The Olive Branch and the Cross 3

Next Part The Olive Branch and the Cross 4

2. "If he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." I must observe that this also is imperative. We are not in cases of an aggravated nature to let the matter rest, but are to endeavor by new measures to bring our trespassing brother to repentance. Still we may suppose that in many cases there is left with the aggrieved party a discretion to let the matter drop, even if he is not successful in the private interview. He may have gained further light, and may be led to take a more mitigated view of the trespass; or he may see reason to believe that time would be likely to soften the mind of the offender; or that greater mischief would result from pursuing it than from letting it drop, and may therefore wisely and religiously choose to proceed no further. Should this be the course adopted, we must not let a spirit of ill will be cherished in our heart towards the offender, or any outward token of resentment be manifested in our conduct; much less must we tell it to any one else. If, however, the case be such as to break up fellowship and prevent love, we had better go on to the second step, and take with us one or two more people. It is to be noticed that we are not to send these witnesses, but are to take them with us, at least in most cases.

The reasons of the second step are sufficiently obvious. It is intended to assist us. Perhaps we may have taken a wrong or an exaggerated view of the matter, and need, in some particulars, to be set right ourselves. Or if we are right, these two or three brethren may say something to the offender that will give weight to our appeals. Their representations may be more convincing and persuasive than ours; and thus they will be more likely to influence him; they add to the number who deal with him, and they are, or ought to be, impartial people; and moreover, they will be then prepared to bear testimony to the church, if it should be necessary to carry the matter to this last and highest tribunal.

It must be evident that much, very much, depends on the selection of the people to accompany the complainant. They may make matters ten times worse, if they are unsuitable for the business of reconciliation, or go about it in an improper manner. They should be Christian brethren, for what have we in such cases "to do with those who are without?" They should be men of meekness and gentleness of speech, not easily offended, and of great command of temper. They should be men of weight and standing in the church. They should be impartial men, not partisans of the aggrieved party; and in order to that it would be better for them not to hear of the matter until it is stated to them in the presence of the offender. It would be also very desirable that they should be people in whom he has confidence, and against whom it would be impossible he could raise any objection.

As our Lord has mentioned one or two, perhaps it would usually be safer to take the first number, and solicit the assistance of some eminently holy and judicious friend to accompany us. Most people are disposed to shrink from such a labor of love, for it is a delicate and difficult duty, and requires great grace for its right and proper discharge—and those who are entrusted with it must take great care of their own spirits.

In the course of my pastorate, I have settled many private quarrels thus. One member has come to me to complain of the ill-treatment of another, and has wished me to have his case brought before our Discipline Committee. I have immediately stopped him, even before I knew what the grievance was, and after finding they could not settle the matter between themselves, have said, "Will you submit this matter to some wise and good man to judge between you both?" Having obtained his assent, I have made the same proposal to the other. The umpire has been agreed upon, the matter has been heard, the decision has been given, concessions have been made, the parties have been reconciled, and I have never known what the matter was about. Only the day before I penned these lines, I received a document, of which the following is a copy, signed by two parties, to whom I had recommended this plan, and I do not know what was the cause of offence between them.

"The undersigned, J. A. and T. S., being desirous that the animosity which has for a time existed between them should at once subside, agree as follows. T. S. truly and sincerely acknowledges that he has used improper language to J. A.—and J. A. though unconscious of having intentionally provoked T. S., yet is heartily sorry if anything he may have done or said produced such an impression upon his mind; and in token of mutual reconciliation, they most cordially offer to each other the right hand of Christian friendship." (Signed.)

If there be few who could stand out against the expostulation of one man, there are still fewer who could resist the entreaties of two or three; and thus many a sinner would be converted from the error of his ways. Yet our Lord supposes that there are some who are so blinded by Satan, and so hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, as to resist even this; and now nothing remains but the dernier ressort.

3. The third step; "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church," that is, the congregation of believers, the people associated together for social worship. The church is thus constituted the final appeal on earth. This was spoken by Christ while Judaism was yet in force. In a Jewish sense then, the church must mean the people assembled for worship at the synagogue; and it is well known to have been the custom of Jews, thus as the final means, to settle private quarrels by an appeal to the synagogue; where, after a public admonition without any beneficial result, a mark of infamy was set upon the offenders. Our Lord, by a tacit allusion to the known practices of the Jews, here lays down by way of anticipation, the law of His future church.*

* Does not this injunction throw some light on the agitated question of the nature of a church and the form and mode of its government? It is most explicit that the offence in its last case of appeal, must be laid before the church—then whatever the church means, it must be capable of hearing it, and must pronounce the final sentence. Now it will not do to say, by the church is meant its representatives the clergy. The clergy are not the church, and are no where called so in the New Testament. The church is sometimes distinguished from its ministers, but they are never called the church. If then the church here means a company of Christians, it must be such a company as can hear, and receive, and decide upon the case—and this brings us to the Congregational mode of church government. Episcopalian expositors are somewhat puzzled by this passage. The excellent Mr Scott says rightly, "Tell it to the teachers and professors of the gospel. It would be absurd to restrict these rules to any form of church government or discipline." True, but can that form of church government be scriptural, to which these rules cannot by possibility apply? Bloomfield, another episcopalian commentator, says, in his "Critical Digest," on this passage, "This admonition is local and temporary, and as not accommodated to our times, needs not be observed. For this public admonition can have place only in a very small congregation, without the least appearance of civil authority, and governing itself entirely by the principles of Christ. To the present state of the church this Christian discipline is little adapted." But why is it not so adapted, but because the church is not adapted to it? Is it not a perilous affirmation that Christ's own precepts need not be observed because not adapted to our times? What law of Christ might not be got rid of by such a method as this? And what a confession and concession too, that this injunction can be carried out only by those churches where there is "no appearance of civil authority," and which "govern themselves entirely by the principles of Christ." In those churches it not only can be carried out, but is. Must not those be most truly the churches of Christ, in which only Christ's laws can be carried out?

The matter having in a proper manner been laid before the church, it assuredly must upon investigation pronounce its sentence. But every large church will, if it be wise, appoint a number of its brethren to investigate the matter, and to make its report, and upon that report found its decision. To that decision the offender is required to bow. The voice of the church is the voice of God. So says our Lord in the next verse to those which form the subject of this tract—"Verily I say unto you, whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven." The same words had been on a former occasion addressed to Peter, Mat. 16:19; and great prerogatives and powers, it has been alleged, are thus granted to that apostle; but here the same prerogatives and powers are granted to every church, however small. The meaning of this passage is, that whatever shall be done rightly in the discipline of the church, shall be approved and confirmed by God in heaven. It is supposed, however, by our Lord, (as the words following imply,) that the church conducts all its acts, especially those of discipline, in a spirit of prayer, and of faith in His presence. "Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them by my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

It is apparent from all this how much importance is attached by our Lord to the maintenance of discipline in His church, and with what peculiar awe and solemnity these acts of discipline ought to be maintained. The act of a Christian community investigating the character or conduct of any of its members in a case of alleged delinquency, is the most solemn proceeding upon earth, inasmuch as it is trying an accused person for an offence committed against the laws, not merely of man, but of God; and it is visiting him with a sentence, if he is found guilty, that has no relation whatever to civil pains or penalties, but to spiritual judgments. If this be true, how slowly and solemnly ought the church in all cases, to take up this fearful sword, which is to cut off an offender from the kingdom of Christ, and deliver him over to the kingdom of Satan! Yet it must be done, if in the case before us the trespasser will not hear the voice of the church, calling him to repentance. He is then to be considered as a heathen man and a publican; that is, he is no longer to be acknowledged and treated as a Christian, but as one who has no part nor lot in the church, or its privileges. "Yet," says Matthew Henry, "he does not say, Let him be to you as a devil or a damned spirit, as one whose case is desperate; but as a heathen or a publican, as one in a capacity of being restored and received in again." "Count him not as an enemy," says the apostle, "but admonish him as a brother."

Such, then, is an explanation of the rule laid down by Christ for the settlement of those numerous private quarrels which rise up even among the members of the redeemed family.

I would here emphatically, as well as explicitly remark, that this law of Christ's must of necessity be taken with some limitations, and something no doubt must be left to the discretion of the injured party, how far to proceed in requiring satisfaction, and when it would be prudent to stop or go forward in giving it publicity. All matters of this kind are addressed not only to our conscience, but to our good sense. Trespasses may be committed, and wrongs may be inflicted, of so peculiarly difficult and delicate a nature, that if they cannot be adjusted between the litigating parties themselves, the matter had better be buried in silence, and the sufferer be content with expelling from his heart all malice and revenge, and being still ready to return good for evil, though he may not see fit to receive the offender back to his favor. The same remarks may be made in reference to other matters which, (how ever proper it may be to carry them on to the second step,) it would be unwise to advance to the third. The case may be so complicated with doubt and difficulty, that nothing short of the severe sifting of a court of law can get at all the facts or minute points which may decide the matter and show where the blame lies, and what mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. Or the affair may be of so peculiarly delicate a nature, involving so many parties, and such an exposure of secrets not desirable to be known, and hazarding to such an extent the peace of a whole church, that the injured party, where the matter does not amount to immorality, and no compromise either of the credit of religion or the purity of the church is involved, should be content with the expressed opinion of the witnesses whom he had found it necessary to associate with him in the appeal to the offender. A church should not be turned into a Court of Common Pleas. It would never be at peace if it were. An eagerness to drag every little matter into publicity, is a disposition as contrary to the law of Christ as a carelessness about inflicting an injury. A gradation of wisdom and caution should be set up, and maintained through every such case; we should be very backward to receive offence in small matters, or even to notice them; equally cautious of thinking the next step necessary, and still more so of carrying it on to the third. Mercy flies on eager wings to execute her offices, but justice walks with slow and measured pace in hers.

Should the question here be asked, as in all probability it will be, whether, if all other means fail to obtain redress from one who has injured us, it be lawful for a Christian to appeal to the tribunal of national justice, and call in the aid of law; I reply by a reference to the New Testament. The apostle has answered this question in his remonstrance to the Corinthian church, first epistle, sixth chapter. In that chapter he clearly and positively forbids brother going to law with brother, and enjoins the settlement of differences by the arbitration of the brethren—which is virtually carrying out the law of Christ. The one or two witnesses of whom our Lord speaks, constitute this tribunal; so that until this is tried it is manifestly unlawful; and when even this is found ineffectual, all appeal to law ought to be suspended until the church has given its decision upon the conduct of the offender—if then, he cannot be brought to reason, and should as the result of his contumacy be expelled, nothing else is left to the injured party but to bring the trespasser before a tribunal which he must obey. In this case he is no longer a brother, but is condemned to be treated as a heathen man and a publican. There are men so injurious and so obstinate that nothing but the arm of law is strong enough to reach or restrain them, and it is well for society that there is something for such characters stronger than moral power.

Still it is evident from our Lord's words that a Christian should be very backward to have recourse to such means, even in reference to one who is not a brother. "If your enemy takes your coat, let him take your cloak also; and if he smites you on your right cheek, turn to him your left also." These words are not of course to be understood literally, so as to forbid all securities, or precaution as to future evils; for Christ did not act so when an evil servant smote him; nor Paul, when the High Priest commanded him to be smitten on the face—they neither of them received it silently, nor turned the other cheek. It is clear therefore that these words are only an impressive form of forbidding us to return violence for violence; and equally of forbidding a precipitancy of going to law to redress our wrongs, and obtain our rights. We can easily see from all this our duty. A wise man will not go to law about little things, and a godly man will not about great ones, until all other methods of settling the difference have failed. Two members of the same church while yet in fellowship, engaged in a hostile suit in a court of justice, is a spectacle which very rarely occurs, and which ought never to occur, and never would if the church did its duty—and where they are members of two different churches, both these communities ought to interfere by the exercise of proper discipline to prevent it. It is no objection to all this to say that the apostle's argument does not apply to this age and country, since the magistrates in his time were pagans, whereas they are now, at least nominally, Christians, for the ground of the argument applies as clearly now as it did then, which is the credit of religion.

Next Part The Olive Branch and the Cross 4

Back to John Angell James