- not persecuted, despised, or avoided, but not received in Church-fellowship (a
heathen), nor admitted to close familiar intercourse (a publican). And this, as we
understand it, marks out the mode of what is called Church discipline in general, and
specifically as regards wrongs done to a brother. Discipline so exercised (which may
God restore to us) has the highest Divine sanction, and the most earnest reality
attaches to it. For, in virtue of the authority which Christ has committed to the Church in
the persons of her rulers and representatives,74 what they bound or loosed - declared
obligatory or non-obligatory - was ratified in heaven. Nor was this to be wondered at.
The incarnation of Christ was the link which bound earth to heaven: through it whatever
was agreed upon in the fellowship of Christ, as that which was to be asked, would be
done for them of his Father Which was in heaven.75 Thus, the power of the Church
reached up to heaven through the power of prayer in His Name Who made God our
Father. And so, beyond the exercise of discipline and authority, there was the
omnipotence of prayer - 'if two of you shall agree . . . as touching anything . . . it shall be
done for them' - and, with it, also the infinite possibility of a higher service of love. For, in
the smallest gathering in the Name of Christ, His Presenc e would be,76 and with it the
certainty of nearness to, and acceptance with, God.77
73. Titus iii. 10.
74. It is both curious and interesting to find that the question, whether the Priests
exercised their functions as 'the sent of God' or 'the sent of the congregation' - that is,
held their commission directly from God, or only as being the representatives of the
people, is discussed already in the Talmud (Yoma 18 b & c.; Nedar. 35 b). The Talmud
replies that, as it is impossible to delegate what one does not possess, and since the laity
might neither offer sacrifices nor do any like service, the Priests could not possibly have
been the delegates of the Church, but must be those of God. (See the essay by Delitzsch
in the Zeitschr. fur Luther. Theol. for 1854, pp. 446 -449.)
75. St. Matt. xviii. 19.
76. The Mishnah (Ab. iii. 2), and the Talmud (Ber. 6 a), infer from Mal. iii. 16, that, when
two are together and occupy themselves with the Law, the Shekhinah is between them.
Similarly, it is argued from Lament . iii. 28, and Exod. xx. 21, that if even one alone is
engaged in such pursuits, God is with him and will bless him.
77. St. Matt. xviii. 19, 20.
It is bitterly disappointing that, after such teaching, even a Peter could - either
immediately afterwards, or perhaps after he had had time to think it over, and apply it -
come to the Master with the question, how often he was to forgive an offending brother,
imagining that he had more than satisfied the new requirements, if he extended it to
seven times.78 S uch traits show better than elaborate discussions the need of the
mission and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And yet there is something touching in the
simplicity and honesty with which Peter goes to the Master with such a
misapprehension of His teaching, as if he had fully entered into its spirit. Surely, the new
wine was bursting the old bottles. It was a principle of Rabbinism that, even if the
wrongdoer had made full restoration, he would not obtain forgiveness till he had asked it
of him whom he had wronged, but that it was cruelty in such circumstances to refuse