The new economy, Peter was privileged to open both to Jew and Gentile. This he did in his address to the Jews, in Acts 2, and in his address to the Gentiles, Acts 10. But again we would draw attention to the fact, that the Church, or the assembly of God, and the kingdom of heaven, are not the same thing. Let us be clear, in starting, as to this fundamental point. The identifying the two things has produced great confusion of thought and may be viewed as the origin of puseyism, popery, and every human system in Christendom. The following remarks on “the tare field,” from a recent publication, bear directly on this subject, though they refer to a later period than the early chapters of the Acts.
The parable of the tares Matt. 13:24, 2524Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. (Matthew 13:24‑25). ‘Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way’—exactly what is become of the profession of Christ. There are two things necessary for the inroad of evil among Christians. The first is the unwatchfullness of the Christians themselves. They get into a careless state, they sleep, and the enemy comes and sows tares. This began at an early epoch in Christendom. We find the germs even in the Acts of the Apostles, and still more so in the epistles. 1 Thessalonians is the first inspired epistle that the apostle Paul wrote; and the second was written shortly after. And yet he tells them that the mystery of iniquity was already at work; that there were other things to follow, such as the apostasy and the man of sin, and that when the lawlessness should be fully manifest (instead of working secretly), then the Lord would put an end to the lawless one and all concerned. The mystery of iniquity seems akin to the sowing of the tares spoken of here. Sometime after, ‘when the blade was sprung up and brought forth fruit’—when Christianity began to make rapid strides in the earth—‘then appeared the tares also.’ But it is evident the tares wore sown almost immediately after the good seed. No matter what the work of God is, Satan is always close upon its heels. When man was made, he listened to the serpent, and fell. When God gave the law, it was broken even before it was committed into the hands of Israel. Such is always the history of human nature.
“So the mischief is clone in the field, and never repaired. The tares are not for the present taken out of the field: there is no judgment of them. Does this mean that we are to have tares in the Church? If the kingdom of heaven meant the Church, there ought to be no discipline at all: you ought to allow uncleanness of flesh or spirit there. Here is the importance of seeing the distinction between the Church and the kingdom. The Lord forbids the tares to be taken out of the kingdom of heaven: ‘Let both grow together until the harvest’ (ver. 30), that is, till the Lord comes in judgment. Were the kingdom of heaven the same as the Church, it would, I repeat, amount to no less than this: that no evil, let it be ever so flagrant or plain, is to be put out of the Church till the day of judgment. We see, then, the importance of making these distinctions, which too many despise. They are all-important for truth and holiness. Nor is there a single word of God that we can do without.
“What then is the meaning of this parable? It has nothing to do with the question of church communion. It is the ‘kingdom of heaven’ that is spoken of—the scene of the confession of Christ, whether true or false. Thus Greeks, Copts, Nestorians, Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, are in the kingdom of heaven; not believers only, but also bad people professing the name of Christ. A man, who is not a Jew nor a Pagan, and who outwardly professes Christ’s Name, is in the kingdom of heaven. He may be ever so immoral or heretical, hut he is not to be put out of the kingdom of heaven. But would it be right to receive him at the table of the Lord? God forbid! If a person falling into open sin were in the Church, he ought to be put out of it; but you ought not to put him out of the kingdom of heaven. In fact this could only be done by taking away his life: for that is meant by the rooting up of the tares. And this is what worldly Christianity did fall into, in no very long space of time after the apostles were departed from the earth. Temporal punishments were brought in for discipline: laws were made for the purpose of handing over the refractory to the subservient civil power. If they did not honor the so-called Church they were not to be suffered to live. In this way, the very evil our Lord had been guarding the disciples against came to pass; and the emperor Constantine used the sword to repress ecclesiastical offenders. He and his successors introduced temporal punishments to deal with the tares, to try and root them up. Take the Church of Rome, where you have so thoroughly the confusion of the Church with the kingdom of heaven: they claim, if a man is a heretic, to hand him over to the courts of the world to be burnt, and they never confess or correct the wrong, because they pretend to be infallible. Supposing that their victims even were tares, this is to put them out of the kingdom. If you root a tare from the field, you kill it. There may he men outside profaning the name of God; but we must leave them for God to deal with.
“This does not destroy christian responsibility towards those who surround the Lord’s table. You will find instructions as to all this in what is written about the Church. ‘The field is the world;’ the Church only embraces those believed to be members of Christ’s body. Take 1 Corinthians, where we have the Holy Ghost showing the true nature of ecclesiastical discipline. Supposing there are professing Christians, guilty of any sin you please; such persons are not to be owned, while they are going on in that sin, as members of Christ’s body. A. real saint might fall into open sin, but the Church, knowing it, is bound to intervene for the purpose of expressing God’s judgment about the sin. Were they deliberately to allow such a one to come to the Lord’s table they would in effect make the Lord a party to that sin. The question is not whether the person be converted or not. If unconverted, men have no business in the Church; if converted, sin is not to be winked at. The guilty are not to be put out of the kingdom of heaven, they are to be put out of the Church. So that the teaching of the word of God is most plain as to both these truths. It is wrong to use worldly punishments to deal with a hypocrite, even when he is detected. I may seek the good of his soul, but this is no reason for punishing him thus. But if a Christian is guilty of sin, the Church, though called to be patient in judgment, is never to suffer it; but we are to leave guilty people, who are unconverted, to be judged by the Lord at His appearing.
“This is the teaching of the parable of the tares; and it gives a very solemn view of Christianity. As sure as the Son of man sowed good seed, His enemy would sow bad, which would spring up along with the rest; and this evil cannot for the present be got rid of. There is a remedy for evil which enters the Church, but not yet for evil in the world.”
It is perfectly clear, both from scripture and history, that the great mistake into which the professing body fell was the confounding of these two things—tares with wheat; or, those who were admitted by the administration of baptism to all the official and temporal privileges of the professing Church, with those who were truly converted and taught of God. But the vast difference between what we may call the sacramental and the vital systems, must be clearly understood and carefully distinguished, if we would study church history aright.
Another mistake, equally serious, followed as a consequence. The great, outward, professing body became, in the eyes and in the language of men—the Church. Godly men were drawn into this snare, so that the distinction between the Church and the kingdom was early lost sight of. All the most sacred places and privileges, in the professing body, were thus held in common by godly and ungodly men. The Reformation utterly failed to clear the Church of this sad mixture. It has been handed down to us in the Anglican, Lutheran, and Presbyterian systems, as the form of baptism and admission clearly shows. In our own day, the sacramental system prevails to an alarming extent; and is rapidly on the increase. The real and the formal, the living and the dead, are undistinguished in the various forms of Protestantism. But, alas! most solemn reflection! there are many in the professing Church—in the kingdom of heaven—who will never be in heaven itself. Here we find tares as well as wheat—evil servants as well as faithful ones, and foolish virgins as well as wise ones. Though all who have been baptized are reckoned in the kingdom of heaven; only those who are quickened and sealed with the Holy Ghost belong to the Church of God.
But there is another thing connected with the professing Church which demands a brief notice here. We refer to
THE DIVINE PRINCIPLE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Not only did the Lord give the keys to Peter that he might open the doors of the new dispensation, but He entrusted to him its internal administration. This principle is all-important in its bearing on the Church of God. The words of the commission are these, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The question is, What do they mean? Clearly, we believe, authority and power from the Lord, to be exercised in and by the Church, but limited, in result, to this world. There is no thought in the Lord’s words about the Church deciding anything as to heaven. This is the false interpretation, and the deceiving power of the apostasy. The Church on earth can have nothing to say, or do, with what is done in heaven as to binding or loosing. The sphere of its action is within its own limits, and when it so acts, according to the commission of Christ, it has the promise of ratification in heaven.
Neither is there any thought here, we may add, of the Church, or of any of its officials, coming in between the soul and God, as to eternal forgiveness or eternal judgment. This is the daring blasphemy of Rome. “Who can forgive sins but God only?” He reserves this power to Himself alone. Besides, the subjects of church government are pardoned, or, at least, are on that ground. “Do not ye judge them that are within?” It will only apply to them that are within the pale of the Church. “But them that are without God judgeth.” Of every believer in the wide field of Christendom it is said, “ For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. 10) Hence, the retaining or the remission of sins by the Church is only for the present time, and strictly administrative in its character. It is the divine principle of receiving persons into the assembly of God, on the ground of adequate testimony to their conversion, soundness in doctrine, and holiness of life; and also of putting away impenitent offenders until restored by true repentance.
But some of our readers may have the common impression, that this power was only given to Peter and the rest of the apostles, and consequently, ceased with them. This is a mistake. True, it was given to Peter only in the first instance, as we have seen; and no doubt greater power was exercised during the days of the apostles than has been since; but not greater authority. The Church has the same authority now as then, as to discipline in the assembly, though it lacks the power. The word of the Lord remains unchanged. Only an apostle, we believe, could speak as Paul does in 1 Cor. 5 “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved hi the day of the Lord Jesus.” This was spiritual power in an individual, not the judgment of the Church. The same apostle, in reference to the same case, says to the assembly, “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” The act of putting away was the act, not merely of the apostle, but of the whole assembly. In this case, and in this way, the excommunicated person’s sins were retained, though evidently a converted man. In the second epistle chapter ii. we find him fully restored. His repentance is accepted by the assembly—his sins are remitted. The overflowing of the apostle’s heart on tins occasion, and his exhortations to the Church, are valuable lessons for all who have to do with church government, and are intended to remove that cold suspicion with which an erring brother is too often received back to the privileges of the assembly. “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (or censure) which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should he swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore, I beseech you, that ye would confirm your love toward him.” Here we have a case in point, illustrative of the government of the assembly according to the will of Christ. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”