029. Chapter 25: The Duty to Join the Church and to Remain with Her
------------ CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE ------------ The Duty to Join the Church and to Remain with Her In the previous chapter we have defined the nature of the church. It is, however, not sufficient to be acquainted with her as such, but everyone with a desire to be saved is obligated to join the church, to remain with her, and not to separate himself from her in order to establish a more orthodox church. Furthermore, he who wishes to remain with her must also persevere in having fellowship with her by the use of the holy sacraments. We shall now discuss each of these matters in detail.
It is the duty of everyone who desires to be saved to turn to the church, making diligent effort to be accepted as a member of the church community.
First, this is God’s way whereby He leads the elect unto salvation. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47); “Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from His people” (Isaiah 56:3).
Secondly, this has been the task of the apostles in accordance with their commission (Matthew 28:19), as is to be observed in the entire Acts of the Apostles.
Thirdly, this is consistent with the nature of God’s children. As soon as they are converted, they cannot rest until they have been received into the bosom of their spiritual mother (Galatians 4:26).
Fourthly, this is the consistent confession of the church of all ages, and particularly of churches of the Netherlands. In article 28 of the Belgic Confession we read: “We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it.” We have elaborated on this in chapter 24.
Fifthly, the church is the glory of Christ. It is there that Christ is confessed and proclaimed throughout the world, being held forth as a banner upon a hill around which one must gather himself. This is the city upon a hill, and a light shining in the darkness. She is the means whereby the truth is made known and preserved, and the means unto the conversion of souls. Everyone is therefore obligated to facilitate this by joining himself to the church.
Motives for Joining the Church In order that you may be stirred up and be active concerning this, calmly consider first of all that there are but two kings in this world, each having a kingdom: the kingdoms of Christ and of the devil, which are mortal enemies to each other. A third kingdom does not exist. Every person upon earth is either a subject of King Jesus or of the devil, the prince of darkness. No matter who you are individually, you are truly a subject of one of these two kingdoms. You are neither neutral nor a subject of both kingdoms simultaneously. Therefore, to which kingdom do you presently belong? What do you have to say for yourself? If you neither know nor have ever given this any thought, come and sit next to me for a moment; let us consider this matter, and then make a heartfelt and eternal choice. Whose subject do you wish to be? Whom do you choose to be your king?
If you choose the devil to be your king and to be subject to him -- to do his will, to indulge in your lusts, to wallow in your sins as a swine in the mire, to seek those things which are upon earth, to satisfy your lusts, as well as for leisure and entertainment -- o let it be. Enjoy it to the fullest as long as you have the opportunity. “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes” (Ecclesiastes 11:9); “... love the world ... all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life ... ” (1 John 2:15-16). If therefore by your very deeds you reveal yourself to be a subject of the devil, be also not ashamed to bear the name of such a subject. Own, acknowledge, and confess the devil to be your lord and master. Trust in him, and delight yourself in the fact that you will eternally be with him in the lake that burns with brimstone, where the smoke of torment will ascend forever and ever.
Someone may think, “This is stated too blatantly. Christ must be our King. Even if we seek our own pleasure, conform to the will of Satan, and live a distinctly worldly life, the devil is not therefore our king.” To this we respond, “He most certainly is!” If you in turn respond, “Christ is nevertheless our King,” we reply, “He most certainly is not!” Listen to what Paul says: “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness” (Romans 6:16).
Therefore, if in truth you neither wish the devil to be your king nor to have your portion with him in outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30), then resolutely, without reservation, and without recantation resign from his service, and with all your heart bid the devil’s kingdom farewell, forsake all sin and the lusts of the flesh, and enter into the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. Receive Him as your sole and sovereign King. Do this not only verbally, externally, by way of approximation or by way of sudden impulse, but consciously and in truth.
Sit down and take time to count the cost. Consider whether, for the sake of the Lord Jesus, you are willing to part with all your fleshly thoughts and lusts, all your worldly pleasure, your friends, and your life. Consider whether you would be willing to follow Him in hunger, nakedness, and shame, being steadfast unto death -- and be obedient to Him in all things. If your heart has been illuminated, and in the presence of God you can truthfully answer in the affirmative, come to a full resolution and turn to this King. Bow before Him, offer yourself to Him, enter into covenant with Him, and thus become His subject. In order that you may be exercised in this in a more clear and heartfelt manner, give further consideration to the following matters.
Love itself towards the Lord Jesus ought to motivate you to do so, since He is so precious, glorious, and full of salvation for all who come to Him. It has pleased God that all fullness should dwell in Him; He is a complete ransom. He is mighty to reconcile enemies with God, to make peace, to purify the conscience, to deliver the soul from all guilt and punishment as well as from the devil and hell, to unite her with God, to give her the Holy Spirit, and to sanctify, preserve, and lead her to eternal felicity.
If all this does not motivate you, and you cannot think of one reason which would make you active in this regard -- if only then you would reflect for a moment! Would that it were your heartfelt inclination and joy that all men would bow down before Jesus, acknowledge Him as King, and surrender to His rule! This would be suitable to exercise a desire in you that He who is worthy to rule would also rule in your heart, that you would also belong to those who exclaim, “Jesus is King!” and that with you the number of His subjects would be increased. The Glory and Elegance of the Church In this church there is both glory and elegance. For a moment give attentive consideration to the glorious state of that kingdom and its true subjects. The earth and the nations are enveloped in darkness; however, wondrous light is to be found in the church. The glory of the Lord illuminates this city of God and the Sun of Righteousness enlightens it with His light. Outside of her is nothing but pollution, abominations, and ungodliness; however, within her there is holiness, purity, and glory. The church is called, “The perfection of beauty” (Psalms 50:1-2); “an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations” (Isaiah 60:15); “a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God” (Isaiah 62:12; “The holy people, the redeemed of the Lord” (Isaiah 62:12); “the Lord ... will be the glory in the midst of her” (Zechariah 2:5); “And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through My comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God” (Ezekiel 16:14). Consider attentively how delightful and desirable each true subject is to God. “Since thou wast precious in My sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee” (Isaiah 43:4); “Thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee” (Isaiah 62:4); “Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child” (Jeremiah 31:20). Therefore we must exclaim with Moses, “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency!” (Deuteronomy 33:29). There is reason to exhort one another, “Walk about Zion, and go around about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces” (Psalms 48:12-13). Ought not everyone therefore to delight himself in Zion, and be desirous to be a member of this church, a fellow citizen of the saints, and a member of the household of God? Should not everyone be desirous to submit himself to the protection and government of this King? For not only are all of these things said concerning this kingdom and this King, but all are most certainly true.
There is safety in this kingdom. Consider the faithful protection which this King affords to all His subjects in general, and to each subject in particular. The Lord speaks thus: “I have laid help upon One that is mighty” (Psalms 89:19); “He is just and having salvation” (Zechariah 9:9); “And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:5-6); “For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about” (Zechariah 2:5); “I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day” (Isaiah 27:3). Here we may behold these truthful promises and the actual protection afforded. Is not he then entirely secure who enjoys the protection of such a King, and who may belong to a people upon whom the eye of the Lord is continually? “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty” (Psalms 91:1). You therefore, whoever you may be, flee to this strong tower and join yourself to Zion, for “the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of His people shall trust in it” (Isaiah 14:32). Seek refuge under the wings of this King who will redeem the souls of His subjects “from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in His sight” (Psalms 72:14). In this kingdom there is truth, light, life, joy, and whatever else may rejoice a soul and make it happy. Furthermore, the blessings with which this King favors His subjects are inexpressibly glorious. He fully forgives all their iniquities. “And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity” (Isaiah 33:24). He is the “fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1). He gives them peace and joy. “He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: as showers that water the earth. In His days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth” (Psalms 72:6-7) His name is “the Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6); “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27); “For the kingdom of God ... is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14:17). God Himself is their portion and complete joy. “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in Him” (Lamentations 3:24). He gives them His Holy Spirit who quickens, teaches, guides, and sanctifies them. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father” (John 15:26); “But if I depart, I will send Him (the Comforter) unto you” (John 16:7).
Yes, if I had to relate to you all blessings, I would have to enumerate all the benefits of the covenant of grace. In a word, the Lord blesses them “with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Ephesians 1:3). The Lord says, “All My springs are in thee” (Psalms 87:7); “There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High” (Psalms 46:4); “For there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” (Psalms 133:3); “Oh how great is thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee; which Thou hast wrought for them that trust in Thee before the sons of men!” (Psalms 31:19).
He who may be acquainted with these benefits, and who may have tasted or anticipated their sweetness, cannot but with utmost urgency make haste to become a subject of this King, and to rejoice if he may be a subject of this King. Apply these matters to your heart, and act wisely and in uprightness. Enter into the covenant, or rather, by faith embrace this covenant of grace which is offered to you, and join yourself to the church.
Degeneracy Within the Church: Not a Reason to Separate from the Church
It is not sufficient merely to join the church, to remain with her for some time, and thereafter to separate from her. One ought never to break away from and leave her under the pretense that the church is degenerate, in order to establish a pure church, for: First, the Lord has never blessed such endeavors. There have always been those (in the first church, both prior to her oppression by the antichrist as well as since the time of the Reformation) who under this pretense have broken away from the church. The Lord, however, has always overturned such endeavors, and such undertakings have collapsed of themselves when the initial instigators died. Due to a just judgment of God, however, such individuals have rarely perceived their errors and made confession of them, and have rarely rejoined the church. Rather, having been given over to their own stubbornness, they have remained independent as people without any religion, or they have succumbed to heresy and have joined themselves to such assemblies which most fully agreed with their errors. Such was the case with the Brethren in Hungary, and in our days the Labadists have arisen who have boasted of great things.
De Labadie called himself the shepherd of the church which was truly separated from the world, and initiated assemblies in order to create truly Reformed Churches. His successor Yvon further enlarged upon this title by sending some followers to America in order to engage in the plantation business, under the pretense of converting the heathen. However, they did not engage in this at all. They did not even make an effort to teach their slaves the Christian religion, but instead abused them cruelly. Their slave trade made them abominable in everyone’s eyes. Then, in the literature which he published, he called himself, Shepherd of such and such a flock, partially gathered in Wiewert. He thus established himself as bishop whose territory included Wiewert in Friesland, and extended itself to America.
There came division among them, however, due to envy, discord, and the promotion of personal opinions. When the supply of money was depleted by which their church was supported and by which some had been enticed to join this church in order to enjoy carefree provision of daily needs, their church was likewise destroyed. This did not occur without some manifestation of divine wrath towards them, and the few who as yet remain loyal to Yvon, will soon cease to assemble after his departure, which has already occurred. Yvon taught many errors, was always unstable in doctrine and inconsistent in speech, frequently making ambiguous statements, and using the Jesuit trick of clever word manipulation. He accommodated himself to the occasion, having the proverb in his mouth: dies diem docet, that is, one day provides instruction for the next. We have written more extensively concerning these matters in our publications, A Faithful Warning, Doctrine and Government of the Labadists, and Yvon Accused of Many Errors.
Someone by the name of De Herder also left his congregation in Bleiswijk to establish a pure church in Rotterdam, doing so, however, without espousing the errors of the Labadists. In the beginning he also had a large following, which, however, came to nothing and completely disappeared. Such was also the case with Bardowitz in Amsterdam, who had similar leanings, but was neither in full accord with de Labadie nor De Herder. I have recited these cases to warn everyone against departing from the church for the purpose of establishing a pure church. If someone were nevertheless to proceed with such an endeavor, he would, likewise experience what they have experienced. If it pleases the Lord to purify His church, He will do so Himself by pouring out a richer measure of His Holy Spirit upon His church.
Secondly, it is a dreadful sin to depart from the church for the purpose of establishing one which is better, for the church is one, being the body of Christ. To separate ourselves from the church is to separate from the people of Christ and thus from His body, thereby withdrawing from the confession of Christ and departing from the fellowship of the saints. If we indeed deem the church to be what she really is, we shall then cause schism in the body of Christ, grieve the godly, offend others, give cause for the blaspheming of God’s Name, and cause the common church member to err. By maintaining that the church is no church, we thereby deny the church of Christ, and therefore are also guilty of the sins just mentioned. We thereby displease God, who will not leave this unavenged, regardless of how much we please and flatter ourselves. Such activity the apostle opposes when he refers to such individuals as being carnal in 1 Corinthians 3:1
Thirdly, the Reformed Church is the only true church, albeit that her purity varies with locality. The truth is still preached purely there, sins are rebuked and resisted, and there is both the teaching of and exhortation to godliness. Thousands of godly persons are to be found there who practice holiness in a much purer fashion than those who have separated themselves. Christ dwells and walks among them. The Holy Spirit is still active by means of the Word, still converts souls daily, comforts the converted, and causes them to grow. Discipline is still exercised towards those who err in doctrine and life. In some localities this is practiced more consistently than people may perceive and be aware of. What foolishness it is, therefore, to leave the church and to enter into a barren wilderness!
Fourthly, to depart from the church is to retract and break the solemn promise which was made before God in the presence of the congregation upon being accepted as a member. If one esteems this to be but a light matter, seeking refuge in the excuse that he did not know any better at the time, the Lord will nevertheless search it out. Who will break the covenant and be held guiltless?
Objection: The church is corrupt, and God commands us to depart from a degenerate church. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:14
Answer: This text neither speaks of the church, nor of the church in a very degenerate condition. There have at all times been many unconverted in the church and this engenders degeneracy in her, be it at one time more and at another time less. The text, however, refers to paganism with which one may not have communion, but from which one ought to depart and be separate.
There are some in our day who do not entirely separate themselves from the church, and maintain that they remain with her. They come to hear the Word of God and to have fellowship with the godly of the church, but abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. They do so due to the fact that so many who are unconverted and lead offensive lives partake of this sacrament, and they are of the opinion that to partake of the sacrament with them means that they would have fellowship with such individuals. In order to instruct such, most of whom we deem to be doing so due to tenderheartedness and an erring conscience, we shall present and answer the following question.
Degeneracy Within the Church: Not a Reason to Abstain from the Lord’s Supper
Question: Is a Christian permitted, yes, is it his duty to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper so long as the church is corrupt -- however, without separating himself from the church?
Answer: Definitely not, and we shall prove this as follows:
Proof #1: It is God’s express command to use the sacraments, regardless of how degenerate the church is. This is true for holy baptism: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing ... ” (Matthew 28:19); “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38); “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16); “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). If a believer refuses to be baptized, he resists the ordinance of God, refuses to be a member of the church and to confess Jesus in union with His people and congregation. Those who are pessimistic by nature must be convinced of this. If an adult, truly converted and unbaptized, he may not keep himself apart because of offense within the church, but must allow himself to be baptized. In partaking of the sacrament of holy baptism, however, he does not have fellowship with the unconverted who are in the church. Therefore, having been baptized he has no reason to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper due to offenses, since partaking of both sacraments constitutes communion with one and the same church. Yes, such pessimistic individuals will even have their children baptized, thus having fellowship with the church; they thus pass sentence upon themselves by abstaining from partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Or would they also be inclined in the future to abstain from using the sacrament of baptism?
God’s command concerning the Lord’s Supper can be observed in the following passages: “Take, eat ... Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:26-27); “This do in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24). Who dares to ignore such express commands of Christ? Who dares to suggest that to partake or not to partake is a matter of indifference? What mention is made here of any limitation -- a limitation contingent upon the condition of the church?
Add to this that the use of the sacraments was commanded in the Old Testament, with the punishment of excommunication imposed upon those who would neglect them. Observe this in the following passages: “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14); “But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 9:13). This meant that his name would be erased from the genealogy of his tribe; that is, he would be eliminated as a member of the church. He would thus no longer be considered as a member, but as a heathen and a publican (Matthew 18:17).
Evasive Argument: In the Old Testament the covenant was external, national, and typical. Circumcision and the Passover then also served other purposes: as an acknowledgment that they were Abraham’s seed and as a commemoration of their exodus from Egypt. Therefore one cannot by way of the Old Testament sacraments draw conclusions about the New Testament sacraments.
Answer: The covenant of the Old Testament was not an external covenant, but was none other than the covenant of grace, having the promise of both this present and future life, that is, of both spiritual and temporal benefits, such as is presently the case. If one wishes to refer to this as a national covenant, one is merely saying that the covenant of grace was established with that nation. That it is called a typical covenant is in consequence of it typifying the entire ministry of the coming Messiah. If one wishes, however, to refer to this covenant as typical in reference to the church of the New Testament, our proof is further confirmed by their own argument. If the use of the sacraments was so essential in the typical context, this is much more so in the anti-typical setting. Allow that circumcision and the Passover also served other purposes. However, they were never used, nor were they permitted to be used, for such purposes only; that is, distinct from their function relative to the covenant of grace, which irrefutably was the most significant objective in the administration of the sacraments. Other matters were but subordinate and were comprehended in it. We are of the opinion that the other aspects were in a certain respect elements of the covenant of grace. To belong to Abraham’s seed was to be a partaker of God’s covenant with Abraham -- “to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Genesis 17:7).
If the unconverted were but externally included in this, then this was true as far as individual persons were concerned, as is likewise true in the New Testament church. The exodus from Egypt belonged to the spiritual deliverance wrought by the Messiah (1 Corinthians 10:1-11). For this reason the Lord Jesus is called the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7). It can therefore be observed that this objection is unfounded, and thus our proof derived from the sacraments of the Old Testament stands, as well as our proof derived from the New Testament.
Second Proof: The sacraments are seals of the righteousness of faith (Romans 4:11), and the communion with the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). It is the duty of each Christian to give diligence to make his calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). To this end all means, and the way which the Lord has ordained unto that end, must be utilized. Since the sacraments are seals engendering communion with Christ, each believer is obligated to make use of them. At this point I wish to remind believers of the precious, spiritual frames which the Lord at times grants during, before, and after the use of the Lord’s Supper. Even those of a pessimistic disposition may have enjoyed them: They are the deep humiliation of self, an intimate view of the Lord Jesus in His suffering and death, the mysteries of the covenant, an earnest renewal of the covenant, the strength of faith, the assurance of salvation, peace and joy in God, the resolution, yes, the lofty frame of mind to be more pure and steadfast in the way of sanctification, etc. For he who may possess spiritual life even in the least degree, will be enamored with these blessings when he perceives that the Lord grants these blessings by way of partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Who would not long for this? Having demonstrated one’s obligation to use all means to promote his spiritual growth, who would then not deem himself obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Third Proof: To confess the Lord Jesus Christ, His doctrine, and His church belongs to the most significant objectives of the Lord’s Supper. Observe this in the following passages: “This do ye ... in remembrance of Me ... ye do show the Lord’s death till He come” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26); “For we being many are one bread, and one body” (1 Corinthians 10:17). It is an absolutely necessary, appropriate, and Christ-glorifying duty to confess Christ, for this duty builds up the congregation and refreshes the soul. “Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny” (Matthew 10:32-33). As it is the objective of the Lord’s Supper to confess Christ, He is confessed in a most public and powerful manner by all who partake of the Lord’s Supper. To enter the church with the multitude which will partake of the Lord’s Supper, to join them in going to the table, to sit at the table with them, and to receive the bread and the wine as signs and seals of the covenant (which are ratified by the death of the Lord Jesus) is a loud declaration in everyone’s ears, “I esteem and confess the Lord Jesus to be the only true Savior. In Him I seek my salvation, with Him I enter into covenant, on Him I depend, for Him I wish to live and die; the Reformed doctrine is the only true and saving doctrine of Christ, and the Reformed church is the only true church of Jesus Christ upon earth. These truths I confess when I partake of the Lord’s Supper.”
If someone therefore withdraws himself from the use of the Lord’s Supper, he abstains from confessing Christ, His doctrine, and His church. Thus, we agree with our Belgic Confession, article 28 [Bel Con 28]:
We believe ... that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church. ... And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though magistrates and edicts of princes be against it; yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.
Evasive Argument: One who has left the church may say, “I confess to be a member of the Reformed church,” demonstrating this and declaring such to be the case by attending the services there. Answer: Mere church attendance is not a mark of church membership. When a large congregation comes to hear the Word of God, it is frequently true that a significant number -- often the largest portion -- are not members; and how often are there not among the audience those who adhere to other religions? Therefore, during these peaceful times church attendance is not a mark of church membership, and thus not a public confession of Christ, His doctrine, and His church. The personal confession of a specific individual is not sufficient to that end. Furthermore, when absenteeism becomes evident, most people will deem such absentees as having separated themselves from the church, and as having retracted their confession. Moreover, it is the will of the Lord Jesus that He, His doctrine, and His church should be confessed by way of the Lord’s Supper. This therefore eliminates all evasive arguments. A Warning not to Engage in Schism
Fourth Proof: To make one’s absence so obvious, under the pretense of making a public statement, is to be guilty of schism. Even if it does not cause the church to be torn asunder, it is at the least a major step in that direction. The sentiments of the members become divided and collide. Every person has his own faction and clings closely to those who belong to his party, thereby opposing others. The bond of love is severed and the one becomes estranged from the other. The absentees are rendered suspect, are accepted by neither the godly nor by the ungodly, and thus become unprofitable as far as the proper use of their talents. Discussions relative to all this lead to division and discord. The common folk among the godly are offended and grieved, which is a great sin (Matthew 18:6
Evasive Argument: He who has withdrawn himself from the church may say, “If one lives and teaches according to the command of God, then such a person cannot be accused of schism. Only he who does not wish to submit himself to the doctrine and life of Christ ought to be charged with this.”
Answer: First, all the faults of the church are not of such a nature that one ought to initiate division in response to them, for otherwise one will be as the Anabaptists, and there will be an endless repetition of schisms.
Secondly, if someone has some difficulty concerning the doctrine or life of the church, and he is of the opinion that therefore he ought to withdraw himself from the church and the partaking of the Lord’s Supper, this ought to arouse suspicion as to whether this is not due to obstinacy, erroneous views, or being proudly opinionated. He must realize that he perhaps has but a small measure of light, and that therefore he only views the matter from afar and from one perspective, and not with an all-inclusive understanding of this. It is therefore a bold, if not a reckless undertaking to take such a step, knowing that it will engender great disturbances and nothing but confusion in the church of the Lord Jesus, while doing harm to souls as a result. Such a person ought to acknowledge that he is not the only one endowed with wisdom, but that the Lord has also given His Spirit to others. Yes, one generally has ulterior motives when he neither shares his difficulties with the ministers, nor wishes to be instructed, but immediately and without discussion, not only makes a decision, but translates this into action, stubbornly persevering in this and considering himself wiser in his own eyes than seven who answer with reason. Whoever gives heed to counsel is wise.
One ought to approach the offending party himself and thus seek to bring him to repentance. If he does not hear, the consistory ought to be informed concerning such a person, and observe what they will do in response. That would be a faithful witnessing. But no, this is too much trouble, would generate too much resentment towards his person, and would result in too much opposition. It will thus be ignored and no action is taken. Instead, the only way this is shown to the church is by withdrawing from her fellowship, as if true godliness consisted of such action. Such activity does not proceed from the Spirit of Christ. Such individuals will be held accountable for the offenses, disturbances, spiritual harm, and divisions either within or of the church itself, which would ensue from this. Do not ridicule what has been said, for it will weigh heavily upon you to be witness to that degeneracy of the church to which you also have contributed.
First Proof: God generally imposes secret judgments upon those who absent themselves. They become proud, opinionated, and despise the judgment of godly persons endowed with wisdom. They hold the congregation of God in contempt. They haughtily speak of great things, and come in a condition where they deem themselves beyond instruction, manifesting a pride against that which David prayed in Psalms 19:13. God will afflict such with a special cross which they will have to endure for the remainder of their lives. He pours contempt upon them, causes their physical condition to deteriorate, and permits them to fall into sin. He sends them a powerful delusion that they would believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11), since they did not embrace the truth in love, and espoused a love for error. Their departure is rarely limited to one error, and it generally goes from bad to worse. One will join either the Anabaptists or other proponents of error. Others, considering separation no longer to be advantageous, will return. In order to do this with more glamour, however, they will embrace a different theology affording them more liberty and freedom in their manner of living, and thus they become as excessive in their liberal bent as they previously were in their strictness. If they return due to being convicted of their duty, it will generally be observed that they have lost the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus. They will have lost much of that inward spiritual frame which previously adorned the church, engaging themselves more with judgmental reflections than with heart reflections, or with concerning themselves with the soul of another person. What a tragic judgment this is!
I have stated all of this in order that those who, because of our arguments and our response to their arguments, have been convinced concerning their previous misconceptions and errors, would humble themselves concerning this before God, pray for forgiveness, and persevere in asking to be delivered from well-deserved spiritual judgments. May they abstain from the things mentioned above which I have enlarged upon as a warning, and make a new beginning with their original simplicity and sincerity.
These arguments ought to convince a Christian sufficiently that he is not permitted to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper due to the degeneracy of the church.
Objections Answered
We shall now consider this matter from a different perspective by examining the arguments which those who are of a pessimistic disposition advance for their sentiments and behavior, and ascertain whether these hold any substance.
Objection #1: The church ought to shine forth everywhere with holiness, for she is called “the holy church.” [Note: It should be understood that all that follows belongs to this objection. à Brakel’s answer to this lengthy objection begins on p. ###70.] [Link to p###70] First of all, the shepherds ought to excel in humility, meekness, denial of the things of this world, and in the fear and love of God. They ought to be dignified and thus solicit respect. They ought to be full of the Holy Spirit, wise and industrious, proclaiming the Word of God in the demonstration of Spirit and power. Thus by the revelation of the truth, they would make themselves manifest and pleasing to the consciences of their hearers, so that converted and unconverted alike could examine themselves due to their ministry, thus being discovered as to who they are. This would bring forth conviction and contrition in the unconverted, but also encourage and quicken the hearts of those who possess grace, so that their hearts, as a result of the ministry, would burn within them. The clarity of their presentation of the gospel of Christ ought to be such that everyone would either be allured or compelled to come to Christ, or they would withdraw themselves, rebelling against this, not being able to endure the power of such a ministry. They ought to be men who visit and minister to each member individually, dealing with them according to their condition, without respect of persons and without regard to social rank.
Secondly, there ought to be true holiness in the members. They ought to manifest themselves as denying all the things of time and sense, being separated and clearly distinct from the world in their walk, filled with love towards God and each other, and with one heart and one soul living together in sweet peace. During the worship service complete silence ought to prevail, so that respect will arise in the hearts of those who enter as they observe the orderliness, the reverence, the attentiveness, as well as the piety manifested by those who enter, sit, sing, pray, listen, and exit God’s house. The ungodly would then neither dare to join them nor be able to endure this. Outside of the worship service everyone ought to be a shining light amidst darkness, and everyone according to his ability and consistent with his state ought to be engaged in the upbuilding of the church. Government officials, if they are members of the church, ought likewise to use their authority to further establish the church, and to see that the privileges which the Lord Jesus has given her -- privileges He wishes her to have continually -- would be preserved. Everyone ought to stir up, rebuke, and comfort his relatives and acquaintances with much love and warmth, and be instrumental in the conversion of the unconverted. Families ought to function as small congregations. Both in the morning and evening people ought to sing psalms together, read God’s Word and discuss it, pray, and instruct both children and servants. Everyone ought thus to consider it a privilege to be abundantly engaged towards the edification of the congregation.
Thirdly, the keys of the kingdom of heaven ought to be used earnestly and with freedom against all who lead offensive lives, are worldly and conformed to the world in their clothing, homes, belongings, speech, and daily conversation. The sacraments ought to be withheld from the ignorant, and all who either do not manifest the image of the Lord Jesus, or manifest it to some degree (the church cannot judge concerning their inner condition). Those who will not repent, as well as sinners who live in public and heinous sin and prove themselves to be incorrigible, ought to be excommunicated in order that they would repent, thereby instilling fear in others, and being a cause of joy to the godly. The church would then shine forth as the morning, be as fair as the moon, as clear as the sun, and as terrible as an army with banners.
Thus the church ought to be; however, one will find her dreadfully corrupted from the crown of her head to her very feet.
First of all, the ministers, the good ones being the exception, manifest themselves conformed to the world, and seek the things which are upon earth, such as wealth, honor, and respect among men, while at the same time soliciting their praise and love. Their speech is vain, and one hears from them nothing but worldly conversation. They pride themselves in their homes and the clothing of their families. They associate much with those of social status, delighting in a good glass of wine and a delectable meal. At the same time they hold in contempt those of lower social rank, hate the righteous, and even oppose them. They are ignorant of the spiritual state of souls, and many of them are in need of learning the most fundamental principles of theology. They are lazy, sleep late, and waste their time with trifles. They are not committed to the care of their flocks, but allow to perish whatever may perish. When they preach they engage in intellectual speculation -- which frequently ought rather to be referred to as a darkening of counsel -- under pretense of expositing the Holy Scriptures. They manifest that they aspire after the reputation of a scholar, and solicit the praise and attendance of the masses. They grieve the hearts of the righteous with their insincerity and harden the hearts of the ungodly. Yes, some are even drunkards, living in such sin that their behavior cannot even match that of the common citizen. They are consequently despised by great and small both within and outside of the church. In one word, profaneness is gone forth from the prophets of Jerusalem. In consistories, Classes, and Synods, there is nothing resembling holiness.
Secondly, the members of the church neither distinguish themselves by their behavior nor live any better than others outside of the church. The sins which are committed by those who are estranged from the truth are found in abundance within the church, such as fancy hairdos, exposed breasts, and extravagant clothing. The world is evident in the church to the extreme. Sabbath desecration, new doctrines, ignorance, hatred, envy, and bitterness are rampant within the church. In the event that a godly person is to be found here and there -- or if there are some who gather to engage in godly conversation or to pray together -- they will be the object of hatred, ridicule, and oppression. They are referred to as Labadists, Quakers, pious ones, etc. This godliness, however, adorns them and convicts those who live in open sin and mock with all this. More energy is exerted in oppressing the church than in supporting her. Many government officials, the good ones being the exception, do not use their authority on behalf of the church, but rather work against her. Family worship and the instruction of one’s children and servants are unknown practices, so that what is recorded in Isaiah 59:14-15 is very applicable to our times: “And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.”
Thirdly, the exercise of church discipline is almost entirely neglected. There is no longer a model of what the church ought to be. Men are therefore satisfied if many people come to church, and if many members are accepted. Such churches are then referred to as flourishing churches. In many, if not most localities, those who can recite the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, or have memorized a few questions are accepted as members. A sufficient knowledge of fundamental truths is no longer required, and they also do not require actual separation from the world and a life which to some degree conforms to the image of Christ. If their lives are not entirely ungodly, all is well. Drunkards, gamblers, dancers, vain men, proud and immoral men, misers, and men who are entirely ignorant and worldly, are permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper. If anyone is placed under censure, it will be someone of low social status and in response to a sin which will bring him into ill-repute among men. They shut their eyes to offenses, however, and do not want to know about them. If anyone comes to expose them, he will have to expect that he will possibly encounter wrath and also opposition. They will seek to corner such a person. If there is a minister who seeks to initiate some reformation, he has good reason to fear that he will be in danger of being expelled. In one word, the church is incorrigible and cannot be brought to repentance. Simply stated, it is a hopeless situation. A godly person, having a view of what the condition of the church ought to be, will be enamored by this, and longs to see the church in such a condition. His heart bleeds, however, when he observes the church in so degenerate a condition as she now is. He cannot refrain from being sorrowful, filled with contempt, and angry, saying, “Is this the holy church of the Lord Jesus Christ? What purpose does the Bible then still have?” This will cause him to contemplate whether it would not be better to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and thus have no fellowship with such a people.
Answer: [Note: The objection here answered begins on p. ###67.] [Link to p.###67] Who would not delight himself in a church which would be in such a holy condition as defined above? My soul longs for this, and I yearn for the day that the church will be in such a condition after the Lord will have poured out His Spirit upon her. But who will live to see this? With the aforesaid, I confess that the church is indeed degenerate, a matter which grieves me in the deepest recess of my soul. I have often borne public witness to this, and by way of this medium I still lift up my voice like a trumpet, crying aloud without sparing, showing the people of the Lord their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. Oh, that all who read or hear this read would take this to heart! Oh, that men would repent and be amazed at the longsuffering of God by still leaving His church in our land, enjoying a peaceful existence; that one would justify the Lord if He were to punish us and cause us, one day, to come to nought! With sorrow and shame I acknowledge my own failure, and consider myself guilty. May the Lord graciously forgive me, and make me more faithful and holier both personally and in my ministry. Those who are concerned about the condition of the church ought to know that they also are not guiltless. I nevertheless acknowledge that the Lord, among all ranks of society -- be it among government officials, teachers, families, as well as individual members -- has those that are His, and who in all faithfulness seek to serve the Lord. Also, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are still used, and in some localities this occurs to a greater extent than one would be inclined to think. The Duty to Partake of the Lord’s Supper When Members who Give Offense also Partake
We shall now investigate more particularly whether this degeneracy is a sufficient reason to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
First, apprehensive souls, in examining themselves closely, will perhaps discover that the degeneracy of the church, rather than a text of Scripture, has made them fearful of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and that they have therefore withdrawn themselves from partaking, having stirred each other up to do so by focusing upon the degeneracy of the church. If you were to ask such an apprehensive person why he does not partake of the Lord’s Supper, he will respond -- if he speaks according to his heart -- that this is due to the degeneracy of the church. I furthermore wish to ask, “Ought not Scripture to be the only rule for faith and practice?” to which one will reply in the affirmative. Such an apprehensive person ought then to be convinced that he has not proceeded properly in having and maintaining this concern, as this concern does not originate in God’s Word, but rather in his own mind. He may respond by pointing to Scripture references, saying that they teach us that one ought not to partake of the holy sacraments with such a degenerate church. I want such an apprehensive person to consider, however, whether these Scripture references initially generated concern, or whether his judgment and action were first of all determined by the degeneracy of the church, and he subsequently resorted to Scripture references to support his judgment and action. Consequently, such an apprehensive person ought to be convinced within himself that his initial impulse relates to nothing more than his own ideas which are outside of God’s Word. He therefore has reason to suspect himself of error.
Secondly, it may even be asked if partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an apostate church is permissible, and therefore the degeneracy of the church cannot be used as a proof that one ought not to partake of the Lord’s Supper. That would be a case of circular reasoning [Note: The Dutch reads: “Dat is hetzelfde door hetzelfde te bewijzen.” Literally, “This is to prove something by itself.”] . The question is whether one may partake of the Lord’s Supper together with an apostate church. Upon this we answer, “No,” the proof being the apostasy of the church. Thus, such an apprehensive person will see that he proceeded without wisdom and in a childish manner, and that henceforth he neither can nor may use the degeneracy of the church as a basis for his action and as a confirmation for his sentiments. He ought rather to consider what the Holy Scriptures have to say regarding whether or not he ought to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an apostate church. If the answer is “yes,” he sins by abstaining from partaking, and if “no,” his action will be right.
Thirdly, it has at all times been God’s intent to leave the church subject to such degeneracy while in the world. Consider the church from Adam to Christ, and you will observe that the Lord was not pleased with the majority of those belonging to it. At the time of Christ’s sojourn the Jewish church was terribly corrupted, with multitudes of baptized disciples forsaking Him, thereby manifesting that they had not been truly converted (John 6:66). Paul declared that the congregation of Corinth was carnal (1 Corinthians 3:3), that fornication was in vogue among them (1 Corinthians 5:1), that some partook of the Lord’s Supper while being drunken (1 Corinthians 11:21), and that some were void of the knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 15:34). In the congregation of Galatia there were those who should have been excommunicated, but who nevertheless remained within the congregation (Galatians 5:12). In Php 2:21 Paul states the following concerning many in the church, “For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.” Read the letter of Jude, and Revelation 2:1-29
He who wishes to hide behind the word church, understanding it to refer to those who are truly godly in the world and not to the congregation in its external manifestation, thereby declaring himself to remain a member of the church, is a person of Labadistic persuasion. For his instruction, he ought to read what we have written concerning the Labadists in Doctrine and Government. Such a person deceives himself and others.
Objection #2: He who partakes of the Lord’s Supper thereby confesses to have communion with all who also partake. “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17). The exhortation pertaining to this, and a more extensive explanation concerning this matter, can be found in the Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper. It is certain that a Christian may not have fellowship with the ungodly. Therefore, since the church is filled with ungodly individuals, the Christian is consequently obligated to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper until the church has been purified.
Answer: First, those who are apprehensive will admit that this proposition is not absolute in all respects, and is not true for all partakers of the Lord’s Supper. For if the church were purified of all who give offense, they would partake without objection, even though many unconverted would be partaking as well, since their concern relates not to the unconverted but to those who give offense. They will also admit that one neither ought to be assured that all partakers are converted, nor that one can absolutely be assured of this. Furthermore if by partaking one would declare to have inward, spiritual communion with all participants, one would declare to have such communion also with the unconverted who either might be or are among them. Far be it from them and us to hold to such a position. This proves that such texts ought not to be understood as referring to inward, spiritual communion with all who partake of the Lord’s Supper. They will also have to admit that they do not wish to understand these texts in this manner, since there are undoubtedly unconverted members in the congregation. We can thus conclude (which they must do on the basis of their own argument), that this text, according to their view, would prove more than they themselves wish to admit, giving them no license to partake of the Lord’s Supper except with those of whose regeneration they were absolutely certain. However, such a view they reject. It is thus evident that this text is no basis for abstaining from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
Secondly, in this particular chapter the apostle speaks of the church as being separated from all other religions, and declares that this separated people constitute one body, being partakers of these sacraments; for this reason they ought not to intermingle with other religions (vss. 18, 20-21). He demonstrates that among this people, within this body, there are those who truly possess grace, who truly have communion with Christ, and who have true spiritual communion with each other. Among those who partake there are also those who are unconverted. Even though they have declared that they had received Christ by faith, sought their salvation in Him, and were desirous to live according to His laws, in truth they did not do so. This he illustrates by referring to Israel’s exodus from Egypt, their baptism in the cloud and in the sea, their eating of the manna, and their drinking from the rock. With many of them the Lord was not well-pleased, since they lived ungodly and idolatrous lives. These sins and the resultant punishments he holds before the Corinthians, so that thereby they might be deterred from involving themselves in similar sins, such as idolatry, eating and drinking with idolaters at their feasts, and partaking of their idolatrous sacrifices. From this it is evident that all members of the church constitute one people as far as confession and separation from other religions and nations are concerned -- however, not as far as having communion with Christ, and in Him, with each other. The sins of some members in whom God has no pleasure will not be imputed to the account of the godly with whom God is pleased. Thus, this fellowship which one confesses to have with the body of the congregation when partaking of the Lord’s Supper is external and neither inward nor spiritual. At the same time this fellowship is also of an inward nature as far as all true believers are concerned, whether one is acquainted with them or not. Therefore, those who are apprehensive cannot use this text in support of their concerns. Consider here also what we have initially stated concerning the nature of the church.
Objection #3: The apostle expressly forbids us to partake of the Lord’s Supper together with those who give offense. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Corinthians 5:11). The entire context indicates that the apostle here makes reference to the Lord’s Supper, for he mentions that the incestuous person ought to be excommunicated from the congregation, urging her to do so by making reference to the Passover and the removal of the leaven. Even if the apostle were to refer to “love” meals, the same argument is valid, for at such meals one also partook of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Even if he referred to common meals, it is equally true, for that which one ought not to do at a lesser meal ought much less to be done at a meal of superior importance. This is consistent with 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Consider also verse 6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.” Add to this 2 Corinthians 6:14
Answer: Let us first consider 1 Corinthians 5:11. Here a clear distinction is made between various persons in reference to the same matter, which one may practice with some and not with others. These various persons are on the one side sinners outside of the church, and on the other side those who give offense within the church. The matter in question pertains to intermingling with them, particularly as far as eating is concerned. This pertains to intermingling which includes walk and talk, business trade and social interaction, the practice of modesty and friendliness, and if required, the mutual partaking of a meal. Even though the practice of eating a meal is not mentioned in reference to sinners outside of the church, the permission granted to intermingle with them and the existing contrast indicates that it must be understood as being included. The apostle permits such intermingling and mutual partaking of meals with sinners of this world; that is, if the aforementioned circumstances require this from us, while at all times being on guard against their unfruitful works of darkness and always being among them as a shining light in this world -- as Christ has eaten with publicans and sinners. He does forbid, however, such intermingling and partaking of meals (which is permitted with sinners outside of the church) with those who are called brothers, but who give offense within the church. This makes it evident that the apostle in verse 11 does not refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper, since there is never any ecclesiastical interaction with sinners outside of the church, and thus never any mutual partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is conveyed by the word “without.” Interaction with them is solely of a social nature. The apostle, however, forbids social fellowship with brothers who give offense. The Duty of the Church and her Members Regarding Individuals who Lead Offensive Lives
Question: Why is fellowship with members who give offense not permitted, whereas it is permitted with sinners outside the church?
Answer: Interaction and partaking of meals with the worldly, that is, those without the church, will not render us suspect, as if one associated and were in agreement with them. However, interaction and partaking of meals with members who have been identified as giving offense, would undoubtedly create the impression that we are pleased with their walk, since there is agreement in all other areas: in confession and being united to a church and her membership. Thus the members who give offense would be confirmed all the more in their sinful ways rather than becoming ashamed, which would be the case if they were shunned. This we deem to be the meaning of this text.
Evasive Argument: Concerned individuals may conclude from this that since we may not intermingle with those who give offense by way of social interaction and social meals, then such is much less permissible in the spiritual realm and in the partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
Answer: I do not object to such a conclusion, but do not draw your conclusion from this text, for it does not pertain to this. But what then? Must a Christian abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper if those who give offense partake likewise? Such is clearly not the case. The invalidity of such an argument will become evident upon noting that abstaining from the Lord’s Supper with those who give offense can be practiced in a twofold manner: by keeping such individuals from the table by way of church discipline or by withdrawing oneself and abstaining from participation. The first option is the duty of the church, and everyone is obligated to do his utmost in this respect by approaching such a person in order to convict, rebuke, and warn in such a fashion, so as not merely to satisfy himself in having done his duty, but to bring the person who gives offense to repentance and to cause him to forsake his offensive behavior. If he gives heed to you, the church has been purified in that respect, and you have saved a soul from death. If he will not give heed, it is everyone’s duty to bring such an individual to the attention of the elders with proof of his misdeed, in order that the church, which must act ex actis et probatis, that is, in response to actual and proven facts, may keep such a person from the table. If the church keeps such a person from the table, his offense has been removed. You are obligated not to interact with him, and not even to have a meal with him, so that he, due to your withdrawal from and the severance of all fellowship with him, would become ashamed of himself and come to repentance. If the church does not keep him from the table, either because she considers the misdeed not to be of such magnitude or because she lacks sufficient evidence, then apprehensive individuals must be in subjection and not act according to their own judgment -- as if this would nullify all fellowship with the church and the church could then not exist. If there is clear evidence of the offense and the church does not keep such a person from the table, she is remiss in her duty and grievously sins against God. You, however, will have done your duty, having expressed your objection concerning such an offensive person. You have declared that you do not desire to keep company with such a person and that he comes to the table contrary to your wishes. In this way you have neither part nor fellowship with such an offensive person.
Evasive Argument: One may say that there are so many who give offense, that it is an impossible task to speak to all of them and to bring them to the attention of the consistory. Many consistories are of such a disposition that such action would bear no fruit, but would rather bring attention to oneself as a “know-it-all” and one who minds the business of others. Yes, they would twist and turn the situation in such a manner, and deal with the witnesses in such fashion, that one would come in a precarious situation himself, and possibly be accused of bringing false accusation. In a word, this cannot be accomplished.
Answer (1) You probably do not know very many who give offense, and those whom you do not know, cannot harm you. This, however, is not the issue, but rather that none wish to make the effort. It is an easy task to let everyone run towards his destruction, and thus avoid conflict with anyone and to walk away from this duty. Consider, however, the servant who buried his talent in the earth.
(2) All consistories are not of such a disposition. In all the localities where I have served as minister, we always censured those individuals who gave offense, who were either brought to our attention or were pointed out by a member of the consistory itself. One may, however, not take action on the basis of one’s own views, and be of the opinion that they must immediately take action in response to your testimony. Such testimony must be well-founded and given in such a manner that love rather than an air of superiority is evident. However, one will probably opt for the easiest way out. One will readily complain about the neglect of others while failing to do his duty himself, in the meantime professing to be desirous of such reformation. There may be some who, by making such complaints and staying away from the table, have an ulterior motive to be viewed as holy. I urge such individuals to examine themselves in the presence of the Lord. However, if someone acts thus in sincerity and humility of heart, his error which is accompanied by desire for ease and by apprehensiveness, proceeds from a wrong understanding of the church as far as her external manifestation is concerned. The church must be governed by regulations which are according to God’s Word.
We have thus shown how the partaking of the Lord’s Supper with those who give offense can be prevented by keeping them from the table, which the church is commanded and obligated to do. Participation with those who give offense can also be prevented by withdrawing oneself and abstaining from coming to the holy table. There is no such command, however, but it is forbidden as we have proven by way of our previous arguments. Those who stay away from the table are thus guilty of sin, and they are doing their utmost to dissolve the unity of the church and to cause her to fall apart.
Even if this text (in the absence of a conclusion reached by reasoning from the inferior to the superior) were first of all to be understood as referring to not partaking of the Lord’s Supper with those who give offense, the meaning would not be: You will not eat with them by walking away yourself and abstain from coming to the table to which you are called, which is so profitable for your soul, and which brings so much glory to the Lord Jesus. However, the meaning would then be: Eat not with such by removing the wicked from your midst (vs. 13), by removing the old leaven from the house (vs. 7), but not by walking away from the house and the passover itself. Thus, these apprehensive individuals ought to be convinced that this text, which is their chief support, affords them no basis for staying away from the table. Having dealt with this text, we do not need many words to deal with the other texts.
Secondly, let us consider 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Objection: If the church does not do her duty, and those who give offense come to the table, one then nevertheless has communion with them, and does not withdraw oneself from them by partaking of the Lord’s Supper with them.
Answer: One has nothing more in common with them than the confession, which we have shown above, and you have expressed your objections against them as you have been directed to do. That such a situation cannot be corrected ought to be lamented.
Thirdly, let us consider 2 Corinthians 6:14-17. It will at once be clear that this text is an exhortation to the church and to each member, whether converted or unconverted. It applies to one’s obligation to be separated from the unbelieving heathen; it is not applicable to those who give offense within the church. The church must unite itself as one body, people, and church, and manifest herself clearly as distinguished from the heathen population out of whom they have come forth but among whom they still reside. Others would be able to see that her members are an entirely different people from the heathen, having separated themselves from them and having united under one Head, Jesus Christ. What argument is there here for such apprehensive individuals?
Objection #4: The congregation will provoke God to wrath if members partake of the Lord’s Supper with those who give offense. This is evident in 1 Corinthians 11:30, where we read, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” The Reformed church acknowledges in Question 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism [HC 82]: “By this, the covenant of God would be profaned, and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation.”
Every Christian is, however, obligated not to provoke God to wrath, yes, even to flee this wrath. It is therefore one’s duty to abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper as long as so many who give offense attend as well.
Answer: First, it is not stated in this chapter that God’s wrath is kindled against the godly due to the correct manner in which they partake of the Lord’s Supper. To maintain this is to state an untruth. Rather, God’s wrath is kindled against the church if she becomes guilty of disorderly and offensive practices which are very sinful in nature, as was the case in Corinth, and she becomes guilty of neglect in not keeping those who give offense from attending. If all are guilty of this, and no one performs his duty, all would justly be punishable in this matter. And if the apprehensive individuals are also guilty of such neglect, why then do they hate the chastisement instead of saying, “I shall bear the Lord’s indignation, for I have sinned against Him?”
Secondly, it is simply not credible (I make an appeal to the conscience of every one of these apprehensive individuals) that God would pour out His wrath upon an upright soul who in all sincerity partakes of the Lord’s Supper in a godly manner, mourns over the corruption of the church, and has done his duty in this respect.
Thirdly, if God’s wrath is kindled against the entire congregation due to partaking of the Lord’s Supper together with those who give offense, this is also applicable to such apprehensive individuals, even though they abstain from attending, for they declare themselves to be members of the church. They therefore, according to their own definition, cannot avoid the wrath of God as long as they declare themselves to be members of this corrupt church.
Evasive Argument: The Lord will spare us, since we have not sinned in partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Answer (1) This sin is not the issue here. (2) Where is it written that those who profess to be members of the church will go free when the entire congregation is punished -- go free by reason of not having partaken of the Lord’s Supper? (3) If they were to go free, why then not the sincere and godly partakers of the Lord’s Supper, who have done more than they as far as offensive individuals are concerned? They thus ought to be convinced that this pretense neither has any validity for their own heart nor does it appear to be valid for others. A Rebuke Toward Persons who Leave the Church to Establish a Purer Church
Objection #5: A person must bear witness against the degeneracy of the church and there is no better way to do this, considering the sad condition of the church, than to separate oneself. In doing so one makes it evident that he considers the church to have degenerated and that discipline is not exercised. In doing so ministers and elders will be rebuked and convicted that they are remiss in their duty and are the cause that the church is and remains in such a degenerate condition. Such action would cause the ungodly to be ashamed because of their sins, and the godly would be inwardly convinced that they too must arise and come to Zion’s rescue by also withdrawing themselves. The chaff would then be separated from the wheat. The chaff would be blown away and the wheat would be gathered together, be it either by removing the chaff or by meeting in different localities. They would call good ministers, thus establishing a purer church which would be as a city upon a hill, manifesting itself as a light upon a candlestick in the nation. If such a church would not be tolerated, and instead were to be persecuted, it could then move to a different locality or nation where freedom could again be enjoyed. The entire earth is the Lord’s and He can maintain His people elsewhere as well as here. Yes, the Lord would possibly grant more external blessings to such a purified church. Such a church would then function as a banner held up for all of Europe to see, and the godly would come to her from all directions. They would nevertheless remain a special congregation of the Reformed church, which would be deemed more degenerate, but yet acknowledged as the true church. Is it therefore not highly beneficial to abstain oneself from partaking of the Lord’s Supper when so many individuals who give offense attend as well? Even if such action did not have the desired result, one would nevertheless have done his part, which in turn would be pleasing to the Lord.
Answer: This is nothing more than daydreaming. This was also the cry of the Labadists, a movement which is going from bad to worse! One must not do evil in order that good may come from it. This is not the way to bear witness against the degeneracy of the church, as such action is contrary to the ordinance of God. Rather, one bears witness to his own misunderstanding, imagination, pride, and inclination towards schism. In the above we have indicated how one ought to bear witness. Add to this the necessity of a holy walk in humility of heart, in faith, and in love. It is in this fashion that Noah bore witness to the first world, and godly women likewise bear witness to their unbelieving husbands. The thought that the church can thereby be restored is nothing but imagination, while in fact it scatters the church. “He that gathereth not with Me scattereth” (Luke 11:23). When the Lord determines the restoration of His church, He will pour out His Spirit more abundantly upon her; or He will give a general unction of His Spirit to all the godly, so that all who give offense are either driven out or will depart of themselves. This was true for the exodus from Babel and when the iconoclasm [Note: “Iconoclasm” refers to the violent removal of images from Roman Catholic churches during the time of the Reformation.] occurred. Until such is the case, let us do our duty within the church. The emotions and opinions, even among God’s children, are presently so diverse that due to this diversity of sentiments no unity can be expected among them, even if the church were rid of all who give offense, or if there were a departure from the church. This proposition makes it evident that the work of such apprehensive members would result in schism if they were to acquire a following. Their protest that they nevertheless are and wish to remain members of the church would turn into viewing the church as Babel. The pretense of being concerned about offensive behavior could readily engender the notion that one can have a certain or probable knowledge of another’s regeneration. They will then not be satisfied with the criteria for membership and the exercise of discipline proposed earlier. Such would then revert to either Labadism or Judaism, or it would result in a third error. Therefore refrain from such contemplations and subject your judgment and conversation to God’s Word, and you will proceed safely.
Objection #6: God manifests His favor upon such who abstain from partaking of the Lord’s Supper, for He gives such persons a sweet and quiet conscience, free access to the throne of grace, and more power against their inner corruptions, so that they may go their way with joy. This is an irrefutable fact, experience teaches it, and those who do not partake know it to be true. To deny and contradict this is to act contrary to truth and experience, and proceeds from ignorance concerning the true spiritual frame of the person who does not partake.
Answer: First, the comfort and holiness which one pretends to have is not all genuine, for the devil can transform himself into an angel of light. I have experienced with several individuals that such lofty claims were nothing more than a seeking for glory to justify their actions, and thereby to allure others to join them in the battle. Shortly after that, however, their situation would change.
Secondly, if a person who does not partake truly experiences all that he claims, this is not to be attributed to abstaining from the Lord’s Supper. The Lord also blessed the midwives in Egypt, not due to their lie, but rather because of the good which they performed. When there is grace in the heart and one is of the opinion that he does God a service, such grace is quickened because of the witness of his conscience, even if such witness itself be in error. The Lord then manifests Himself to such a living soul -- having stirred herself up and being exercised in both faith and sanctification -- and in His goodness overlooks the sinful occasion which has quickened the soul. The soul can also be revived because such separation and the manifestation of doing something extraordinary results in conviction and a stirring in her conscience, so that she strives to be extraordinary in her walk. By doing this all the more since all eyes are upon her, her missteps would give all the more offense and thus taint her witness. Thus, a good spiritual frame cannot be the basis for believing that abstinence from the Lord’s Supper is pleasing to God.
Objection #7: Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. However, we cannot partake in faith, there being much danger in doing so. It is therefore better to abstain from coming to that holy table as long as the church is so degenerate, even though one has a great desire for the Lord’s Supper, it being a bitter grief that one neither dares nor is permitted to partake of it.
Answer: First, it is true that a person ought not act contrary to his conscience, but it is also true that he may not follow an erring conscience, for he will then also err in his walk. The conscience follows the light he has, and therefore he must strive to understand the truth correctly, instructing his conscience by searching the Word of God without prejudice and with prayer for light, while consulting with men who are wise and godly, particularly with ministers whose lips keep knowledge; “they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7).
Secondly, as a person may not partake with a fearful conscience, he may also not abstain with a fearful conscience. When the thought of abstinence initially occurred, he still was partaking of the Lord’s Supper. One therefore must examine himself whether he had no concerns and was absolutely assured that his first abstinence was according to the will of God -- and thus necessitating compliance with this will; or whether he did so because he was concerned as to whether he did the right thing, and was of the opinion that this would be his best option. If you still fear to make a change, you must stay where you are until, by faith, you can make a change without fear. Therefore the apprehensive person will observe that he should have continued in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, since he neither could nor has abstained without being troubled about it, and did not sufficiently investigate the matter. The subsequent reduction of his fear was the result of having hardened himself more in his prejudice as a result of his actions, thus diminishing his fears. This could possibly be accompanied by a judgment of God, who has left those over to themselves who were inclined towards error and have begun to act recklessly. In view of all this an apprehensive person can observe what confusion he has brought upon himself, and that his fear does not exempt him from the commission of sin, if it was his duty to partake of the Lord’s Supper, which indeed it was.
We have thus considered this matter from all angles and clearly presented the truth. I end with this wish and exhortation, “O send out Thy light and Thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto Thy holy hill, and to Thy tabernacles” (Psalms 43:3); “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee” (Song of Solomon 6:13).
Beloved, be obedient to the truth and allow neither the pride of your heart nor carnal shame to prevent you from giving honor to God and from repenting. May the Lord become too strong for you, persuade you, keep you from other errors, and cause you to walk in His truth. May He cause you to be a light and an ornament in His church to the honor and glory of His Name! Amen.