Power to discipline, in the churches.

reason, that it was the prerogative of the church to choose its own officers; and the apostles dared not go beyond their "measure," the bounds which Christ had given them. See 2 Cor. 10: 13-15.

But if it was the right and privilege of the church at Jerusalem-formed by the apostles themselves, and under their special supervision and instruction-to choose their own officers, can this right and privilege be denied to any church founded on the same general principles, and composed of the same materials? And if the APOSTLES were not authorized to control the churches in these matters, who is he that shall now claim this authority?

In 1 Cor. 5: 1-8, we have Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth, to discipline, and even to excommunicate an offending member: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ" [being present to sanction your doings, I direct or advise you] "to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." **"know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump."

Is it not perfectly evident, that the Corinthian church are here directed to perform an act of discipline of the highest and most solemn character? even to cut off one of their own members, and cast him from them, as a heathen man and a publican?

See also, 2 Cor. 2:6-11, where Paul gives intimations to the church respecting their duty to the incestuous person, after his repentance for his sin : sufficient," says he, to such a man is this punishment, WHICH WAS INFLICTED

66

Paul recognizes this authority of the churches.

OF MANY," [that is, by a vote of the church] so that ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him. * * * * Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him" (that is, by restoring him to your favor and communion). The apostle does not here speak as one having the key of the Corinthian church; but contrariwise; as one who recognized the power "of the many," (vñò tãv theióvæv, of the majority of the church) to act in He does not command the church to restore the penitent; but he beseeches them much less does he presume to restore the excommunicated person by the authority vested in himself as a minister of the gospel of Christ.

the matter.

In view of these facts, the inquiry arises: If the church at Corinth were authorized to perform this most solemn and most important of all ecclesiastical acts, were they not empowered to transact all appropriate church business? And if Paul himself, "the chiefest of the apostles,” did not presume to act for the church, but contented himself with directing them how to act for themselves—not in his name, nor by his authority, but in the name of the Lord Jesus. Christ, and by His authority-then, surely, no person has a right to control and dictate a church; but the power to act authoritatively must rest in the church alone, assembled together in the name, and by the authority of Jesus Christ.

Another passage of Scripture, which seems to us as unquestionable evidence of the correctness of the principle under consideration, and not less so, of another fundamental point in the Congregational system, is Matt. 18: 15-18; where the great Head of the Church gives his disciples particular directions how to proceed in cases of

Christ's directions to his churches about discipline.

trespass and offence among them: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more; that in the "mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven "* that is, your doings as a church on earth, shall be ratified by me in heaven.

If in this passage, the keys of the church are not put into the hands of the church-if the power to discipline, and even to excommunicate (the most important of all church acts) is not committed to the associated brethren, here called the church - then there is no meaning in

words.

With what show of reason, then, can it be maintained, that the power of excommunication is here given to the the apostles; and, "in a qualified sense, may apply to Christian teachers, in all ages;"* especially, when it is admitted, by the same critic, that "tell it to the church," (sine tn éxxλnoia) must mean to the particular congregation to which you both, respectively, belong.

What unprejudiced reader of the Savior's directions

* See an excellent sermon upon this text by Dr. Emmons, in which he terms the passage-"The platform of ecclesiastical government, established by the Lord Jesus Christ."

† See Bloomfield's New Test, in loc.

Congregationalists alone can follow these directions.

will think of denying that the power to bind and loose, to receive and to excommunicate, is here expressly given to the church, as such; that is, to the "particular congregation" of believers to which the trespasser and complainant respectively belong; and, not to the apostles, as such, or to Christian teachers only ?

Admitting the Congregational principle, that every company of believers, who have entered into covenant engagements for church purposes is a complete church, and authorized to transact all business independently of the authoritative control or direction of any person or body of men whatever-admitting this, and the directions of the Savior in Matt. xviii. are all easily understood and obeyed. But, denying this principle, how can we proceed in cases of trespass s? Who, and what is "the church," to which we are ultimately to carry our cause; and whose decision is to be final? If the apostles alone were intended, by the direction" tell it to the church," then, there is no one now authorized to settle difficulties between church members; yea, church discipline is out of the question; every member may walk as seemeth right in his own eyes, with none to say, 'why do ye so? Who can believe that Christ has left his church in such a condition? The great Head of the Church knew that "offences must needs come." He knew, too, that a church could not long continue an organized and religious body, separate from the world, if destitute of power to "purge out" the leaven of impurity, which would inevitably infuse itself into the mass. Knowing all this, can we believe that he has neglected to provide an effectual remedy? We cannot. This remedy is pointed out, in the 18th chap. of Matt. Here we have an infallible guide, unto which, if we take heed, we shall do well.

Officers of the church, or "church session," not "the church."

But it may be said, that this disciplinary power is lodged with the teachers of the church, as the successors of the apostles. Then I ask; what, if a church be destitute of a teacher, as some of our churches are for a succession of years? What then becomes of discipline?

But suppose, to avoid this difficulty, it be said, that the power to discipline offenders should be committed to a Church Session ?"* Why, then, it may be asked, did Paul direct the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:) to "gather together” in order to pass an act of excommunication upon the incestuous person? Why were not his instructions addressed to the officers of the church alone? Is it not as clear, that the apostle directed "the church which was in Corinth"-that is, "them that were sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Cor. 1: 2), to perform this act of discipline, as it is, that his epistle was directed to the church as a body, and not to the officers merely? And if so, then have we evidence from the Scriptures, that the power and right to exercise Christian discipline, were anciently vested in the congregated church alone; and that neither the elders of the church, nor the representatives of the body, could act independently of the brethren who constituted the church. This is a principle of our system : that, so far as the management of its own affairs are concerned, every church should be an independent republic;

"The Church Session consists of the Pastor or Pastors, and the Ruling Elders of a Presbyterian Congregation. (See Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 18mo. p. 388. Phil. 1821.) This body is constructively, the church or the congregation. Dr. Campbell's remark upon such sort of churches is worth repeating: "The notion *** of a church representative, how commonly soever it has been received, is a mere usurper" ***Lectures on Ecc. History, Lect. 10. p. 166.