(Concluded.)

The great body of discipline ought to be altogether aimed at hindering excommunication, the putting of a person out. Nine-tenths of the discipline which ought to go on is individual. If it comes to the question of the exercise of the discipline of "the Son over His own house," the Church ought never to take it up, but in self-identification, in confession of common sin and shame, that it has come ever to this. So it would be no court of justice at all, but a disgrace to the body. Spirituality in the Church would purge out hypocrisy, defilement, and everything unworthy, without assuming a judicial aspect. Nothing should be so abhorrent, as that, in God’s house, such a thing had happened. If it were in one of our houses that something dishonorable and disgraceful had happened, should we go on and feel as though we were altogether unconcerned, that we had nothing to do with it? It might be that some reprobate son must be put out, for the sake of the others-he cannot be reclaimed, and he is corrupting the family-what can be done? It is necessary to say, "I cannot keep you here; I cannot corrupt the rest by your habits and manners." Would it not, nevertheless, be for weeping and mourning, for sorrow of heart, and shame and dishonor to the whole family? They would not like to talk on the subject; and others would retrain from it to spare their feelings:his name would not be mentioned. In the house of the Son, how abhorrent to be putting out! what common shame! what anguish! what sorrow! There is nothing more abhorrent to God than a judicial process.

The Church is indeed plunged in corruption and weakness; but this is the very thing that would make one cling to the saints, and the more anxiously maintain the individual responsibility of those who have any gift for pastoral care. There is nothing I pray for more, than the dispensation of pastors. What I mean by a pastor is a person who can bear the whole sorrow, care, misery, and sin of another on his own soul, and go to God about it, and bring from God what will meet it, before he goes to the other.

There is another thing most clear. The result may be putting out; but if it ever comes to a corporate act in judgment, discipline ends the moment he is put out, and ends altogether-"Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth" (i Cor. 5:12).

The question whether I can sit down with this or that person who is within never arises. A person staying away from communion (because of another, of whom he does not think well, being there) is a most extraordinary thing; he is excommunicating himself for another’s sake. " For we, being many, are one bread [loaf], and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread" (i Cor. 10:17). If I stay away, I am excommunicating myself, because another has gone wrong. That is not the way to act. There may be a step to take, but it is not to commit the folly of excommunicating myself, lest a sinner should intrude.

All discipline until the last act is restorative. The act of putting outside, of excommunication, is not (properly speaking) discipline, but the saying that discipline is ineffective, and there is an end of it; the Church says, " I can do no more."

As to the question of unanimity in cases of church-discipline, we must remember, it is the Son exercising His discipline over His own house. In the case in Corinthians it was the direct action of Paul in apostolic power on the body, and not of the Church. The body claiming a right to exercise discipline! one cannot conceive a more terrible thing; it is turning the family of God into a court of justice. Suppose the case of a father going to turn out of-doors a wicked son, and the other children of the family saying, "We have a right to help our father in turning our brother out of the house," what an awful thing! We find the apostle forcing the Corinthians to exercise discipline, when they were not a bit disposed to do so. " Here (he says) there is sin among you, and ye are not mourning, that he that has done this deed might be taken away from among you (he is forcing them to the conviction that the sin is theirs, as well as that of the man); and now put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The Church is never in the place of exercising discipline until the sin of the individual becomes the sin of the Church, recognized as such.

There is all this,-"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (i Tim. 5:20), "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such," etc., and the like; but, if evil has arisen of such a character as to demand excommunication, instead of the Church having a right to put away, it is obliged to do it. The saints must approve themselves clear. He forces these people into the recognition of their own condition, gets them ashamed of themselves-they retire from the man-and he is left alone to the shame of his sin. (See 2 Cor. 2:and 7:) That is the way the apostle forced them to exercise discipline. The conscience of the whole Church was forced into cleanness in a matter of which it was corporately guilty. And what trouble he had to do it! That is, I think, the force of ‘’ To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also:for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; lest Satan should get an advantage over us:for we are not ignorant of his devices." What the devil was at was this-the apostle had insisted upon the excommunication (i Cor. 5:3-5); and the assembly did not like it. He compelled them to act; they did it in the judicial way, and did not want to restore him (2 Cor. 2:6, 7). Then he makes them go along with him in the act of restoration; "to whom ye forgive," etc The design of Satan was to introduce the wickedness, and make them careless about it, and, afterwards, judicial; and then to make it an occasion of separation of feeling between the apostle and the body of saints at Corinth. Paul identifies himself with the whole tody, first forcing them to clear themselves, and then taking care that they should all restore him, that there should be perfect unity between himself and them. He goes with them, and associates them with himself, in it all; and so, in both excommunication and restoration, he has them with him. If the conscience of the body is not brought up to what it acts, to the point of purging itself by the act of excommunication, I do not see what good is done:it is merely making hypocrites of them.

The house is to be kept clean. The Father’s care over the family is one thing; the Son’s over "his own house," another. The Son commits the disciples to the care of the Holy Father (John 17:), this is distinct from having the house in order. In John 15:he says, "I am the true vine," "ye are the branches," "my Father is the husbandman," etc., it is all the Father’s care. The Father purges the branches, to the end they may bear as much fruit as possible. But in the case of the Son over His own house, it is not individual, but the house kept clean. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged," etc.

There are then these three kinds of discipline:- 1st.That of brotherly relationship. Here I go as a person wronged, but it must be with grace.

2nd. That of fatherly care-the Father exercising it with loving-kindness and tenderness, as over an erring child.

3rd. Where the Son is over His own house, and where we have to act in the responsibility of keeping the house clean, that people should have their consciences according to the house in which they are- not only the individual, but the house, the body:the conscience of the body must act. The effect may be, graciously, that the individual is restored, but that is a collateral thing. When you come, to that point, there is something besides restoring; there is the responsibility of keeping the house clean-the conscience of all there; and that may sometimes give a great deal of trouble.

As to the nature of all this, the spirit in which it should be conducted, it is priestly; and the priests ate the sin-offering within the holy place (Lev. 10:). I do not think any person or body of Christians can exercise discipline, unless as having the conscience clear, as having felt the power of the evil and sin before God, as if he had himself committed it. Then he does it as needful to purge himself. It will all be for positive mischief-the dealing with it, if not so. What character of position does Jesus hold now? That of priestly service. And we are associated with Him. If there were more of the priestly intercession implied by eating of the sin-offering within the holy place, there would be no such abomination as that of the Church assuming a judicial character. Suppose the case of a family, in which a brother had committed something disgraceful, would it not be for bitterness and anguish of the whole family? What common anxiety and pain of heart it would occasion! Does Christ not feed upon the sin-offering? does He not feel the sorrow? does He not charge Himself with it? He is the Head of His body, the Church:is He not wounded and pained in a member? Yes it is so. If it be a case of individual remonstrance with a brother for a fault, I am not fit to rebuke him, unless my soul has been in priestly exercise and service about it, as though I had been in the sin myself. How does Christ act? He bears it on His heart and pleads about it to draw out the grace that will remedy it. So with the child of God:he carries the sin upon his own heart into the presence of God; he pleads with the Father, as a priest, that the dishonor done to Christ’s body, of which he is a member, may be remedied. This I believe to be the spirit in which discipline should be exercised. But here we fail. We have not grace to eat the sin-offering. I come to church-action and there I find yet more:it should go and humble itself until it has cleared itself. This is the force to me of "ye have not mourned," etc.; there was not sufficient spirituality at Corinth to take and bear the sin at all; "You ought to have been bowed down there, brokenhearted, and broken in spirit at such a thing not being put out-concerned as to the cleanness of Christ’s house."
It is another part of priestly service to separate between clean and unclean. The priests were not to drink wine nor strong drink, that they might keep themselves in a spiritual state by the habits of the sanctuary, being able to discern between clean, etc. This is always true. We must take as our object, in dealing with evil, God’s object. God’s house is the scene and place of God’s order. If it be said, that the woman must "have power [a covering] on her head because of the angels" (i Cor. 11:10), it is as the exhibition of God’s order. Nothing should be permitted in the house that angels could not come in and approve. All is in thorough ruin; the full glory of the house will be manifested when Christ comes in glory, and not till then; but we should desire that, as far as possible, by the energy of the Holy Ghost, there should be correspondence in spirit and manner with what shall be hereafter. When Israel returned from the captivity, after Lo-ammi had been written upon them, and the glory had departed from the house, the public manifestation was gone, but Nehemiah and Ezra could find that in which to act according to God’s mind. That is our present condition. But we have now what they had not:we were always a remnant, we began at the end -"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them "(Matt. 18:20). If the whole corporate system has come to nought, I get back to certain unchangeable blessed principles from which all is derived. The very thing from which all springs, to which Christ has attached, not only His name, but His discipline-the power of binding and loosing-is the gathering together of the "two or three." This is of the greatest possible comfort. The great principle remains true amidst all the failure.

If we turn to John 20:we find that when He sent forth His disciples, He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." There is nothing like a corporate church system here; but the energy of the Holy Ghost in spiritual discernment in the disciples, as sent from Christ, and acting on behalf of Christ. Discipline is a question of the energy of the Spirit. If that which is done is not done in the power of the Holy Ghost, it is nothing.

In principle, what was needed has been said. I do not see any difference, whether it be in the hands of a remnant, or anything else; because then we get into the structure of a judicial process at once-sinners judging sinners. It is, first of all, a question what the energy of the Spirit is for ministry in God’s house. The unanimity is a unanimity of having consciences exercised and forced into discipline. It is a terrible thing to hear sinners talking about judging another sinner; but a blessed thing to see them exercised in conscience about sin come in among themselves. It must be in grace. I no more dare act, save in grace, than I could wish judgment to myself. "Judge not, that ye be not judged:for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:1, 2). If we go to exercise judgment, we shall get it.

As to the difficulty of saints meeting together, where there is not pastorship, my prayer is that God would raise up pastors; but I believe where there were brethren meeting together, and walking together on brotherly principles, provided they kept to their real position and did not set about making churches, they would be just as happy as others in different circumstances. One thing I would pray for, because I love the Lord’s sheep, is that there might be shepherds. I know nothing, next to personal communion with the Lord, so ‘blessed as the pastor feeding the Lord’s sheep, the Lord’s flock; but it is the Lord’s flock. I see nothing about a pastor and his flock; that changes the whole aspect of things. When it is felt to be the Lord’s flock a man has to look over, what thoughts of responsibility, what care, what zeal, what watchfulness! I do not see anything so lovely. " Lovest thou Me? . . . feed My sheep-feed My lambs." I know nothing like it upon earth-the care of a true-hearted pastor, one who can bear the whole burden of grief and care of any soul and deal with God about it. I believe it is the happiest, most blessed relationship that can subsist in this world. But we are not to suppose that the "great Shepherd" cannot take care of His own sheep because there are no under-shepherds. If there were those who met together and hung on the Lord, if they did not pretend to be what they were not, though there were no pastors among them, there would be no danger; they would infallibly have the care of that Shepherd. We must not impute our failure to God, as though He could not take care of us. The moment power in the Spirit is gone, power in the flesh comes in. J. N. D.