John Owen And The Third Mark Of The Church

By Stephen Yuille

Art Azurdia cautions, “Today the church faces a moral crisis within her own ranks. Her failure to take a strong stand against evil (even in her own midst), and her tendency to be more concerned about what is expedient than what is right, has robbed the church of biblical integrity and power.” [1] In a similar vein, Albert Mohler warns, “The decline of church discipline is perhaps the most visible failure of the contemporary church. No longer concerned with maintaining purity of confession or lifestyle, the contemporary church sees itself as a voluntary association of autonomous members, with minimal moral accountability to God, much less to each other.” [2] To put it another way, one of the church’s most urgent needs is to recapture the practice of biblical church discipline in order to fulfil its calling to convey God’s holiness to the world. [3] The purpose of this article is to consider the practice of such discipline through the eyes of the Puritan John Owen.

The Puritans believe the Holy Spirit cultivates holiness in Christians through appointed means. By “means,” they have in view what George Swinnock calls “secret, private, and public duties.” [4] Simply put, they are “conduit-pipes whereby the water of life is derived from Christ in the hearts of Christians.” [5] There are many means of grace, such as praying, reading God’s Word, and receiving the Lord’s Supper. However, a particularly important means of grace for the Puritans that is often overlooked is church discipline. [6] As Jonathan Edwards says, “If you strictly follow the rules of discipline instituted by Christ, you have reason to hope for his blessing; for he is wont to bless his own institutions, and to smile upon the means of grace which he hath appointed.” [7]

Like his fellow Puritans, Owen is convinced that the proper execution of church discipline is a means by which the Holy Spirit cultivates holiness in God’s people. In the context of 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, he summarizes his view as follows:

The whole of what we plead for is here exemplified; as,—(1) The cause of excommunication, which is a scandalous sin unrepented of. (2) The preparation for its execution, which is the church’s sense of the sin and scandal, with humiliation for it. (3) The warranty of it, which is the institution of Christ, wherein his authority is engaged. (4) The manner and form of it, by an act of authority, with the consent of the whole church. (5) The effect of it, in a total separation from the privileges of the church. (6) The end of it,—1st. With respect unto the church, its purging and vindication; 2dly. With respect unto the person excommunicated, his repentance, reformation, and salvation. [8]

The above summary provides a helpful outline of Owen’s view. We will review each of his chief points in turn.

The “Cause” Of Church Discipline

There are three instances in which Owen believes church discipline is necessary. [9]

Moral

For starters, church discipline is for “a scandalous sin unrepented of.” Elsehwere, Owen says it is for those who “continue obstinate in the practice of any scandalous sin after private and public admonition.” [10] Aware of the potential for abuse, Owen provides four guidelines to help in determining what constitutes “a scandalous sin unrepented of.”

The sin must be “such as is owned to be such by all, without doubting, dispute, or hesitation.” [11] In other words, it must be clearly condemned in Scripture—“such as the Holy Ghost witnesseth, that, continued in without repentance, it is inconsistent with salvation.” [12] Similarly, Thomas Goodwin comments, “It is scandalous sin that is the matter of censure, sin judged so by common light, and received principles; sin that goes afore to judgment, that you may read afar off (1 Tim. 5:24). Doubtful disputations and sins controverted are not to be made the subject of church censures; for if the weak are not to be received to such, then neither are they to be cast out for such.” [13]

• The accused must admit to the sin. If not, the sin must be “clearly proved” so that the accused cannot deny it. [14] In short, there must not be any doubt as to the individual’s guilt in the matter.
• The accused must be admonished privately and publicly “with patient waiting for the success of each of them.” [15] The purpose of this “patient waiting” is to gauge obstinacy.
• The accused must be judged obstinate “by the whole church in love and compassion.” [16] This is important, as Owen explains, because “there are few who are so profligately wicked but that, when the sin wherewith they are charged is evidently such in the light of nature and Scripture, and when it is justly proved against them, they will make some profession of sorrow and repentance.” [17]

Doctrinal

Church discipline is also for those guilty of serious doctrinal error. [18] Owen remarks, “If the errors intended are about or against the fundamental truths of the gospel, so as that they that hold them cannot ‘hold the Head,’ but really make ‘shipwreck of the faith,’ no pretended usefulness of such persons, no peaceableness as unto outward deportment, which men guilty of such abominations will frequently cover themselves withal, can countenance the church in forbearing, after due admonition, to cut them off from their communion.” [19] False doctrine must be dealt with because it threatens the church like gangrene threatens the body.

In 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul urges Timothy to remain at Ephesus so that he can instruct certain men to cease from teaching strange doctrines. Paul means any teaching that is different from that of Christ and His apostles. These “strange doctrines” result in “mere speculation.” The Greek term is much stronger; it literally means “disputes” or “quarrels.” [20] In addition, these “strange doctrines” hinder “the administration of God which is by faith.” Rather than edify, these false teachers destroy. It is for this reason that Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan. This means that they were excommunicated from the church so that they might “learn not to blaspheme”—that they might repent of their error.

Behavioral

Finally, church discipline is for those who disrupt the peace of the church. When people insist on debating issues that are of secondary importance to the point that peace is threatened, they must be disciplined. [21] Owen states, “With respect unto such opinions, if men will, as is usual, wrangle and contend, to the disturbance of the peace of the church, or hinder it in any duty, with respect unto its own edification, and will neither peaceably abide in the church nor peaceably depart from it, they may and ought to be proceeded against with the censures of the church.” [22]

The “Preparation” For Church Discipline

The Puritans are careful to stress that church discipline must not be undertaken in a casual or careless manner. According to Owen, the church must prepare for the execution of discipline by cultivating a sense of “sin and scandal, with humiliation for it.” [23] He gives four additional guidelines. (1) We must assign all cases that are “dubious and disputable, wherein right and wrong are not easily determinable unto all unprejudiced persons that know the will of God in such things.” (2) We must rid ourselves of all “prejudice,” “partiality,” “provocation,” and “precipitation.” (3) We must “charge our consciences with the mind of Christ and what he would do himself in the case, considering his love, grace, mercy, and patience, with instances of his condescension which he gave us in this world.” (4) We must remember that “we also are in the flesh and liable to temptation; which may restrain and keep in awe that forwardness and confidence which some are apt to manifest in such cases.” [24]

In short, Owen is concerned that those involved in church discipline put on the mind of Christ. Elsewhere, he appeals to Christ’s example as our guide, commenting, “Meekness, patience, forbearance, and forgiveness, hiding, covering, removing of offense, are the footsteps of Christ…. Let, then, all tenderness of affection and bowels of compassion towards one another be put on amongst us, as becometh saints. Let pity, not envy; mercy, not malice; patience, not passion; Christ, not flesh; grace, not nature; pardon, not spite or revenge,—be our guides and companions in our conversations.” [25] This is an important point, given the fact that it is easy to execute discipline in a censorious and contemptuous spirit.

The “Warranty” For Church Discipline

Goodwin believes that Christ instituted three church ordinances: the proclamation of God’s Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the execution of discipline. [26] Owen agrees that discipline is the third mark of the church: “an express ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ…fully declared in the Scripture.” [27] He provides three proofs.

The first is Matthew 16:19, where Christ grants the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” to the church. Owen explains the significance as follows: “Seeing the design of Christ was, to have his church holy, unblamable, and without offence in the world, that therein he might make a representation of his own holiness and the holiness of his rule…—that design would not have been accomplished had he not given this authority unto his church to cast out and separate from itself all that do by their sins so give offence.”

The second proof text is Matthew 18:15-20, where Christ commands the church to excommunicate those who persist in sin. Owen remarks, “The rejection of an offending brother out of the society of the church, leaving him, as unto all the privileges of the church, in the state of a heathen, declaring him liable unto the displeasure of Christ and everlasting punishment, without repentance, is the excommunication we plead for; and the power of it, with its exercise, is here plainly granted by Christ and ordained in the church.”

The third proof text is 1 Corinthians 5:1-7, where Paul exhorts the church at Corinth to judge its own members. Regarding these verses, Owen writes:

He declares the cause of this excision:—(1) The supreme efficient cause of it is the power or authority of the Lord Jesus Christ instituting this ordinance in his church, giving right and power unto it for its administration in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with his power; (2) The declarative cause of the equity of this sentence, which was the spirit of the apostle, or the authoritative declaration of his judgment in the case; (3) The instrumental, ministerial cause of it, which is the church, “Do it ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together.’” [28]

The “Manner” Of Church Discipline

As for the manner of discipline, Owen maintains that it must be done “by an act of authority, with the consent of the whole church.” [29]

The Duty Of The Oversight

In the first place, this means that discipline is an act of church authority, exercised by the elders. “We may add hereunto,” explains Owen, “that the care of the preservation of the church in its purity, of the vindication of its honour, of the edification of all its members, of the correction and salvation of offenders, is principally incumbent on them, or committed unto them.… And therefore the omission of the exercise of it, when it was necessary, is charged as a neglect on the angels or rulers of the churches.” [30] Similarly, Goodwin says that elders are “to prevent and heal offences in life or doctrine.… The elders are to seek to heal it; for if it be not removed or reformed, it lies upon their heads.” [31] Clearly, the Puritans believe that elders are responsible for the execution of church discipline, and that elders will be held accountable for their failure to fulfil this duty.

The Duty Of The Church

However, Owen also makes the point that the church as a whole has a role to play in discipline. [32] Why? (1) It has a concern “in point of duty.” The members of a church are responsible for one another. They are also responsible for “the good, the honour, the reputation, and edification of the whole.” Owen adds, “They who are not concerned in these things are dead and useless members of the church.” (2) It has a concern “in point of interest.” The members of a church should be concerned lest they be defiled by sin. Tolerating scandalous sin will undermine their faith, love, and obedience. (3) It has a concern “in point of power.” The members of a church ultimately determine the efficacy of discipline. [33] Owen gives this reason why: “According as they concur and practise, so it is put in execution or suspended; for it is they who must withdraw communion from them, or the sentence is of no use or validity.”

The Procedure

As for the actual handling of church discipline, both Owen and Goodwin appeal to Matthew 18:15-20. Goodwin states: “We have order given for the degrees of proceedings in these [verses], as orderly as any law can make provision, for the indemnity of men innocent and just, proceeding in any civil court in order to amend men.” He proceeds to identify four steps. (1) If the sin is private, the individual is to be admonished privately. (2) If he refuses to listen, he is to be admonished by two or three church members. (3) If he still refuses to listen, he is to be admonished by the whole church. (4) If he still refuses to listen, he is to be cast out of the church. [34]

For his part, Owen identifies three “ingredients” that must accompany the above steps. (1) There must be prayer: “The administration of any solemn ordinance of the gospel without prayer is a horrible profanation of it; and the neglect or contempt hereof, in any who take upon them to excommunicate others, is an open proclamation of the nullity of their act and sentence.” [35] (2) There must be lamentation:

Compassion for the person offending, with respect unto that dangerous condition whereinto he hath cast himself, the excision of a member of the same body, with whom they have had communion in the most holy mysteries of divine worship and sat down at the table of the Lord, with a due sense of the dishonour of the gospel by his fall, ought to ingenerate this mourning or lamentation in the minds of them who are concerned in the execution of the sentence; nor is it advisable for any church to proceed thereunto before they are so affected. [36]

(3) There must be “a due sense of the future judgment of Christ.” Owen declares, “Woe to them who dare pronounce this sentence without a persuasion, on good grounds, that it is the sentence of Christ himself!” [37]

The “Effect” Of Church Discipline

Owen acknowledges the view of those who put forward two sorts of excommunication: “the one they call the ‘lesser,’ and the other the ‘greater.’” [38] The “lesser” includes suspension from the Lord’s Supper, whereas the “greater” includes separation from the church. [39] For Owen, however, there is only one sort of church discipline: “segregation from all participation in church-order, worship, and privileges.” It has two aspects: privative and positive. [40]

Privative

The privative aspect is, in the words of Owen, “a total separation from the privileges of the church.” [41] This “total separation” is essential because it: (1) testifies to “our condemnation of the sin and disapprobation of the person guilty of it”; (2) guards us “from all kinds of participation in his sin”; and (3) makes “him ashamed of himself, that if he be not utterly profligate and given up unto total apostasy, it may occasion in him thoughts of returning.” [42]

Positive

The positive aspect, according to Goodwin, “imports something… distinct from and including more in it than ejection out of the church. It imports a giving up a person to receive a positive punishment from Satan.” [43] The Apostle Paul seems to imply just that in 1 Corinthians 5:5, where he declares, “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.” For Owen, this does not refer to “the destruction of his body by death,” but to “the mortification of the flesh.” [44] By way of further clarification, Owen states:

The gathering of men into the church by conversion is the “turning of them from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18); a “delivery from the power of darkness,”—that is, the kingdom of Satan,—and a translation into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). Wherefore, after a man hath, by faith and his conjunction unto a visible church, been translated into the kingdom of Christ, his just rejection out of it is the re-delivery of him into the visible kingdom of Satan; which is all that is here intended…. And this, if there be any spark of ingenuous grace left in him, will be effectually operative, by shame, grief, and fear, unto his humiliation, especially understanding that the design of Christ and his church herein is only his repentance and restoration. [45]

The “End” Of Church Discipline

Owen stresses three ends or purposes in church discipline. [46]

For The Individual

The first is for the individual; namely, “his repentance, reformation, and salvation.” For this reason, Owen affirms that discipline must always seek to be “corrective, not vindictive,—for healing, not destruction.” [47] When exercised properly, it is one of the principal means by which the Holy Spirit works to bring about repentance. As Owen observes, “Wherefore this delivery unto Satan is an ordinance of Christ for the exciting of saving grace in the souls of men, adapted unto the case of falling by scandalous sins, peculiarly effectual, above any other gospel ordinance.” [48]

For The World

The second “end” is for the world. God’s chosen people are to reflect His holiness to unbelievers. [49] Jonathan Edwards remarks, “If strict discipline, and thereby strict morals, were maintained in the church, it would in all probability be one of the most powerful means of conviction and conversion towards those who are without.” [50]

For The Church

The third and principal “end,” according to Owen, is for the church; namely, “its purging and vindication.” Another well-known Puritan, Richard Baxter, notes, “The principal use of this public discipline is not for the offender himself, but for the Church. It tendeth exceedingly to deter others from the like crimes, and so to keep the congregation and their worship pure.” [51] By way of example, the Puritans appeal to 1 Timothy 5:19-20. The context is accusations against elders. If an accusation is true, then the elder is to be rebuked in the presence of all. This public rebuke serves three purposes. (1) It gives him an opportunity to repent. (2) It protects the testimony of the church. (3) It serves as an example. In other words, it imparts to believers an acute awareness of the gravity of sin and its consequences. Owen sees the same “end” in all cases of church discipline. [52]

Conclusion

It is precisely this view of discipline as a means of grace that has been lost today. Because of this loss, the church has robbed itself of one of the principal means by which the Holy Spirit cultivates holiness among God’s people. For Owen, the absence of church discipline is tantamount to neglecting the proclamation of the Word (the first mark of the church) or the administration of the sacraments (the second mark of the church). If today’s church is to fulfill its calling to convey God’s holiness to the world, it must recapture the third mark: the practice of biblical church discipline.

Notes

1. Art Azurdia, “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” Reformation and Revival 3 (1994):61-79.
2. Albert Mohler, “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):16. Mark Dever identifies two important facets to church discipline: accepting members (i.e., what he calls “closing the front door”); and disciplining members (i.e., what he calls “opening the back door”). Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Washington: Center for Church Reform, 2001), 44-45. It is worth noting the causal relationship between the two; namely, a more careful approach to “closing the front door” would drastically minimize the need for “opening the back door.” It is also worth noting the need for both “formative” (i.e., instruction) and “corrective” discipline. According to Don Cox, “Church discipline is, in actuality, a binary concept rooted in Scripture that seeks to accomplish at least four goals… (1) to build a regenerate church membership; (2) to mature believers in the faith; (3) to strengthen the church for evangelism and the engagements of culture; and (4) to protect the church from inner decay.” “The Forgotten Side of Church Discipline,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):44.
3. For helpful treatments of this subject, see Jay E. Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986); J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985); and Daniel E. Wray, Biblical Church Discipline (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1978).
4. George Swinnock, Fading of the Flesh and Flourishing of the Faith; or, One cast for eternity: with the only way to throw it well: as also the gracious persons incomparable portion (1662) in The Works of George Swinnock, ed. James Nichol (London, 1868; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992), 3:416.
5. Swinnock, Fading of the Flesh, 1:102.
6. John Calvin sets these “means” within the context of the church. The fourth book of his Institutes is devoted to “the external means or aims by which God invites us into the society of Christ and holds us therein.” Calvin writes, “As explained in the previous book, it is by faith in the gospel that Christ becomes ours and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness brought by him. Since, however, in our ignorance and sloth (to which I add fickleness of disposition) we need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance it to its goal, God has also added these aids that he may provide for our weakness.” Institutes of the Christian Religion in The Library of Christian Classics: Vol. XX-XXI, ed. J. T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.1.1. Among these means, Calvin includes “the discipline of the church.” Institutes 4.12.1-28. For a discussion of Calvin’s view, see Robert White, “Oil and Vinegar: Calvin on Church Discipline,” Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (1985):25; and Timothy Fulop, “The Third Mark of the Church?—Church Discipline in the Reformed and Anabaptist Reformations,” The Journal of Religious History 19 (1995):26-42.
7. Jonathan Edwards, The Nature and End of Excommunication in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (1834; rpt., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 2:121.
8. John Owen, The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government in The Works of John Owen (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 16:161.
9. Mohler labels these three: fidelity of doctrine; purity of life; and unity of fellowship. “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” 24-25.
10. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:167.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Thomas Goodwin, The Government of the Churches of Christ in The Works of Thomas Goodwin (London: James Nichol, 1861; rpt., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 11:48.
14. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:168.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 16:169.
17. Ibid.
18. See 1 Tim. 1:19-20, Titus 3:10-11, and Rev. 2:2, 6, 14-15, 20.
19. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:179.
20. See 1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9.
21. See Rom. 14:1-3; Phil. 3:15-16.
22. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:180.
23. Ibid., 16:161.
24. Ibid., 16:182.
25. John Owen, Eshcol; A Cluster of the Fruit of Canaan, brought to the borders for the encouragement of the saints traveling thitherward, with their Faces towards Zion: or, Rules of Direction for the Walking of the Saints in Fellowship, according to the Order of the Gospel in The Works of John Owen (London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 13:72.
26. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:43-44. This view of the three marks of the church appears to go back to the Belgic Confession (1561): “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church” (Article 29).
27. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:159.
28. Ibid., 16:159-160.
29. Ibid., 16:161. This is a problem today. Why? As Gregory Wills points out, “Churches in practice deny their authority to judge the belief and behavior of individual members.” “Southern Baptists and Church Discipline,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000): 4. Wills attributes the cause to “an expansive individualism.” Mohler also attributes the decline to Christianity’s “moral individualism.” “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” 16.
30. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:165-166.
31. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:507.
32. Azurdia observes, “Gone is the idea that Christians are ‘one body in Christ, and individually members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5). Church members have little regard for the fact that they are a part of a whole.” “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” 74.
33. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:166-167.
34. Goodwin, Government of the Churches, 11:48-49.
35. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:169. Here, Owen appeals to Christ’s words in Matthew 18:18-20, where He gives the power of binding and loosing to the church, directing its members to ask assistance in prayer. It is important to note that the actions described in heaven are future perfect passives, which could be translated, “will have already been bound in heaven…will already have been loosed in heaven.” In other words, the heavenly decree confirming the earthly one is based on a prior verdict. “When the person refuses to turn from sin after repeated loving confrontation, the church by disciplining the person simply recognizes the spiritual reality that is already true in God’s sight.” Craig Keener in W. D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 121. Azurdia makes the same observation: “It becomes apparent that this is not a carte blanche promise that heaven will ratify the decisions of the church, but more significantly, that when the church carries out this work on earth her decisions will reflect the will of God in heaven.” “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” 69-70.
36. Ibid., 16:170.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 16:165.
39. According to Owen, a suspension from the Lord’s Supper may be an “act of prudence in church-rule, to avoid offence and scandal,” but it is not an institution.
40. These are Edwards’s expressions. Nature and End of Excommunication, 2:118-120.
41. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:161. See Matt. 5:17; 1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 9, 11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10.
42. Ibid., 16:181. The common objection to such treatment is that it is unloving. However, as Thomas Schreiner notes, “Discipline is not contrary to love, but an expression of love, when properly applied.… Associating with or even eating with a person under discipline is banned (1 Cor. 5:9,11), for such fellowship would communicate that nothing serious has happened. Relating to the person as usual would display a lack of love, betraying apathy about the person’s salvation. If we see someone who is about to wander over a cliff and destroy himself, it is unloving to say nothing and watch that person plunge to destruction.” “Loving Discipline,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):2.
43. Goodwin, Government of the Churches of Christ, 11:44.
44. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:161.
45. Ibid., 16:163.
46. Dever identifies five reasons for practicing church discipline: (1) for the good of the person disciplined (1 Cor. 5:1-5); (2) for the good of the other Christians, as they see the danger of sin (1 Tim. 5:20); (3) for the health of the church as a whole (1 Cor. 5:6-8); (4) for the corporate witness of the church (Matt. 5:16; John 13:34-35; 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Pet. 2:2); and (5) for the glory of God as we reflect His holiness (Eph. 5:25-32; Heb. 12:10-14; 1 Pet. 1:15-16; 2:9-12; 1 John 3:2-3). “Biblical Church Discipline,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 (2000):40-41.
47. Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, 16:171.
48. Ibid., 16:162.
49. See Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 2:9-12.
50. Edwards, Nature and End of Excommunication, 2:121. According to Dever, “Undisciplined churches have actually made it harder for people to hear the Good News of new life in Jesus Christ.” “Biblical Church Discipline,” 34.
51. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (1656; rpt., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 105.
52. Azurdia states, “When a church takes seriously the injunction to confront sin, its very commitment to the process will engender a deeper holiness within the assembly. It has the beneficial effect of prompting continual self-examination, of reminding all members of their own propensity toward sin, and warning them of its consequences if left unconfessed.” “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” 73.