We ought to remember what we are in ourselves, when we talk about exercising discipline—it is an amazingly solemn thing. When I reflect that I am a poor sinner, saved by mere mercy, standing only in Jesus Christ for acceptance, in myself vile, it is evidently an awful thing to take discipline into my own hands. Who can judge save God? This is my first thought. But we are bound to be clear of evil in God's way.
Here I stand as nothing in the midst of persons dear to the Lord, whom I must look upon and esteem better than myself, in the consciousness of my own sinfulness and nothingness before the Lord, and to talk of exercising discipline! It is a very solemn thought indeed to my own mind; it presses on me peculiarly. Only one thing gets me out of that feeling, and that is the prerogative of love. When love is really in exercise, it cares for nothing but the accomplishment of its object. Look at it in the Lord Jesus; no matter what stood in the way, on He went. This is the only thing that can rightly relieve the spirit from the sense of an altogether false position in the exercise of discipline. The moment I get out of that, it is a monstrous thing. Though the subject matter of conduct he righteousness., that which sets it going is love—love in exercise to secure, at all cost of pain to itself, the blessing of holiness in the church. It is not a position of superiority in the flesh (see Matthew 23:8-118But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matthew 23:8‑11)). The character of discipline as master we have not at all. Though influenced by love to maintain righteousness, and stimulated to a jealous, watchful care one over another, we must ever remember that, after all, “to his own master” our brother “standeth or falleth” (Romans 14:44Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)). Love alone guides it, and the service of love displays it; but love that must have holiness, the true character of divine love. We do see that character of discipline in the Lord Jesus, when He took a scourge of small cords to drive out the desecrators of the temple (Matthew 21; John 2); but it was anticipative of another character of Christ, when He will execute judgment.
There are two or three kinds of discipline full of comfort, as showing the association of the individual with the whole body, and with God, which have been ordinarily confounded amongst Christians.
There is in this country a great deal more difficulty connected with the question of discipline than elsewhere, because of certain habits of action whereby discipline has come to be looked at merely as a deliberative and judicial act. Persons have been voluntarily associated, and there has been a habit of legislating for the credit of the voluntarily associated body. Because people must secure themselves, each society makes its own rules. Now, that principle is as far from the truth as the world from the church, or light from darkness. One cannot admit of any principle of voluntary association at all, or of preservative rules of one's own. Man's will is that which brings in everlasting destruction. It may be modified, but the principle is altogether false. There is no such thing as voluntary action on man's part in the things of God, it is acting under Christ by the Spirit. The moment I get man's will, I get the devil's service, and not Christ's. This has occasioned a mass of practical difficulty that those abroad do not feel. When I get the notion of a judicial process going on for the trial of crime by certain laws, I find myself altogether off the ground of grace: I have confounded all sorts of things.
The developed statement of Matthew 18:15-1715Moreover 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. 16But 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. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15‑17), though often cited, does not seem to touch the matter. It is a question of wrong done to a brother; and it is never said, concerning the one who has done the wrong, that the church is to put him out, but “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” This may have to be the case as to the church subsequently, but it is not its character: here it is simply, “Let him be unto thee,” etc.—have nothing more to do with him. It supposes a case of wrong done to an individual, as in the trespass-offering, where it is said, “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbor,” etc. There is the sovereignty of grace to forgive, even to the “seventy times seven” ; but “thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.” An individual has wronged me, how am I to act? I go not to the Father's discipline, nor to the Son's discipline over His own house; but, acting towards him in the love of the brotherhood, I go, and say, “Brother, thou hast done me wrong,” etc. There is, first of all, this remonstrance in righteousness, yet the path is such that it may not get out of the scope of grace. Having done this, if he will not hear me, I take with me one or two more, “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses,” etc. If that fails, I then tell it to the whole assembly. If he refuse to hear the church, “let him he unto thee,” etc. The thing prescribed is a course of individual conduct, and the result individual position towards another. It may come to a case of church discipline, but not necessarily. I go hoping to gain my brother, through repentance, to replace him in his right relation in fellowship with myself and God. (Where there is failure in brotherly love, it necessarily affects communion with the Father). If my brother is gained, it goes no further, it ought never to pass my lips; the church knows nothing of it, or any other creature but we two. If there is failure, I act to restore him in fellowship to all.
As to the discipline of the Father, there is a great deal more of individual prerogative of grace in this. I doubt whether it comes under the care of a body of Christians at all; it is individual exercise of care. I do not sec that the church stands in the place of the Father. The idea of superiority is true, in a certain sense: there is difference of grace as well as of gift. If I have more holiness, I must go and restore my brother (Galatians 6:11Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)). But then this individual action in grace is not church discipline. It is most important to keep these things clear and distinct, so that, whilst one is quite ready to be subject to the two or three, individual energy should not be at all restrained, but remain clear and untouched. The Holy Ghost must have all His liberty. I could suppose a case where an individual had to go and rebuke all round, as Timothy: “Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering,” &c. (2 Timothy 4:22Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)). That is discipline; but the church has nothing to do with it; it is individual action. But, again, the church may be forced to exercise discipline, as in the case of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5). The Corinthians were not the least prepared to exercise discipline, but the apostle insists upon their doing so. There is that which is the individual exercise of the energy of the Spirit, in the ministry of grace and truth and the like on the souls of others, and church action not at all involved. It is a mischief to make church discipline the only discipline. It would be a most awful thing, if it were necessary to bring every evil before all. It is not the tendency of charity to bring evil into public. “Charity covers a multitude of sins.” If it sees a brother sin a sin which is not unto death, it goes and Prays for him, and the sin may never come out as a question of church discipline at all. I believe there is never a case of church discipline but to the shame of the whole body. In writing to the Corinthians Paul says, “Ye have not mourned,” &c.: they were identified with it all. Like some sore on a man's body, it tells of the disease of the body, of the constitutional condition. The assembly is never prepared, or in the place, to exercise discipline, unless having first identified itself with the sin of the individual. if it does not do it in that way it takes a judicial form, and that will not be the ministration of the grace of Christ. Christ has not yet taken His full judicial place. The moment it comes to that, the saying, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still,” &c., the church has departed from its place altogether. Its priestly character in the present dispensation is one of grace. [J. N. D.]
(To be continued)