1. Local Sufficiency._This view of the local assembly claims that its actions are bound in heaven,
and therefore bound upon the people of God everywhere; that as the Lord is in the midst of His
assembly, whatever is done has His authority and must be bowed to; that there is no appeal from
the decision of the assembly. While absolute infallibility is not claimed absolute authority is; so
that an assembly action, even if wrong, is to be obeyed.

The Scriptures used to support this view are in general such as the following:"Verily I say unto
you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:and whatsoever ye shall loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18); "For where two or three are gathered together
unto My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20 (J.N.D. Trans.); "Receive ye the
Holy Ghost:whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained" (John 20:22,23); "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts
15:28); "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" (1 Cor. 5:4,5); "To whom
ye forgive anything, I forgive also" (2 Cor. 2:10); "The house of God, which is the Church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Other Scriptures are doubtless made
use of, but these will suffice to show the general thought.

Let us now ask what elements of truth; there are in this view. It is manifest that just in so far as
the Scriptures pst quoted do support the view, that view is correct. We may be sure at the outset
that no error is attractive to the Spirit-taught soul. Therefore there is frequently, we may say
always, some element of truth in every system of error. It is the truth which attracts the child of
God.

The Church is the house of God, the depository of His truth:"The temple of God is holy, which
temple ye are" (1 Cor. 3:17). The Lord’s presence in the midst of His gathered saints is a reality.
Their acts as so gathered are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and have all the authority of
the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a great responsibility entrusted to the Church, and a
correspondingly binding authority connected with its carrying out of those responsibilities. He who
despises, despises not men, but God.

Have we not, then, reached a conclusion at the very outset of our examination. Let us then seek
to carry it out. But we add a word which modifies all that has been said. It is as so gathered that
the saints have the Lord’s authority and the Spirit’s guidance. This is no mere formal, external
gathering; it means a true subjection of heart and will to our Lord and His word; it means
lowliness, and refusal of the flesh. To assume an authority without this is the very opposite of
godliness.

The theory we are examining claims some inherent authority in the Church, apart from
rigteousness and subjection to the word of God. All authority rests upon God’s word, which is the
expression of His mind and will. No claims, however great, no numbers, no succession, no
gifts_nothing can for one moment take the place of the word of God, which is righteousness. To
attempt to,link the Lord’s holy name and authority with unrighteousness is iniquity. This is what

marks Rome.

The primary attitude of the Church to Christ is obedience:"As the Church is subject’ unto Christ."
(Eph. 5:24). How monstrous then is the thought of claiming His authority for disobedience. It
claims infallible authority for the Church, for fallible man, and thus fosters pride and paves the
way for all manner of tyranny and oppression. It puts a premium on carnality, and does away with
the necessity on the part of everyone to be exercised in the presence of God. Instead of this, the
conscience is brought ihto the presence of man, and bondage instead of freedom is the result. No
words can too strongly characterize the system of which we speak. Thank God that even where
some elements of it may exist, there is a good measure of subjection to God and following His
word, which partly neutralizes the effect of the principle. But if the principle is held, it will assert
itself, and that of which we speak will be manifest.

We conclude therefore that the principle of local authority and sufficiency has elements in it which
tend to promote haughtiness, intolerance, clericalism, and above all, to set aside the supremacy
of Christ alone, and the sufficiency and binding authority ‘of His word, and thus to have the
conscience under the power of man rather than of God. (To be continued D.V.)