033. Chapter 29: Ecclesiastical Authority and the Use of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
------------ CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE ------------ Ecclesiastical Authority and the Use of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
Having discussed the labors each minister, elder, and deacon must perform, we shall now proceed to consider the labors ministers and elders must perform cooperatively.
Ministers and elders when laboring cooperatively constitute consistories, Classes, and Synods. The Necessity of and Biblical Basis for Ecclesiastical Assemblies The propriety of such assemblies is first of all evident when considering the need for them. It is naturally evident to man that there can be no republic or society without having an assembly of those who have been appointed as rulers. This is particularly true when such republics and societies include various provinces, cities, and villages. It is thus also a requisite in the church that her elders assemble, not only in each individual church, but also in the provinces. In turn, there must be assemblies representing several or many provinces. If need be, there must also be assemblies consisting of delegates from all churches throughout the world, for there is but one church. In this manner the unity of doctrine will be preserved, and the church will be delivered from confusion.
Secondly, this is also evident from the manner in which the church of the Old Testament conducted her affairs, namely, by way of a council. The Lord Jesus acknowledges this by stating, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council” (Matthew 5:22).
Thirdly, this is evident from the manner in which the apostolic church conducted her affairs. “And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6); “... when ye are gathered together, and my spirit ...” (1 Corinthians 5:4).
These assemblies are either superior or subordinate to each other; however, their arrangement is not hierarchical, but rather pertains to jurisdiction.
First, their purpose is to preserve the unity of true doctrine, to defend the true meaning of Scripture against errors which surface, and thus be “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Their purpose is neither to institute a new doctrine and a new religion, nor to vest Scripture with authority, nor to be the highest and infallible judge in disputes. For:
(1) God is the only Lawgiver (James 4:12);
(2) one may neither add to nor subtract from Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19);
(3) the Lord Jesus rejects human commandments and institutions (Matthew 15:9);
(4) it is the calling of ministers to teach all that the Lord has commanded them in His Word (cf. Matthew 28:19-20);
(5) every member must be watchful against becoming a servant of men, not allowing himself to be brought under the dominion of anyone (cf. Galatians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 7:23).
Secondly, their purpose is to maintain good order, so that “all things be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Their purpose therefore is to prevent the one from lording over the other, so that the practice of religion may be edifying and without confusion, and that such practice be not neglected.
Thirdly, their purpose is to avert all that would give offense, and to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the exercise of Christian or ecclesiastical discipline. The Purpose of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
Let us consider the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Keys are symbols of authority, and this authority is legislative in nature. The Lord Jesus, as the Lord of the church, has such authority over her. “He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth” (Revelation 3:7). This authority is also one of administration, and is used as such upon the command and on behalf of the Lord Jesus. “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon His shoulder” (Isaiah 22:22). Thus, the church has power either to include in or exclude from the church.
We shall now speak of the kingdom of heaven. We are not referring to the kingdom of power, nor to the kingdom of glory, but rather to the kingdom of grace, which is the church, and wherein everything is of a heavenly nature. It consists of a heavenly King, heavenly subjects, heavenly goods, heavenly walls and gates, and heavenly power to grant or to deny entrance. This authority is permanent, is not contingent upon locality, nor does it originate in the elders, as if they were proprietors of the church. They do not have this authority in and of themselves, and they may not exercise authority as they wish. This authority is neither naturally theirs nor has it been bestowed upon them, for this authority is and remains Christ’s. They are but servants by whom Christ exercises His authority. This authority pertains to binding and loosening, and to the forgiving or retaining of sin. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19); “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (Matthew 18:18; cf. John 20:23). This certainty neither issues forth from the ministers nor is it the result of some agreements whereby God has bound Himself to act according to the wishes of elders. Rather, this authority belongs to Christ and is exercised in His Name and according to His precepts. “Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him. ... Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him” (Isaiah 3:10-11).
Two Keys: Preaching and Discipline
There are two keys: the Word of God and Christian discipline. The first key is the proclamation of the Word of God. The Lord has given this Word to His church, and has authorized His servants to proclaim it in His Name. “He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke 10:16). Because of this authority they proclaim to believers the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:36); “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31). With this same authority they close the kingdom of heaven for unbelievers and the unconverted; that is, as long as they remain in such a condition and do not repent. “Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil” (Romans 2:9); “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36). There is a great difference between someone knowing this personally, by a private individual saying this to him, or if a servant of Christ -- either publicly or privately -- with specific application says to someone, “Believer, you are an heir of eternal life and your sins are forgiven”; or to an ungodly person, “I declare to you that God’s wrath is upon you, and that you shall be condemned if you do not repent.” Since these words have been declared to them by a servant of Christ upon Christ’s injunction, and since the Word is of equal authority, it must find such entrance into the hearts of both parties; that is, to the comfort of the one and to the terror of the other, as if the Lord Jesus said this to them in person. The second key is Christian discipline. This has been given to the church as an administrative power to close the kingdom of heaven to those who give offense and are ungodly, and to open it again to those who repent concerning their former life, promise reformation of life, and confirm this with their deeds. Neither Jews, heathens, nor those outside of the church are subject to the use of this key, but only members of the church who give offense, be it that they are only baptized or that they have been admitted to the Lord’s Supper. “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:13-13). Those who are within the church are subject to Christian discipline if they go astray in either doctrine or life and persevere in their sin after having often been admonished. “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:13); “Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20). To excommunicate a person is equal to depriving him of Christ’s protection, and to deliver such a person to him who rules beyond the boundaries of the church [Note: The Dutch reads: “... die buiten heerst ...”] , that is, Satan. The Steps in Christian Discipline The purpose of excommunication is to exclude offensive members from the church, no longer to recognize them as her members, and to keep them from the Lord’s table. Such an extreme measure is arrived at by way of several steps. The first step consists of exhortation, warning, and rebuke, be it privately at home, or if this is not requested, in the presence of the consistory. The second step is to refuse admittance to the Lord’s table, since the objective of censure is the repentance of the person who gives offense, as well as to prevent the church from being slandered, and so that no one else will be offended by or imitate his sins. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6). Thus, there are some occasions when someone who has committed an offense must be refused admittance for the benefit of the church -- someone whom one otherwise would admit as far as the person is concerned, since he manifests very genuine sorrow and lives a blameless and godly life both before and after the committed offense. The second step of censure is specifically intended for those who persevere in giving offense. The third step consists of informing the congregation about the person who perseveres in giving offense in life and doctrine, so that members may know that the keys of God’s kingdom are being used, that they may pray for the repentance of the one who has gone astray, and also that the one who gives offense may be put to shame and come to repentance. Such announcement must initially be made without the mentioning the name, and thereafter if the situation remains unchanged, the name must be announced, so that it may make that much more of an impression upon the heart of the offender as well as in the congregation.
If all of this is to no avail, one must proceed to the fourth and last step, excommunicating him, and thus depriving him from all fellowship with the church. This means that he will no longer be acknowledged as a brother or sister, but rather is considered to be a heathen. Such was true for the administration of censure in the Old Testament. “That soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14); that is, his name would be erased from the genealogy and he would be reckoned as neither belonging to the seed of Abraham, nor as being a partaker of the covenant established with his seed. The Lord Jesus speaks likewise when He states, “If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17). It is that of which the apostle Paul speaks: “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:13). The End and Objective of Christian Discipline The end and objective of Christian discipline is spiritual and thus neither pertains to all men as such, nor to the meting out of physical punishments. It only pertains to people who are members of the church whose doctrine and life are not in harmony with God’s Word. Its purpose is:
(1) to cause the sinner himself to be ashamed, so that he may know how far he has departed from godliness as defined by God’s law and how much his life differs from his confession; also that he may become ashamed before God and His church and thus come to repentance. “Have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14);
(2) that the sinner may be sensitive to censure as being a punishment imposed by the Lord Jesus and thus repent from his evil ways. “... that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5); “... that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20);
(3) to cause other members to fear the punishment which the Lord Jesus imposes; all children fear when a father chastises a child, and this causes them to walk circumspectly. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20);
(4) to remove offenses from the church for the benefit of those who are within the church, but also that they who are without would not use such offenses as an opportunity to slander religion. “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you” (Romans 2:24);
(5) to prevent the judgments of God from coming upon the entire congregation. “Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. For among my people are found wicked men” (Jeremiah 5:25-26); “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (1 Corinthians 11:30-31).
Appropriate Conduct with Regard to Censure As far as censure is concerned, we must consider the conduct of 1) the elders who administer censure, 2) the person who is being disciplined, and 3) others towards those who are under censure. They who administer censure must do so in all fairness, without respect of persons. They must also do this with much carefulness, meekness, and gravity, so that it can be seen on their countenances that they are conscious of the presence of the Lord Jesus and are performing this task in His Name. They are to do this in all humility, thereby manifesting that they do not engage in this in a domineering sense, but as servants who manifest sorrow and compassion with the wretched circumstances of such persons. Thus, in doing so, they are pursuing the welfare of these persons as well as of the congregation. The person who is under censure is under obligation to be very sensitive to it and to submit himself with sorrow to the discipline of the church. He must do so considering it to be the disciplinary action of Christ Himself, realizing the promise which he made when admitted to the Lord’s table, and acknowledging that the church acts thus for his welfare and the well-being of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus. If, however, a church has become so degenerate and if the elders are so ungodly that they permit offenses to go unpunished -- and thus oppose the godly who excel in orthodoxy and a virtuous life -- and use the keys of God’s kingdom against them, such application of censure is of none effect to those who are censured unjustly, and is deemed null and void by other godly members as well. Such use of censure is not according to the ordinance of Christ, but contrary to it. “The curse causeless shall not come” (Proverbs 26:2). This curse will rather come down upon the heads of those who grieve the hearts of the righteous by their treachery and who strengthen the hands of the ungodly (Ezekiel 13:21-22).
Members must conduct themselves prudently towards those who are under censure and, commensurate with the step of censure, must rebuke them and withdraw themselves from them. “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15). When, however, the highest step of censure is imposed upon someone, such withdrawal must be more complete and more evident. If the opportunity is there, or if in some edifying manner we can create an opportunity, then, while manifesting the distance and separation between us and him, we must lament his wretched condition and exhort him to repentance. If, however, this has no effect and he instead becomes more wicked, allow him to go as a heathen and a publican. “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17); “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10); “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). The kingdom of heaven is thus closed by way of Christian discipline. Such closure, however, is not permanent, but lasts only until such persons repent, and by confession and deeds show their heartfelt sorrow in immediately turning from their errors or offensive life and instead lead an exemplary and godly life. In such an event the kingdom of heaven is again opened for them by reacceptance into the fellowship of the church as a brother and a sister, and readmittance to the Lord’s table. In doing so there must be a manifestation of joy and love, since there is even joy in heaven over every soul which repents (Luke 15:7
Erastians and Arminians either deny all administration of spiritual authority in the church as far as the use of censure is concerned -- insisting that only the gospel be preached and nothing else -- or if they admit to some measure of authority, they maintain that the civil government is vested with this and administers it through the elders of the church who function as her servants and subordinates. We, on the contrary, answer in the affirmative and maintain that the Lord Jesus has vested the church with such authority. This authority is entirely distinct from the authority of civil government and must be executed only on behalf of Christ and not on behalf of the government. This is first of all confirmed by texts in which this is expressly stated: “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” (Matthew 16:19); “If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17); “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 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. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5
Considering all these texts together, or each of them individually, the use of censure in the apostolic churches is very evident, as is also the command of Christ and the apostles to keep those who are offensive in doctrine and life outside of the church. It is also clear that if such persons are within the church, they are to be cast out, excommunicated, not to be interacted with, to be removed out of the midst of the church, and to be shunned. The church was commanded to do this without there being the least reference to civil government.
Evasive Argument: At that time the civil governments were pagan and therefore could not perform this task. Therefore, the church of necessity had to do so herself. If the civil government is of Christian persuasion, however, such authority is vested with her.
Answer: It is irrelevant whether or not the civil government is of Christian persuasion. Civil governments as such have the same authority, and all Christians are obligated to submit themselves to all governments in identical fashion, whatever their religious persuasion may be. Being a Christian or not a Christian relates to the persons who are in governmental office, not to the office itself. Nowhere is a Christian government vested with more authority than a pagan government. The church maintains her own identical form and nature, irrespective of the nature of civil government.
Secondly, such ecclesiastical authority is evident from the terminology used to describe the labors of the elders of the church. They are called “stewards of God” (Titus 1:7); “overseers” (Acts 20:28); “ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1); “governments” (1 Corinthians 12:28); “them which have the rule over you” (Hebrews 13:7
All this terminology pertains to being vested with authority to do certain things; the church is therefore vested with authority. Such authority does not originate with the civil government. Thus the elders, in the use of this authority, are not servants of the government. Rather, this authority originates with the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of His church, and the elders of the church exercise this authority as servants of Christ. Furthermore, without closure and opening and without exclusion or inclusion, this authority can neither be exercised nor can its objective be achieved. Consequently the church has been vested with such authority.
Thirdly, such authority was exercised in the Old Testament. God Himself cast Cain out of the church (Genesis 4:14
Fourthly, the very nature of all corporate entities and organizations demands that there be order and authority to exclude all those who do not abide by the conditions upon which they were admitted, but who instead seek to generate confusion in the entire organization. The church is a spiritual community, and those who are admitted into this community are admitted upon making a vow. Consequently she also has the authority to exclude those who violate their vows or undermine the well-being of that community.
Fifthly, consider also:
(1) the first Synod (Acts 15:1-41). It issued directives (vs. 24); it rebuked and condemned error (vs. 25); and established ordinances (Acts 16:4). It is thus very evident that the church has the authority to permit elders to govern and direct her, and to this belongs necessarily the power of inclusion and exclusion.
(2) This has always been the steadfast practice of the church of all ages. It has also been the steadfast confession and practice of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands since the time of the Reformation. This is confirmed in The Form of Ordination of the Ministers of God’s Word. “Finally, it is the duty of the Ministers of the Word, to keep the Church of God in good discipline, and to govern it in such a manner as the Lord hath ordained; for Christ having spoken of Christian discipline, says to His apostles, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ... with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, committed to them (whereby they exclude and include) according to the charge given them by God.” This is likewise confirmed in The Form of Ordination of Elders: “Therefore, in the first place, the office of elder is ... diligently to look, whether every one properly deports himself in his confession and conversation; to admonish those who behave themselves disorderly, and to prevent as much as possible, the sacrament from being profaned: also to act (according to Christian discipline) against the impenitent.” The Form of Excommunication conveys this very clearly. Note especially these words: “Wherefore we at this present are necessitated to proceed to this excommunication according to the command and charge given us by God in His Holy Word.” Our Heidelberg Catechism states in answer 82, “Therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles to exclude such persons.” In answer 85 we read: “Thus: when according to the command of Christ, those ... are by them (the elders of the church) forbidden the use of the sacraments; whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ.” In the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 32, we read: “For this purpose excommunication or church discipline is requisite ... according to the Word of God.”
Add to this the Christian, praiseworthy, and exemplary Resolution of the Most Noble Commissioners of the Province of Friesland, formulated in the year 1645, to which they hold rigorously, and of which everyone is repeatedly reminded. We read there: “In order that the church may maintain her rightful authority as far as censure and discipline are concerned, which hereby is fully granted to her.” The foregoing makes it very clear that this is not the peculiar opinion of some private individual, but that this has been the continual confession and practice of the entire Reformed Church in the Netherlands. Therefore, those who either contradict this or oppose it in practice are in this respect not in agreement with the Reformed Church, but with all their power are engaged in mutilating the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Forms of Unity.
Objection #1: “Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest” (Matthew 13:28-30). Behold, here it is expressly forbidden to pull out the tares, and the command is given to let them grow.
Answer: The field is not the church but the world (vs. 38). The tares are the wicked, and the harvest symbolizes the end of the world (vs. 39). The meaning of this parable is this: It is not according to God’s will that there are only the godly in this world, but also the ungodly. Therefore, in order to the gathering of the elect, the ungodly must not be eradicated since godly children also do come forth from the ungodly, and this could not occur if all the ungodly were eradicated. Consequently, we maintain that this text does not pertain at all to the church and her authority to censure, for censure does not pertain to the hypocrite but to those who give offense.
Objection #2: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” (Matthew 18:15). Thus public rebuke and excommunication do not belong in the church.
Answer: (1) Read also verses 16-18; you will then observe that such excommunication is commanded. It is the Lord’s will, however, that we would come to this extreme measure by way of steps.
(2) The Lord makes reference in verse 15 to one’s conduct relative to private, rather than public offenses.
Objection #3: “But let a man examine himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28). This is therefore not the consistory’s business.
Answer: The one does not exclude the other, for also the overseers are enjoined to do so. “Do not ye judge them that are within” (1 Corinthians 5:12). It is particularly the task of elders to do so when someone is neither able nor willing to examine himself.
Objection #4: You will thus stigmatize people and thereby cause them to be abhorred.
Answer (1) Let those who wish to live ungodly lives remain without.
(2) This is self-inflicted, for the church does not make their conduct public, but rather punishes only that which has become public.
(3) This is not the objective of censure; but its objective is their conversion and the well-being of the church.
Objection #5: Civil government is permitted to mete out punishment, but not the church.
Answer: Civil government does not have the authority to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Those keys have not been given to it, but rather to the church. The civil government punishes those who disturb the peaceful coexistence of its subjects, doing so by way of corporal punishment. The church, however, punishes those who act contrary to truth and godliness, doing so with spiritual discipline. They both have different objectives and there is thus a different manner of punishment. He who is disciplined by the church may nevertheless be a good subject of the government.
Objection #6: By such a practice a government is established within a government, and the fact that these two are in opposition to each other must necessarily result in the demise of a kingdom or a republic.
Answer: This would occur if both governments were of the same nature. They are entirely different in nature, however, as has been shown in our first proof (p. 162). If they both maintain their proper position, they will never be in opposition to each other, but will fortify each other. The disobedient are punished by way of ecclesiastical authority being vested in the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This authority is also used against those who are disobedient towards the civil government. The Relationship of the Civil Government to the Church This generates another question: Does the civil government have any authority at all with regard to the church? If yes, what does or does this not consist of?
We wish to preface our answer to this question by stating that first, all members of the clergy -- ministers, elders, and deacons -- are subject to the civil government as individuals, and thus are in one and the same category as other people. I repeat, as individuals. This is not true, however, as far as their ecclesiastical standing is concerned, for as such, they are subject to consistories, Classes, and Synods, and thus are subject to the only King of the church, Jesus Christ.
Secondly, if members of the clergy conduct themselves contrary to civil laws pertaining to all citizens, they, just as other citizens, may and must be punished according to the magnitude of their crime.
Thirdly, since members of the clergy are not servants of the civil government, but as individuals are in the same category as all other citizens, they have the same right to legal defense. Therefore, in the event of an indictment, legal procedures must be initiated against them the same as against other citizens.
Fourthly, members of the clergy and the entire congregation, each in their own position, are obligated to honor and obey the civil government conscientiously -- with heart and in deeds. They are to do so not by way of compulsion, but in an affectionate manner, out of love for God, whose supremacy and majesty are reflected in the office of civil government. No one is released from the duty of rendering honor and obedience simply because he is a member of the clergy or of the church. This is true even if the civil government is either pagan, Islamic, heretical or Christian, good or evil, godly or ungodly, compassionate or severe. It is the duty of elders to stir everyone up to render such honor and obedience. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1).
Question: Does the civil government exercise any authority at all with regard to the church?
Answer: It has no authority whatsoever in the church, but it does have authority with regard to the church. We thus most strenuously oppose the Erastians and Arminians who posit all authority and government with the civil government, subordinating all ecclesiastical authority and government to the civil government, from which it is in turn delegated to the church. We have contradicted this notion in the foregoing and shall shortly do so again. We are likewise opposed to the view of the papists who remove all who belong to the church from governmental jurisdiction. At the same time, they maintain that the civil government may not render judgment at all in the realm of religion, and that the civil government must merely follow blindly and execute whatever the church has deemed and judged to be correct. We are also opposed to the view of the Libertines who insist that the government may not be involved with religion at all, but must permit every religion in its territory to proclaim whatever it wishes. We declare that the civil government does indeed have authority with regard to the church and is obligated to make use of this, which is a matter we subsequently shall demonstrate to be so.
Question: What authority does the civil government not have?
Answer: It has no authority whatsoever in the church and may not rule over the church as lords and masters.
Government officials may not act as if they are servants sent of Christ -- in Christ’s Name preaching, administering the sacraments, using the keys of the kingdom of heaven, commissioning ministers, appointing elders in the church, and decreeing what or what will not be preached concerning divine truths, and what are or are not the fundamental points of the Christian religion. They also have no right to depose and expel ministers who are godly and blameless in doctrine and life, and who have been lawfully called as the ministers of given churches. They may not, as lord and master over the church, reject such men, declare the calling to be null and void, efface it, etc. The government has no authority relative to such ecclesiastical matters, for in doing so she would reach for the crown and scepter of the Lord Jesus, whose prerogative this is. Those governments who are not refrained by the many examples of divine judgment will pay a bitter price for such a practice. The Lord Jesus Christ: The Only and Sovereign King of His Church From the following it is evident that the civil government has no authority to rule as lord and master over the church and, by reason of its authority, to decree and govern everything according to its pleasure.
First, the Lord Jesus is the only and sovereign King over His church, and is her sole Ruler; He alone legislates (Galatians 6:16). He alone gives order as to how His laws are to be made known: by the preaching of the Word (Matthew 28:20), by the administration of the sacraments (Matthew 28:19
Secondly, Christ has delegated the authority to govern His church only to the church and to none other. This we have shown in the foregoing by way of five proofs. Thus, the civil government neither has authority over nor in the church, for it is not the church, nor is it a member of the church as a governmental body. Its dominion over the church would therefore be of a foreign and tyrannical nature, which this King will not tolerate.
Thirdly, the servants, whom the Lord Jesus desires to have in His church and to be chosen and sent forth by her, are expressly named in Ephesians 4:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:28. This we have confirmed in chapter 27 with three proofs. These servants are apostles, evangelists, prophets, shepherds and teachers, elders, and deacons. However, not one word is mentioned about the civil government. Let the civil government, if it wishes to rule over the church, demonstrate that it has received such a charge from the Lord Jesus, and we shall be satisfied. It is, however, not able to do this. Therefore, if it wishes to dominate and control without a charge from the King of the church, this is nothing less than tyranny for which it will pay a bitter price. The Differences Between Civil and Ecclesiastical Governments
Civil government and ecclesiastical government are so essentially different from each other that it is impossible for one government to rule over both jurisdictions. This is evident from the following reasons:
(1) Civil government has its origin in God as Creator and Preserver. The government of the church originates in and has been established by Christ as Mediator.
(2) Civil government is an authoritative government. In the church, however, there may not be the least lording over the other (1 Peter 5:3). All government in the church is characterized by service and is entirely executed on behalf of another, that is, Christ. In order for the church to belong under the jurisdiction of the civil government, civil government should not be authoritative in nature, but rather would be characterized by ministering in the name of Christ. The government will have to admit, however, that its rule is neither characterized by service nor executed on behalf of Christ, but rather consists of authoritative rulership. Its manner of government can therefore not function within the church.
(3) Civil government pertains to the exercise of worldly power. Its jurisdiction pertains to this world and is executed toward people as people. Its laws and punishments pertain only to the physical realm. On the contrary, the government of the church is of heavenly origin, and those who are governed belong to a kingdom which is not of this world (John 18:36). The laws are of heavenly origin and punishments are spiritual judgments. That which is of the world can neither be applicable nor pertain to that which is heavenly, for it falls far short of the heavenly and is of an entirely different nature, having entirely different subjects. Thus, as far as the form of government is concerned there is no comparison in degree nor is there any commonality. How then can worldly authority and the use of the sword (which only pertain to the physical realm) have any place in the church? (4) Civil governments rule by the sword. The church, however, rules by means of the keys of God’s kingdom; that is, by proclaiming the gospel, administering the sacraments, forgiving or not forgiving sin, disciplining those who give offense, rebuking, refusing admittance to the sacraments, refusing church fellowship, reinstating those who repent, and commissioning and calling the elders of the church. These things are all interrelated, and the church which does the one, does the others also. Any person who is not devoid of intelligence, or who is not deliberately wicked and ungodly, but yields to reason and the Word of God will have to conclude by all this that civil government has nothing in common with the manner in which the church must be governed. If it wishes to use its authority to control one area, it must of necessity also have control over all other areas, be it immediately or by way of subordinates, which, however, the elders are not. For instead of speaking on behalf of Christ, they would then have to say: On behalf of the government I declare unto you the forgiveness of sins, etc. Such an idea would be repulsive to everyone. If such an idea is repulsive to the civil government, the government likewise ought to be repulsed by the idea of ruling over the church, or allowing such tyranny.
Fifthly, during the time of the apostles and the subsequent rule of the pagan emperors, the church had her own government which at that time functioned at its very best. Consequently the church possesses an authority which is inherently perfect and not subject to any influence from the civil government. Since the church at that time was not dependent upon the civil government, this is also true today, as both the nature and the authority of the church remain the same.
Evasive Argument: The civil governments at that time were either Jewish or pagan and thus were hostile toward the church. Our present governments are Christian and lovers of the church.
Answer (1) I declare that those who wish to dominate over the church are enemies rather than lovers of the church, for they rob the church of that which Christ the King has given to her for her well-being.
(2) Irrespective of whether the civil government is pagan or Christian, or has either a friendly or hostile disposition toward the church, the distinction between the office of civil government and the church does not change. Both Christian and pagan governments have the same rights. Whatever is the duty of a pagan government is likewise the duty of a Christian government. Upon becoming a Christian, a government official will then join the church and submit himself as a Christian to the government of Christ in His church. The church, however, remains the same and is thereby neither annexed to the civil government nor included in its jurisdiction. If a specific individual belongs to the East Indies Company and attains to a governmental office, the company remains the same. He neither rules the company nor assumes a leadership role any more than he did before. The company is no more subject to the civil government than was true prior to this and is true presently. Such is also true for a father, whether he is pagan or Christian. This neither increases nor diminishes his paternal authority. A man’s authority over his wife and a master’s authority over his servant do not increase, neither are of a new sort than was true prior to being in government. Such is also the case here. Religion neither increases nor decreases the authority and jurisdiction of the civil government. From all this it is very evident that the church has received her own administrative authority from Christ and she administers the same on His behalf. The civil government does not have the least authority in, nor power over, the church to thus rule her. This applies to the doctrine, the sacraments, the use of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the calling and sending forth of ministers and elders of the church.
Objections Answered Pertaining to the Unique Jurisdiction of Civil and Ecclesiastical Governments
Let us now consider the futility of the arguments which could be produced against this, so that the truth may be all the more evident.
Objection #1: Civil government must extend to whatever is located within its jurisdiction; that is, from the greatest entity to the least. Since the church is included in its domain, the civil government must then of necessity control all things and govern everything according to its pleasure.
Answer (1) The jurisdiction of civil government would then also extend to one’s wallet and all personal belongings of the citizen. This would also pertain to the food that would be served at every mealtime in each home, to the rooms where each member of the family will sleep, to the moment when each will enter or leave his home, and the hour certain things are to be done. Then the conscience, the religion of each man, and whatever else an atheist could think of, would also be subject to the civil government. These absurdities make it very evident that the authority of the government does not extend to everything (whether great or small) within its jurisdiction.
(2) The civil government has jurisdiction over whatever promotes a good social interaction between citizens as such. In that sense all members of the church as people, including ministers and elders, are subject to the government. This we admit, but neither God nor the people have vested it with authority beyond that. Thus the proof is invalid in both its first and second proposition. Even if its jurisdiction extends to the entire physical realm of society, it does not follow that therefore it extends to the church as well, for that kingdom is not of this world -- this kingdom has no other king than the Lord Jesus. Whatever she performs is executed on behalf of the Lord Jesus who is her all-sufficient King, in spite of those who regret this fact.
Objection #2: If the government of the church were of such a nature, that is, not subject to the civil government, there would be two governments in one country or city. This cannot be true if a country or city is to continue its existence.
Answer: This would be true if both governments were essentially of the same nature, having the same subjects and the same objective in view. This is, however, not the case. In the one case authority is of a ministerial nature and is exercised on behalf of the Lord Jesus. Those who do not wish Him to rule in their land as King would obstruct Him if they could. The other authority is of a ruling nature, which God, as Creator and Preserver, has given to civil government. The one pertains to the spiritual, and the other to the physical realm. The one relates to spiritual life and salvation, and the other to physical life and a harmonious societal life among people. Since these two forms of government are so distinct from each other, they cannot interfere with each other, nor be a hindrance to the other. If they each function within their boundaries, however, they will promote each other’s welfare. Since the management of families and of the various organizations within a republic can coexist with the management of the civil government, this is much more true in regard to the function of the government of the church and the civil government, which are essentially different and thus uphold each other.
Objection #3: Many God-fearing kings in Israel ruled in and over the church. Therefore, the civil government also has a rightful claim to rule over the church.
Answer (1) The deeds of some persons may not be used as the basis for a rightful claim.
(2) Some of the rulers or kings of Israel were also prophets, who received immediate declarations and commands from God. We may not make a logical deduction from these examples as far as others are concerned.
(3) Nowhere is it written that God-fearing kings ruled over the church. We do read, however, that they protected her and actively promoted her improvement after she had been corrupted by ungodly kings. There are several examples of ungodly kings, however, who according to their pleasure, wanted to control the practice of religion and rule over the servants of the Lord. Such was true of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin by erecting the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. Ahaz caused an altar to be built which resembled the altar of Damascus, and he himself sacrificed upon it. Uzziah, “when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. ... And they (the priests) withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord ... go out of the sanctuary ... then Uzziah was wroth ... and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, ... and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him” (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).
Objection #4: Solomon deposed one high priest and appointed another. “So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord; and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar” (1 Kings 2:27
Answer (1) Except for this one singular example, there are none to be found of a similar nature. You cannot deduce someone’s rightful claim from one act committed by one person. This is furthermore true upon considering that Solomon committed many sinful deeds which are not worthy of imitation, but are rather to be avoided.
(2) Abiathar had committed a crimen laesae majestatis; that is, the sin of offending royal majesty. Together with Adonijah, who exalted himself as king, he had rebelled and made himself worthy of death. Solomon had mitigated his punishment and changed his death sentence to exile; consequently, Solomon did not remove his priestly dignity from him. Due to exile, however, he was not permitted to minister in the priestly office, which could only occur in Jerusalem. Therefore his not being a priest was not the punishment itself, but the consequence of the punishment. This exile did not pertain to the office itself, but to the administration of the office. He is therefore expressly acknowledged as a priest after he had been sent into exile. “And Zadok and Abiathar were the priests” (1 Kings 4:4).
(3) The appointment of Zadok in the place Abiathar was only intended to protect the divinely established priestly order wherein Zadok, not being designated to this office by his birth, had to succeed Abiathar. In view of this rightful claim, Solomon appointed him and protected him as such. There is therefore here no semblance of evidence that the civil government is permitted to rule over the church and her ministers.
Objection #5: Kings as well as civil governments are the nursing fathers of the church, and thus are authorized to rule over the church. “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers” (Isaiah 49:23).
Answer (1) Kings and their wives, that is, their queens, are here placed on the same level. We know, however, that the right to govern belongs to the kings and not to their wives, from which it is evident that the reference here is not to rulership, but to an act of benevolence. Cyrus, although he was a heathen, was thus a nursing father of the church; this was likewise true for Ahasuerus. This is also applicable to Constantine the Great, Theodosius, Queen Elizabeth, Count Frederick III (also called Frederick the Pious), etc.
(2) These kings and queens are presented here as being in utmost subjection to the church while humbling themselves before her. We read in the same verse, “They shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet” (Isaiah 49:23). It is therefore far from the truth that they would rule over her. Let him who does not reverently wish to bow before the church, as being the bride of King Jesus, refrain from ruling over her in the presence of her Bridegroom.
(3) The word “nurse” (for “fathers” is not to be found in the original text) does not imply supremacy, but is indicative of the labors of a servant. The nurse of a royal child -- this being applicable to the church -- is less than the child who is being nursed. A nurse must not treat and direct the child according to her will, but only according to the express orders of the father: “This you will do, and this you will not do.” A nurse may not refuse to accept the servants whom the father appoints for this child. She may not drive them away and accept others according to her will. A nurse is not permitted to diminish or modify the privileges which the father has given to the child, but it is her duty to protect the child and his privileges, and to prevent any harm from being done to the child. Thus, the idea of dominion is not implied in the word “nurse,” but is expressly excluded.
(4) Civil governments are not the nurses of the church simply because they are governmental bodies. The word “government” has nothing to do with the matter, for civil governments are generally enemies and persecutors of the church. The text in question, however, is a promise that the Lord would stir up the heart of certain great, reputable, and mighty men and women, who with all their might would be benevolent to the church. This is the duty of all who are appointed to high places. We have thus observed that the civil government has no authority whatsoever in the church and may also not rule over her. Nevertheless, all members of the clergy, without exception, must be subject to the civil government as much as other men.
Objection #6: Moses is said to be “instead of God” to Aaron (Exodus 4:16). Moses represented the civil government and Aaron represented the church. The civil government thus ruled over the church.
Answer (1) Why does one not conclude the civil government to be the God of the church, since this word is used in reference to Moses? I do not deem it possible that anyone in civil government would dare to give himself the title, “God of the church.”
(2) When God said this to Moses, Aaron was but a simple and ordinary person. He had not been called to the high priestly office as yet; moreover, when he was high priest, he did not constitute the church, and thus this argument has no validity whatsoever.
(3) Israel, at that time, did not constitute a republic, but was in bondage to Pharaoh, king of Egypt. God sent Moses to Pharaoh to demand their release. Moses excused himself due to lack of eloquence and God gave to him the eloquent Aaron for the purpose of proclaiming to Pharaoh and the people the prophetic revelations which Moses, the prophet of the Lord, had received. Baruch was likewise the assistant of the prophet Jeremiah. Moses is thus not presented here as a ruler or a king, but as a prophet. This title therefore does not pertain to governments, for they are no prophets.
(4) The word “God” does not mean “ruler” here, since Moses was appointed to be a god unto Pharaoh. “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). It is a certain fact, however, that Moses was neither a king over Pharaoh nor was Pharaoh a subject of Moses. Moses stood above Pharaoh as far as his prophetical ministry and majesty was concerned. God had called him to this for the execution of his mission to deliver Israel from Pharaoh’s hand. We have thus demonstrated what authority governments do not have. The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church
We must now consider also what authority the civil government has with regard to the church. Such use of its authority we wholeheartedly uphold. The duties of the government with regard to the church are threefold. It has 1) the power of protection, 2) the power to legislate concerning external circumstances, and 3) the power to subdue evil influences.
First, the civil government is empowered to protect the church. It must protect the church from all oppression from without and within, so that no one will disturb or prevent either the exercise of religion or the meetings of consistories, Classes, and Synods. It must preserve the freedoms and the spiritual privileges which Christ has given to the church, so that she may use and exercise them without impediment. It must remove all external obstacles which either could be detrimental to religion or impede the growth and well-being of the church. It must do everything possible to promote religion so that the church may flourish under its protection and “may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2). Such was the practice of the godly kings David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah -- a fact which can generally be observed in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Secondly, the civil government has power to legislate concerning external circumstances. As such it can maintain order as far as the external circumstances of public worship are concerned -- such as the most suitable time for and place of worship, as well as that the welfare of the civil state be not impeded. It must also call ecclesiastical synods together, and see to it that other ecclesiastical assemblies are held, so that they in turn may promote the internal wellbeing of the church.
Thirdly, the civil government has the power of control with regard to ecclesiastical matters. It must see to it that members of the clergy -- ministers, elders, and deacons -- discharge their duties and not be negligent in this regard, as well as that they adhere to the established church order which is according to God’s Word. It must publicly oppose those who by false doctrine and immorality trouble the church, or who by evil philosophies and opinions disturb the civil state as far as political matters are concerned. It must also prevent the continuation of such practices. It must exterminate false religions. It must promote the reformation of the church if she becomes entirely degenerate in doctrine and morals, and by the use of all political means imaginable restrain opponents and compel those who forsake religion to observe their duty, etc. In this manner Moses (Exodus 32:1-35), Asa (2 Chronicles 14:1-15), Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17:1-19), Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:1-36
We thus observe that none ought to be of the opinion that the government is not to be involved in the church at all, ought not to be concerned about her, and ought merely to be the blind executor of whatever the church wishes her to carry out. There is a certain Jus majestatis circa sacra; that is, a rightful claim, power, or duty of civil governments with regard to that which is holy. The Belgic Confession speaks of this in Article 36: And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone, as He commands in His Word.
It is the duty of civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God’s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church, as the darling of the Lord Jesus, is protected and preserved; and that neither internal dissension nor any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her. The government must be engaged with regard to all these things, but not formaliter; that is, by intruding into the very essence of the matter at hand. It must do so objectively; that is, deeming her (the church) to be the object of its activity. Therefore we say that the civil government has authority with regard to the church, rather than in the church. Neither civil governments nor any other individual may exercise power in or over the church, for Jesus is her only King. The civil government has, however, an obligation with regard to the church. There is a significant difference between “in” and “with regard to.” A civil government has authority with regard to marriage, but no authority in the marriage; with regard to a household, but not within the household. It likewise has authority with regard to the church, but not in the church. We have thus shown what authority the civil government has with regard to the church, and what authority the elders have in the congregation.
Exhortation to the Faithful Use of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
Since the Lord has given these keys to His church, that is, comprehensive authority to govern the church, and thereby specifically to open the kingdom of heaven for some and to close it for others by the Word of God and Christian discipline, the elders must therefore take great care in the use of these keys, and the members must take great care to submit themselves to this authority. The Proper Use of the Key of God’s Word
First, the elders must see to it that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are used properly. Since the one key is used primarily by ministers -- that is, in opening and closing by means of the Word of God -- and the other key, Christian discipline, is used by ministers and elders together, we shall first address the ministers and then speak to both. The first key is used by ministers when proclaiming the Word of God. To what degree must they be careful and tremble when they use this key? But also, how bold and faithful must they be in using this key?
(1) It must continually weigh upon their heart that this charge has been entrusted to them, and that as ambassadors of Christ they must carry out this charge on His behalf. They are not engaged in their own work but in the work of Christ.
(2) They must continually remind themselves that the eye of the Lord Jesus is upon them, and that He takes careful notice of their frame of heart, their objective, and the zeal with which they engage in their ambassadorship.
(3) They must continually impress upon themselves that the salvation and damnation of the souls entrusted to them are related to the manner in which they use this key. If many individuals had been uncovered as to their spiritual state and had been excluded by this key of the kingdom of heaven -- that is, if with great dignity and fortitude it had clearly been declared to them on behalf of the Lord that they were living in sin and were subject to the wrath of God; that they had neither the forgiveness of sins nor salvation, but rather had to anticipate eternal condemnation if they continued in this way -- would they not have been moved and would they not have repented? Again, if many a person who is weak in faith had been uncovered as to the grace they possessed, and if thereupon with great dignity and fortitude both the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation had been promised them, with what joy would they have run their course, have grown in grace, and have increased in strength, since due to the neglect of the use of this key they spend their life in sorrow.
(4) In the preparation of sermons they must continually review the matters they study to ascertain whether it is their objective to say something whereby they will acquire the reputation of being scholarly and gifted, thereby drawing crowds. How such strange fire upon the altar of the Lord ought to be abhorred! Their only objective ought to be the faithful use of this key: to discover to every person his spiritual state, and thereupon proclaim either salvation or condemnation to them, so that an unconverted person may repent and a gracious soul may be comforted and stirred up. If this has been their objective while studying, this objective must likewise give them zeal, while preaching, to proclaim these matters to them as an ambassador of Christ.
(5) They must continually remind themselves of the texts of Holy Scripture which follow (as well as similar texts), in order to preach in a discriminatory manner, and not merely present the truth in a very general sense. They must also be concerned about accurately dealing with the spiritual state of every person, lest either due to ignorance concerning the spiritual state of the soul, or due to fear of man or a desire for man’s favor, or an inappropriate love for the ungodly or a sinful aversion for the godly, they either do not present proof texts correctly or apply them incorrectly. Consider therefore the following texts seriously: “Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him ... Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him;” (Isaiah 3:10-11); “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand” (Ezekiel 3:18); “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned” (Isaiah 40:1-2); “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 1:22-23). Lest you be in error in this, take the following text to heart: “Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver My people out of your hand” (Ezekiel 13:22-23). As faithful and emphatic as the ministers must be in the use of this key, so must the members also be attentive when the kingdom of heaven is opened or closed; that is, when sins are declared to be either forgiven or retained. They must pay careful attention to the description of the states and qualifications of those persons for whom heaven is either opened or closed, and ascertain to which group they belong. They must then apply what is spoken to themselves and consider the act of opening and closing as having been performed in reference to them, as well as the fact that it is the Lord Jesus who thus deals with them, which therefore renders it certain and efficacious. This ought to fill the unconverted with fear and ought to motivate them immediately to repent and thus escape the wrath to come. This ought to cause the converted to rejoice and endeavor, with spiritual joy, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they have been called. Oh, if the keys of God’s kingdom were used and applied in such a manner, what impression the ministers would make!
We warn every member not to become involved in the task (nor to do anything that resembles it) to which the Lord Jesus has appointed ministers only. They have no right to examine everyone, and then to judge them and pronounce the sentence of life or death upon them. In this regard it is true, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). Such imitation will take away the impressions when the minister uses this key. It puts a blemish upon godliness which thereby is slandered and hated by others, for it will be said that such individuals judge and condemn others. They are generally people who have a high opinion of themselves, who due to pride and a desire for superiority wish to manifest themselves as extraordinary individuals who tower over others, whereas in reality they frequently possess less grace and are less qualified. They frequently, and as much as in them is, do damage to God’s work in the little ones in grace who often have more grace than those individuals who judge and condemn them. As much as possible they will break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax. I therefore warn everyone not to think highly of himself, but rather to be in fear and humbly to esteem the other higher than himself. Let him fear God and refrain from engaging in that which the most excellent ministers do with fear and trembling, lest he be in error one way or another. We also exhort everyone who is weak in the faith not to allow such individuals to trample on their conscience, but to avoid such individuals, to cease having fellowship with them, and to join themselves to other godly members for mutual conversation, so that everyone may be edified, exhorted, stirred up, and comforted. The Proper Use of the Key of Christian Discipline The second key, Christian discipline, is used when both ministers and elders are assembled together. If there is any area where degeneration is to be observed, it is in the neglect of the use of this key. It is true that one congregation does more in this regard than another, and some are rather faithful, but in general it seems as if the Lord Jesus did not give this key to His church. Not only are the small foxes which spoil the vine not caught, but great wolves have dominion there. How the wall has been broken down so that the vineyard is vulnerable to being trampled upon! The wild boar is rummaging in her, and the leaven is leavening the entire lump. This causes God’s Name and His church to be blasphemed, the sacraments to be desecrated, the good plants to be choked by the weeds, and God’s blessing to be withheld from His church. All this takes place because the ungodly have a place among His people. It is therefore to be feared that the Lord may one day remove the candlestick of His Word from such a locality.
What is to be done? There is no hope for improvement, for:
(1) there is no longer an example, and thus it is no longer known how matters ought to be. One no longer knows what behavior is considered to be offensive nor how the church must function if all is well with her. Congregations are considered to be flourishing when many attend the services, when many are accepted as members (even if they are as ignorant as heathens and are entirely worldly), and when there is external peace, although everyone is sleeping the sleep of carelessness.
(2) Many elders are as blind as the shepherds. “His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter” (Isaiah 56:10-11). Many are foolish shepherds with “the instruments of a foolish shepherd” (Zechariah 11:15). What can be expected of such shepherds?
(3) Those who have discernment do not exercise it, and it is barely noticed if a blatant sin manifests itself spontaneously; one will even turn the head in order not to see it. Many are neither motivated by the love of God nor the well-being of the church and are not concerned about being faithful to the command of Christ. They therefore allow everything to run its course, neither pursuing that which gives offense nor making any effort to remove it.
(4) Such elders love peace and therefore do not wish to trouble themselves to know all that transpires in the church. This requires too much effort; the use of censure makes people angry, and they will have to endure their sharp tongues and turbulent meetings with them. All of this generates inner disturbance and it is therefore most conducive to peace to leave everything alone.
(5) They solicit the love, esteem, and favor of man, fearing the displeasure of the prominent members, as they have children who could be promoted or advanced by them. They may have a good relationship with certain individuals, be an occasional guest there, and enjoy a good glass of wine at such an occasion. This will close their mouth and tie their hands. Some members are quick with their tongues who will resolutely oppose the imposition of censure. They would then become too deeply involved with such individuals, and it would therefore be best to leave such individuals alone. If any discipline is administered, it is toward some individuals of low social status, of whom much trouble is not to be expected, and it then will pertain to matters which will bring such members in ill repute among the people. If they are able to pursue a godly person, whether he is guilty or innocent, they will be zealous to skin him alive and discipline him in a most severe manner. In doing so they are neither motivated by love, nor by concern for the well-being of the church and their souls, but rather out of envy and a desire to satisfy their passions. What can be expected of such elders?
(6) Due to the Lord’s goodness there are still good and faithful elders who are of a disposition to act in this respect, but they either lack light or the ability to follow through. They also observe that there are so many situations where censure must be applied that they do not even know where to begin. Even if they take the initiative, there is no one to assist and they will frequently stand alone. Even of those who support censure, he will encounter so much opposition that he will become discouraged and leave the task undone. A Final Exhortation to Be Faithful in the Use of the Key of Discipline
If this were but a task of a civil nature, we could be silent. It is, however, a task of the greatest importance and of utmost necessity. In order that we be stirred up, I therefore wish to hold before myself and all elders these brief statements for consideration.
(1) Remind yourself, and take to heart what we have stated in general to all elders with reference to your office. Go back a few pages (to chapter 28) and attentively read what must motivate you in this office. May it stir you up to reflect thereon and to exercise your duty in this respect.
(2) Take note that this key has been entrusted to you by the Lord Jesus. You are, as it were, the porters of a city. Such porters are most unfaithful who permit the entrance of an approaching enemy coming to destroy the city. You would likewise be unfaithful porters if you permit those enemies to enter and to remain within, and thus destroy the congregation which puts her trust in your faithfulness.
(3) You are the cause that the church is becoming degenerate to the core. You are responsible for all the consequences of this. As a result, God’s Name is dishonored, many people are kept from joining the church who otherwise would do so, souls are destroyed who by the use of the keys of God’s kingdom would repent, and the flourishing of godliness is obstructed. You will be the cause that one member imitates the other in the commission of evil, and that the godly are oppressed and secretly must sigh over the wretched condition of the church.
(4) Know that the Lord will bring you into judgment for all these things, and that there you will have to give an account of the manner in which you have ruled the church entrusted to you and concerning the souls over whom the Lord appointed you as an overseer. The Lord will demand the blood of all those souls who will perish due to the neglect of the use of this key. Oh, what a weighty responsibility this is, and how dreadful will God’s judgment be upon all unfaithful elders! Oh, that many would never have been elders!
Oh, that all elders would be stirred up and, in this matter, would lift up their hearts in the ways of the Lord!
(1) Many -- and this is particularly true of elders -- are not acquainted with the nature and necessity of this duty. They ought to search the Word of God in order to become acquainted with this key and to learn how to use it. They ought to allow ministers, who are acquainted with this, to instruct them in this matter. If my instruction in this chapter would be conducive to this, it will be a joy to me.
(2) Everyone ought to be much in prayer for both light and a heart that will be faithful in these matters, for it is a battle which is waged against the entire world, a battle in which one either will not dare to participate, or in which one would readily succumb without an extraordinary measure of the Lord’s help.
(3) You must engage in this task in the realization that it is the Lord’s work, for in doing so you will gain ability and boldness. You will then begin to observe your congregation, neighborhood by neighborhood, and if you become suspicious about someone, you ought to inquire about this. You should privately address such an individual, exhort and rebuke him, and seek to correct such a person in the spirit of meekness. If he hears you, you will have gained him. If he perseveres in his offensive behavior, you must bring such a person to the attention of the consistory in order that censure may be imposed upon him, and thereafter use this imposition of censure to make an impression upon the heart in private conversations. He will thus be subdued by this, or in anger resist this. It is then the obligation to proceed from one step of censure to the next. If the congregation becomes aware of the fact that she is thus observed in her ways, and that there is an immediate response when someone has committed an offense, there will be fear and shame, and each will walk prudently. To know better what is transpiring, there is need for some members who are most tender in their godliness to be convinced that it is everyone’s duty to deal with offensive behavior, be it that this is done privately or becomes public knowledge. We are obligated to provoke one another to love and good works. One is obligated to exercise his duty faithfully, even though it brings hatred and slander upon himself. One must make it evident by his behavior, however, that he does so in love and in faithfulness, having the well-being of souls and the church in view. He must especially refrain from conveying superiority or from creating such an impression.
Members must also observe their duty in this matter, both toward those who are not under censure and toward those who are. Members must 1) not only exhort and rebuke each other (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Hebrews 3:13), but 2) they must also bring those, who are inconsistent in their walk and who are not willing to listen to their exhortations, to the attention of the elders of the church, according to the express command of Christ. “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church” (Matthew 18:17).
Toward those who are under censure, members must:
(1) show themselves to be moved with sorrow and compassion, urging them to be sorrowful and to repent. They must do so, however, by maintaining a distance and a distinction between themselves and those who are under censure.
(2) Members must withdraw themselves from such and avoid all fellowship (2 Thessalonians 3:14). This is true for mutual dinner invitations, going for a walk, and whatever other form of fellowship would be indicative of familiarity, so that the one under censure may be put to shame. The degree of such withdrawal must be commensurate with the step of censure. In order to be faithful in this duty, everyone ought to know that censure is a matter which pertains to the entire congregation, even though it is to be initiated by its elders. Thus, he who is remiss in this is not faithful to the charge which the Lord Jesus has given him. You who are remiss will be held accountable for the sinner who perseveres in his sin, for the desecration of the sacraments, and also for the fact that the church degenerates and continues to be degenerate. It is truly a matter of great import to make oneself guilty of these things and to be the cause thereof. We therefore exhort everyone to be faithful and active in this, following the example of the household of Chloe who informed Paul concerning the offenses which were present in the congregation (1 Corinthians 1:11).
Those who are under censure must
(1) be very sensitive to the imposition of censure and the committed offense, of which the Lord Jesus says, “It is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mark 9:42).
(2) They must refrain from being opposed to censure upon themselves, and from responding in anger to the elders of the congregation who are imposing censure. Rather, they should with a tender heart submit themselves to them for it is, first of all, the Lord Jesus Himself who is engaged in this task, and it is performed on His behalf and upon His command. He who therefore opposes this, opposes the Lord Jesus Himself, which is a dreadful matter indeed. Secondly, when they were accepted as members, they have promised to submit themselves to the discipline of the consistory in the event that they would give offense. If someone acts contrary to this, however, he acts contrary to his own solemn vow. Thirdly, censure has in view the welfare of both those who are under censure and of the congregation. Therefore, if someone cherishes his own salvation and the practice of godliness, he must not resist those means which are subservient to this. Even if he were not willing to submit himself for his own benefit, love for the congregation ought to motivate him to this; for when this key does not function, the congregation will degenerate. The use of this key, on the contrary, purifies the congregation, makes others fearful of sinning, and delivers those who are weak from that which offends. It will cause the church to demand respect from those who are without, who in turn will aspire after godliness and salvation and will be enticed to join the church.
Blessed is the congregation where this may be practiced. “For there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” (Psalms 133:3).