid us in framing a mindset for how we are to act towards other brothers, either from the viewpoint of the offended or offending brother. The contributions from Puritan thought in this regard are three-fold: (1) the difference between church authority and state authority, (2) the goal of church discipline, and (3) the responsibilities members have for one another.

Firstly, the clear delineation between church and state helps members to relate to one another in a way that shows the church to be a “free institution” and keep the church discipline process in perspective. This causes members to relate to one another with grace and not to seek state-sponsored vengeance, which would clearly be against biblical principles.

Secondly, the Puritans remind us of the goal of church discipline. It is not to seek punitive damages, but to see sinners restored to fellowship in the body and to see life grow in the place of where death once encroached. In this way, church discipline accomplishes an effect that civil claims between members could only dream of.

Thirdly, the Puritans emphasize the responsibilities that members have for one another. Church membership bears with it the responsibility to confront, exhort, pray for, encourage, and even cast out – all with the goals of restoration and unity in the body of Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Ames, William. The marrow of theology. Milestone library. Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1968. Considered the standard theological textbook for Ivy League students during the American colonial period.

Baxter, Richard. The reformed pastor. Puritan paperbacks. Edinburgh ; Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001. A classic vision of pastoral ministry combined with excellent counsel.

Christian Reformed Church. Doctrinal standards of the Christian Reformed Church consisting of the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg catechism, and the Canons of Dort. Grand Rapids: Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1962. A printing of classic confessions.

Gillespie, George. Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ordinance of church government vindicated. Harrisonburg, Va: Sprinkle Publications,

1. Gillespie's classic work on church government, based heavily on extra-biblical tradition.

Greenham, Richard. The workes of the reverend ... M. Richard Greenham ... collected into one volume: revised, corrected, and pvblished. The fift and last edition. London: Printed [by Thomas Creede] for VVilliam VVelby, and are to be solde at his shop in Paules church-yard, at the signe of the Swanne, 1612.

Hoogerland, Adriaan. The Heidelberg Catechism. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee, 2009. Printing of the catechism with helpful discussion on each question.

Owen, John. Gospel church government. London: Grace Publications Trust, 2012. Easier to read printing of Owen's essential work on church discipline process and goals.

———. The true nature of a gospel church and its government (1689). London: J. Clarke, 1947. Older printing of Owen's classic work on church discipline.

———. The works of John Owen. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Contains many well-known writings by Owen, a must have.

Rutherford, Samuel. A survey of the Survey of that summe of church-discipline,penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England: Wherein the way of the churches of N. England is now re-examined; arguments in favour thereof winnowed; the principles of that way discussed; and the reasons of most seeming strength and nerves, removed. London: Printed by J. G. for Andr. Crook, at the Green dragon in St. Pauls churchyard, 1658. Rutherford's somewhat accusatory review of Thomas Hooker's work.

———. The divine right of church-government and excommunication. London: John Field, n.d. Clear and thoughtful discussion on the source and exercise of power in the church.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Adams, Jay Edward. Handbook of church discipline. Jay Adams library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Ministry Resources Library, 1986. Excellent modern guidebook for exercising church discpline.

Beeke, Joel R. A Puritan theology: doctrine for life. Grand Rapids, Mich: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. A thorough review of puritan thinking on systematic theological concepts, combined with historical insight.

“Church Discipline.” Homiletics 26, no. 5 (October 2014): 8–12. Modern periodical which contains and exegetical discussion of Matthew 18.

Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation of Grand Rapids, ed. The Banner of sovereign grace truth: the periodical of the Heritage Reformed Congregations. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids, Mich: First Netherlands Reformed Congregation, 1993. Rev. B. Elshout discusses the goal and process for church discipline.

Jamieson, Bobby. Guarding one another: church discipline. 9Marks healthy church study guides. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012. A primer and vague overview of the church discipline process from a Baptist perspective.

Jeschke, Marlin. Discipling the brother: congregational discipline according to the gospel. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1979. A bland discussion on the overall process for church discipline

Kersten, G. H. Discipline in the church of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. Concise but very detailed pamphlet on discipline process of the Netherlands Reformed denomination.

Lauterbach, Mark. The transforming community: the practise of the Gospel in church discipline. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2003. Helpful but somewhat vague discussion of contemporary problems with church discipline.

Macpherson, John, ed. The Westminster Confession of Faith. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958. Printing of the classic reformed confession with helpful commentary.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Westminster pulpit: the preaching of G. Campbell Morgan. Vol. 5,7. Westwood, N.J.: F.H. Revell Co, 1954. Pastoral encouragement on the congregational benefits of discipline.

Murray, John. Collected writings of John Murray: professor of systematic theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1937-1966. Vol. 3. Edinburgh ; Carlisle, Pa: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976. Provides good pastoral counsel.

De Ridder, Richard, Peter H. Jonker, and Leonard Verduin, eds. The Church orders of the sixteenth century reformed churches of the Netherlands: together with their social,political, and ecclesiastical context. Grand Rapids, Mich: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1987. Contains good background information on the cultural climate surrounding 16^th^ century church orders in the Netherlands.

Yuille, Stephen. “John Owen and the third mark of the church.” Puritan Reformed Journal 2, no. 1 (January 2010): 215–217. Helpful review of Owen's classic work of church government, with minimal reference to other puritan viewpoints.

¹. Christian Reformed Church, *Doctrinal standards of the Christian ↩

Reformed Church consisting of the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg
catechism, and the Canons of Dort* (Grand Rapids: Publication
Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1962), 15.

². George Gillespie, *Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ↩

ordinance of church government vindicated* (Harrisonburg, Va:
Sprinkle Publications, 1985), 193. Gillespie also argues on page 136
that every government, including church government, has three
elements: laws, officers, and censures.

³. G. H. Kersten, Discipline in the church of Christ (Grand Rapids, ↩

MI: Eerdmans, 1984).

⁴. Kersten, Discipline in the church of Christ, 3. Kersten states a ↩

problem exists in some reformed churches where judicial punishment
is exercised by the church, instead of spiritual discipline.

⁵. John Owen, Gospel church government (London: Grace Publications ↩

Trust, 2012), 80. Owen puts forward a common puritan view that
disciplinary influence of the church doesn’t extend into other
spheres of life. The church should be viewed in many ways as a
voluntary association.

⁶. Samuel Rutherford, *The divine right of church-government and ↩

excommunication* (London: John Field, n.d.), 351. Rutherford opposes
Erastus’ view and would agree with Owen here on the limits of church
power.

⁷. Joel R. Beeke, A Puritan theology: doctrine for life (Grand ↩

Rapids, Mich: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 622-623.

⁸. Samuel Rutherford, *A survey of the Survey of that summe of ↩

church-discipline,penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the
church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England: Wherein the way
of the churches of N. England is now re-examined; arguments in
favour thereof winnowed; the principles of that way discussed; and
the reasons of most seeming strength and nerves, removed* (London:
Printed by J. G. for Andr. Crook, at the Green dragon in St. Pauls
churchyard, 1658), 258.

⁹. Gillespie, *Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ordinance of ↩

church government vindicated*, 193.

¹⁰. Rutherford, *A survey of the Survey of that summe of ↩

church-discipline,penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the
church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England*, 255.

¹¹. Beeke, A Puritan theology, 624. Beeke helpfully reviews the ↩

effect of *Jus Divinum* on puritan thinking at the time of the
Westminster Assembly.

¹². Owen, Gospel church government, 84. Owen seems to be directly ↩

aware of Gillespie’s 3-level view of church discipline cleaned from
Talmudic tradition. Own disagrees, likely on the basis of the *sola
Scriptura* principle.

¹³. Gillespie, *Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ordinance of ↩

church government vindicated*, vi, 21-26. Gillespie leans heavily on
Talmudic tradition and earlier interpretation by Hebrew scholar
Cornelius Bertramus Bonaventura.

¹⁴. Gillespie, *Aaron’s rod blossoming ; or, the divine ordinance of ↩

church government vindicated*, 23.

¹⁵. Christian Reformed Church, *Doctrinal standards of the Christian ↩

Reformed Church consisting of the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg
catechism, and the Canons of Dort*, 15-16.

¹⁶. Adriaan Hoogerland, The Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2, 2 vols. ↩

(Grand Rapids, MI: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing
Committee, 2009), 82.

¹⁷. Richard De Ridder, Peter H. Jonker, and Leonard Verduin, eds., ↩

*The Church orders of the sixteenth century reformed churches of the
Netherlands: together with their social,political, and
ecclesiastical context* (Grand Rapids, Mich: Calvin Theological
Seminary, 1987), 555-557.

¹⁸. Rutherford, *A survey of the Survey of that summe of ↩

church-discipline,penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the
church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England*, 258. Hooker
believed complaints can be made to many people at once, citing
grievances in parliament as an example. Rutherford countered with
the example of the 10,000+ member Jerusalem church and the
impossibility of “telling it to the church” in this manner.

¹⁹. John Macpherson, ed., The Westminster Confession of Faith, 2nd ↩

ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 158-161.

²⁰. Richard Baxter, The reformed pastor, Puritan paperbacks ↩

(Edinburgh ; Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2001), 105.

²¹. Jay Edward Adams, Handbook of church discipline, Jay Adams ↩

library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Ministry Resources Library, 1986), 19,
48.

²². Rutherford, *A survey of the Survey of that summe of ↩

church-discipline,penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the
church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England*, 270, 280.

²³. Adams, Handbook of church discipline, 48. ↩

²⁴. Mark Lauterbach, *The transforming community: the practise of the ↩

Gospel in church discipline* (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian
Focus Publications, 2003), 99.

²⁵. G. Campbell Morgan, *The Westminster pulpit: the preaching of G. ↩

Campbell Morgan*, vol. 5,7 (Westwood, N.J.: F.H. Revell Co, 1954),
5:226.

²⁶. Lauterbach, The transforming community, 219. ↩