(Read Matthew 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23.)

It is of great importance that we understand the sense in which binding and loosing, or remitting and retaining sins, is committed by the Lord to His people. Let me first say that eternal forgiveness of sins in relation to the throne of God is never put in man's hands. It is God's prerogative alone. When our blessed Lord was here upon the earth, He forgave sins as His sovereign right. He forgave them fully, and eternally, even as He does now from the throne of God in heaven. It should be plain to every one that the forgiveness of sins in connection with the throne of God is never put in the power of, never delegated to, any man. But there is such a thing as government, and discipline, in connection with the kingdom of heaven and in connection with the Church also, though they are quite distinct one from the other.

I call your attention to the fact that in the 16th chapter, the pronouns are all in the singular, " 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." But in the 18th chapter, where the Lord speaks of the assembly, there we read, "Whatsoever shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." In John 20:23 we find again that the plural ye is used. From this simple fact we gather that government and discipline in connection with the kingdom of heaven is individual; while government and discipline in connection with the assembly is collective.

The expression, "Keys of the kingdom of heaven" suggests authority. We must not hastily conclude, however, that because the Lord is addressing Peter personally, He limits His words to Peter; for while Peter had spoken out his own personal faith, it is representative of the other disciples; and not merely of them, but of the family of faith. It was the belief and confession of the disciples that Jesus was the Son of the living God, and in declaring this, Peter confesses what was the faith of his fellow-disciples.

The Lord said unto him," Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And 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." It is the keys of the kingdom of heaven" not the keys of the Church that the Lord speaks of. The keys of the church cannot be found anywhere. The keys of the kingdom of heaven is undoubtedly a symbolic expression. The children of faith, as Peter was, are authorized to administer the affairs of the kingdom of heaven. They individually have authority from the Lord to act for Him in the affairs of the kingdom of heaven. They are individually entitled not only to receive into the kingdom, but to teach what the Lord has commanded. In the last chapter of Matthew, the Lord says, "All power is given unto Me, in heaven and in earth" and He commissions His disciples to go to all nations, discipling them to the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe whatsoever He has commanded-not teach anything we please, but "whatsoever I have commanded you."
I pass on to what is more distinctly before my mind. Not only is the introduction into the kingdom, and the teaching, committed to the children of the kingdom, but government therein also.

By way of illustration:Suppose that one with the evil teaching of C. T. Russell should come, saying, "I am a disciple of Christ, and I want to join with you in this work." Knowing him to be a teacher of error which blasphemes our Lord, have I individual authority to deny him any part in the Lord's work ? Is the servant of Christ entitled to shut the door upon such an one?-" binding " him, as far as in him lies ? This is not going to the assembly for its action upon such an one, but the individual exercise of the authority conferred by the Lord upon those that confess Him. Our Lord's words here in Matt. 16:19 surely do give this authority.

As is our responsibility in matters of doctrine, so is it also as to conduct. A person may be quite orthodox in doctrine but wicked in practice. My conduct towards him is to be the same as toward the other. In all this let us remember it is acting in our individual responsibility as disciples of Christ, in faithfulness to Him.

We have examples of this in Scripture. In Acts 8:9-13, we read that when Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them, a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, also believed and was baptized, beholding the miracles and signs which were done through Philip.

There is not the slightest indication that the Spirit of God is casting any reflection upon His servant or his work; but, rather, puts the stamp of His approval upon both. In verses 18-20, however, Simon's inward thoughts and heart are revealed, as he offered money, saying:"Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." Then Peter, acting on his own personal responsibility as a disciple of the kingdom of heaven, binds Simon's sin upon him. It clearly illustrates the binding and loosing in the kingdom of heaven.

We pass on now to the 18th chapter. Assembly action is now before us. Here, the Lord commits to those gathered to His name His authority to maintain government and discipline in the assembly. Therefore, as already stated, the pronouns now are all in the plural-it is ye, not thou. It is very apparent that it is not individual but collective responsibility and action we have here. This is plainly shown in two cases to which I shall refer.

The matter of recovering a brother who has fallen into sin is put before us in Matt. 18:15-20. There is to be individual activity first. The person knowing the fact is first responsible to do everything in his power to recover the brother. The time to make the matter public is not come. He must first endeavor to recover the transgressor from the sin into which he has fallen. If he fails in this, he is to seek the help of one or two others to recover the brother from his sin. If they succeed the matter need go no further. If they fail, our instructions are, "Tell it to the assembly," and it now becomes the responsibility and concern of the assembly. I mean that there should be no disciplinary action on the part of one or two or more in the assembly, but the assembly as such is acting. The assembly receives its information from two or more witnesses, but if these should force their judgment upon the assembly, it is usurpation on their part. No individual or individuals in the assembly has authority from the Lord to act for, or independently of, the assembly as such.

And this is as true with regard to questions of conduct as with doctrine. Both are to be determined by the Scriptures. No individual is to impose upon the assembly his standard of holiness or righteousness. The standard is to be found in the word of God. That is to be our standard for what we believe and do.

We turn to Scripture for one or two illustrations, i Corinthians 5 gives us the case of an immoral man of whom the apostle writes to the assembly at Corinth, and says, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (ver. 15). It is the assembly who is directed by the apostle to put away the wicked person from among themselves. The assembly has the responsibility and the authority from the Lord to maintain the truth, righteousness and holiness in the house of God. Is an individual to rise in the assembly and say, " So and so is a wicked person, and I demand that he be
put away ? That would be usurping authority and acting in independency. It is for the assembly as such to declare that so of so is a wicked person, and in the name of the Lord to put away the evil from among themselves.

In Acts 9:23-28, fellowship and reception among the saints is in question. Some three years after Saul's conversion he returns to Damascus, and the Jews take counsel to kill him. "Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple " (vers. 25, 26). They did not accept him on his own testimony. How long this continued, we are not told, but the fact is recorded that they refused him Christian association until " Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus." It is not a matter of Saul's own testimony only now, but of Barnabas. Testimony as to myself may be true, but is not competent testimony unless it is confirmed. That is what we have here. Saul's testimony is confirmed by that of another. Then we read, "And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem." He is acknowledged now by the apostles and brethren, and received by the assembly. His reception was not the act of Barnabas, but of the assembly. I believe this is a pattern case which the assembly should follow and act upon.

Of course if the person is well known there is no need of repeating such introduction. The apostle says of himself in 2 Cor. 3:1, 2-"Need we, as some others, letters of communication to you, or from you ? " The Corinthians themselves were the fruits of his labors; and how well known he was in all the assemblies! But it applies to a stranger, or one seeking for fellowship among the saints; and we are to "lay hands suddenly on no man." Here in 2 Cor. 3, we find that letters of commendation were given and received among the assemblies of God. Does an unknown brother come in an assembly, it is our duty to inquire:Where does he come from ? Has he a letter from a well-known assembly or brother ? and if not, why not ? It is easy enough to bring a letter in going to distant parts where one is unknown-there is no difficulty to procure a letter if one is entitled to it. It is right and scriptural to demand one accrediting the bearer by those known to us. Our Lord Jesus even said as to Himself, " If I bear witness concerning Myself, my witness is not true,"-1:e., it is not competent. If the Lord Jesus was willing to subject His testimony to confirmation, we may well regard it as a safe example for us to follow.

And this is not questioning the veracity of the per-.on presenting himself, but of following the Scripture admonition of "laying hands suddenly on no man." Christian fellowship is to be in the light and in truth; it should rest on competent testimony, to the peace of our hearts, and the honor of our Lord. C. Crain.