The Power of the Church.

IN almost every age there has been a diversity of opinion as to the power of the Church of Christ on earth. This diversity of opinion is brought very prominently to our notice in the history of the Church in our own land since the time of the Reformation. Romanists claim that the Church is above the State and that the Pope has the right to depose Kings and remove governments, in virtue of his claim to be the head of the Church. Erastians maintain that the Church is the creature of the State, and that the power of discipline and government in the Church is committed to the office-bearers of the Church by the civil magistrate. It was round this view that the controversy raged in the Church of Scotland during what is known as “The Ten Years Conflict,” and which ended in the Disruption of 1843. The Scriptural view is that the Church and State are two different realms, the one having spiritual power and the other temporal power. This is the view held by the Westminster Assembly of Divines and set forth in the Confession of Faith, Chapter xxx., Section i., “The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church-officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.” It is this very independence of each other which causes the Church and State to enter into friendly co-operation and this friendly co-operation can only be based on “a legal recognition, on the part of the

State, of the freedom and powers of the Church; and a confession of its faith on the part of the Church, for the satisfaction and security of the State.” In such an agreement there would require to be a recognition on the part of the State that the Church with its authority, order, and government owes its origin to Christ as Mediator, while, on its part the Church would require to recognise that the State owes its origin to God as the universal Ruler among the nations.

Having so far noticed the distinctive place which belongs to the Church in the world we are naturally led to enquire as to the nature of that power which belongs to it. Briefly, this power is comprehended in the preaching of the Word, the government of the Church and the exercise of discipline. In these three aspects of Church power we have not been left to the opinions of men as to what is involved in them. We are told that, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.—II. Tim., iii., 16. The Church is empowered by its Divine Head to proclaim the doctrines set forth in these inspired Scriptures to immortal souls. Church government is not vested in one man in a congregation or a church, and, therefore, the whole tenor of Scripture on this question is contrary to the arrogant claim of the Pope of Rome to be the head of the Church and the vicar of Christ on earth. Neither does it give countenance to the government of the church by Councils which are altogether clerical to the exclusion of the laity, but indicates that the whole church ought to be represented in these councils or courts which have to do with the government of the church. Discipline which concerns the admission to, or exclusion from the privileges of the Church is part of the power of the Church, delegated to it by Christ, and in the exercise of that power the Church has the right to deal with offenders, admonishing, censuring, or excluding them from the ordinances of the Church. The Church of Rome claims to have the power to cast out of the Church and literally deliver to the devil offenders against its authority, and wherever that apostate church has the temporal power it makes sure, by taking away the lives of those

whom it anathematises, that there will be no possibility of their becoming reconciled to the church. This, however, is contrary to the Word of God for we find in the case of the incestuous man in Corinth, who was under the sentence of the greater excommunication, that the Apostle Paul writes, “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.”—II. Cor. ii., 6, 7.

This part of the power of the Church is known as “the power of the keys” because it admits to or excludes from sealing ordinances. In the language of A. A. Hodge, “Church censures declare simply what is, to the best of their knowledge, in the opinion of the church officers pronouncing them, the mind and will of Christ in the case.”—Commentary on the Confession of Faith, page 370. Christ said to Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This was said to Peter as an apostle and elder, and, therefore, to all the other apostles, and to the other office-bearers of the Church of Christ after them to the end of time. The exercise of discipline, therefore, is a very solemn matter, for when it is done on Scriptural grounds it is ratified in heaven so that neither church courts nor the individuals upon whom it is exercised should think lightly of it. What is bound in heaven as the result of a Scriptural exercise of the power of the keys can never be loosed in heaven until the cause has been taken away for which the binding took place. Numerous instances come to our mind in this connection where men and women had been Scripturally bound by the courts of our own Church, and on going over to the Free Church they were given church privileges without even enquiring why they had left, thus professing to loose what could not be loosed in heaven. On this score the Free Church has much to answer for in the matter of drugging the conscience of many individuals and deluding them into the view that, because they got baptism

or had been allowed to sit at the Lord’s Table, they were free from Church censure. This is done with the view of gathering congregations and adding to communion rolls, which, after all, is a very worldly consideration. Woe betide the man, or the set of men who will thus, for worldly considerations, sell the privileges of the Church of Christ to the worldly, the profane, and the backslider who has become a reproach to the Cause of Christ, and added to his other sins by becoming a fugitive from discipline. Any branch of the professing church which seeks to keep as close as possible to the Word of God and and to a Scriptural practice is not at any loss in losing such men and women, or in remaining separate from branches of the Church which receive them in such an unscriptural manner. This leads us to notice the manner in which church power is Scripturally exercised.

In the Presbyterian Church the exercise of church power is to be carried out by Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies. That this is in accordance with Scripture is amply clear, and although the supporters of both Episcopacy and Independency have opposed it yet they have utterly failed on Scripture grounds to overthrow it. The members of these different courts are office-bearers of the church and in these courts they take their part in exercising the authority and power of the church, but outside a church court they have no power to exercise church discipline or any other part of the power of the church, except in so far as that is delegated to them in peculiar circumstances by the court of which they are members. A minister, for instance, who may break away from any Presbyterian denomination, and for want of the requisite number of office-bearers to form a quorum is unable to have a church court, proceeds to admit to church privileges, or shut out from privileges, has publicly renounced Presbyterianism, (1) Because, under Presbyterianism, church power can only be exercised by a regularly constituted court. (2) An individual professing to exercise church power constitutes himself into a pontiff from whose decisions there is no power of appeal.

Church power in connection with discipline serves a useful

purpose. The Westminster Divines say, “Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren: for deterring of others from the like offences; for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump; for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.”—Confession of Faith, Chap. xxx. Sect. iii. This is in accordance with what Calvin says, “Discipline, therefore, serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory, who resist the doctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and sometimes as a father’s rod, with which those who have grievously fallen may be chastised in mercy and with the gentleness of the Spirit of Christ. These ends of discipline ought to be seriously considered by churches in our day when all and sundry are allowed to make a public profession of religion. The church has ceased to exercise its power, and the door is left wide open for poor deluded sinners to go and eat and drink damnation to themselves. Those who thus leave the door wide open would do well to consider the words of one of the ancient Fathers of the Church, “Blood shall be required at your hands. If ye fear man, he will deride you; if you fear God, you will also be honoured among men. Let us not be afraid of sceptres or diadems, or imperial robes; we have here a great power. As for myself, I will rather give up my body to death, and suffer my blood to be shed, than I will be a partaker of this pollution.”