Simple Suspension – H. Bouwman quoting G. Voetius
Translator’s note:The following is an English translation of a section found in H. Bouwman’s commentary Gereformeerd Kerkrecht (1934), in which he quotes extensively from G. Voetius Politica Ecclesiastica (1663). Voetius was the youngest member of the Synod of Dort and is considered to be the father of Dutch Reformed (aka “Dort”) polity.
This translation was prepared from the Dutch original. Most of this consists of a Dutch translation of the Latin original. To preserve original nuance, the translation tends to be “form equivalent”.
Voetius deals with this matter in the chapter “the simple abstention” (de simplici abstentione) (Politica Ecclesiastica IV. 859.). He distinguishes between two abstentions:
“the one which is of a punitive, chastisive or disciplining nature, and the other which is simple and admonishing, as a precaution. The first actually and directly belongs to the key of discipline, and is the greater or lesser banishment, which is also called the excommunication, which can only be done by the judgment of the consistory, because of a serious and well-known matter, connected with obstinacy, or because of obstinacy alone and constant contempt of the exhortation and rebuke of the church, though otherwise the matter, or the essence of the fact, is not so serious in itself, or considered in itself. The second is twofold: when someone of his own accord abstains himself, or when the debarment is imposed on him by the consistory.
The first is the case when a person of his own accord or by conscientious objection, by unrest or inner division, or in the case of a predetermined time, for reflection or for purification of himself; or so that, in order to prevent or halt irritation, schism and other things to be feared or calamities that threaten the church, he abstains once and again of his own accord, and makes this known to the church council or to its deputies [i.e. ward elder]. In addition, if a man testifies strongly to his innocence in the case of a false rumor, or of a bad talk or a wrong accusation, especially in the case of an accusation in court, but still according to the counsel of the church or according to the judgment and free choice of his own conscience, to the greater honor of religion and church, and chooses voluntary abstinence to prevent annoyance and damage.
The second case occurs when the consistory imposes abstaining from the Lord’s Supper on someone in different cases. These cases include:
1º when someone confesses before the consistory about a known scandalous act and gives satisfaction in every way, but, because it is such a serious and shameful crime, and has just been committed, he is kept for a certain time for the greater edification and honor of the church.
2º If someone does repent and offers to have confession and satisfaction imposed on him by the consistory, but, because of the limited time (e.g. when only a few days remain for the administration of the Lord’s Supper) all these matters cannot be properly deliberated and decided in the church council, let alone that the church can warn against the scandals that have arisen in a timely and sufficiently open manner, access to the Lord’s Supper must be postponed.
3º When a person has relapsed into a habitual sin, or, after being struck the same stone once and again, and after confession, relapses again. In this case he is cautiously held back, and put to trial for some time, and it is awaited whether he will fight vigorously and earnestly against that sin, and by contrary acts of virtue will blot out the offenses committed. In the old church, because of a transient and once committed sin, they kept the penitents from six or ten or fifteen years, which our churches do not want to approve in all parts, or at least do not want to imitate.
4º When a fact is not known, but the consistory is engaged in the first investigation, as often takes place in the case of anger and of a quarrel or dispute about a matter, or when someone has wronged another, or there has been slander on both sides, while both parties try to plead innocence and to throw the blame and offense on the other.
5º When someone is accused of a crime of which he has been accused by rumor or murmur or by an accusation, or by an accusation before the secular court, sufficiently and ecclesiastically purges himself before the church council, but his case is still pending. in the public court, whether the rumor still has too strong an effect and finds faith everywhere among the members of the church and among the fellow believers; or, if less so here, then at least among the fellow believers in other places and among the enemies of the church, it is safe and desirable to keep him from partaking of the Lord’s Supper for this time.
6º When there is fear and immediate danger of schism, or of open confusion in the church, should the accused or accused brother (although his innocence is sufficiently established by the consistory) be admitted to the Lord’s table at this time.
7º When someone, for just reason punished and admonished by the consistory, to the sincere acknowledgment of his sin, as far as quality and quantity is concerned, and even to a proper and due improvement, cannot yet be brought to a proper and due improvement, but in the meantime does not formally despise the admonition. Therefore, the consistory continues to consider him as an accused for the time being and does not give him satisfaction regarding the fact. This simple abstention takes place, and is not an application of discipline.
8º One can also bring back to this all those cases in which some who are authorized to take the Lord’s Supper have not yet been received, or some believers are not yet restored to their right of access to the Lord’s Supper after a general estrangement as a result of schism and errors, as, for example, when doubts arise about their doctrine and life among some, or believers, or those who are outside; or when the reception or restoration of one or the other causes disturbances, divisions, dispersions, etc., of a church or of the churches.
And these and other cases, taken from the midst of the daily practice of our churches (to which other and superior may certainly be added), prove conclusively that there is a certain withholding of the Lord’s Supper, or of certain acts of the Church’s ministry for the present (for instance, from the holding of meetings, or from the administration of the Lord’s Supper, or of voting in the church council or of visiting the congregation before the administration of the Lord’s Supper, or of the open collection of alms in the church) which is not formally and properly censure, nor punishment, nor discipline, nor the great or the small banishment, usually called suspensio (withholding). The reason for this is that the church does not punish without investigation, and does not judge worthy of any discipline him who either declares himself ready for the requested penance and confession, or offers himself for due justification, or begins to give it, if he does not yet provide it, at least of the guilt, or is not yet convinced of the offense given.”
From the above it is clear that there is a withholding of the Lord’s Supper by the church council, which is part of the disciplinary exercise of the church, but does not yet fall under the banishment. As long as a matter has not yet been properly investigated, there can be no question of discipline in the proper sense of the word, but it may be necessary that someone, in order to avoid offense, refrain from himself or be withheld by the consistory. Whether someone may go to the Lord’s Supper in such a case does not ultimately depend on the choice of the member of the congregation concerned, but on the consistory, which has to keep watch with the holy matters of the Lord, and has to watch tenderly, both for the salvation of the congregation and the honor of God, and for the good name, the honor and spiritual well-being of the members of the congregation.