The Assembly of God Part 9

But not only does this culpable and pernicious indifference of spirit act as a hindrance to many, in presenting themselves at the Lord's table; imperfect views of justification produce the same unhappy result.

If the conscience be not perfectly purged, if there be not perfect rest in G.o.d's testimony about the finished work of Christ, there will either be a shrinking from the Supper of the Lord, or an unintelligent celebration of it. Those only can show the Lord's death who know, through the teaching of the Holy Spirit, the value of the Lord's death.

If I regard the ordinance as a means whereby I am to be brought into a place of greater nearness to G.o.d, or whereby I am to obtain a clearer sense of my acceptance, it is impossible that I can rightly observe it.

I must believe, as the gospel commands me to believe, that ALL my sins are FOREVER put away ere I can take my place with any measure of spiritual intelligence at the Lord's table. If the matter be not viewed in this light, the Lord's Supper can only be regarded as a kind of step to the altar of G.o.d, and we are told in the law that we are not to go up by steps to G.o.d's altar, lest our nakedness be discovered (Ex. xx. 26).

The meaning of which is, that all human efforts to approach G.o.d must issue in the discovery of human nakedness.

Thus we see that if it be indifference that prevents the Christian from being at the breaking of bread, it is most culpable in the sight of G.o.d, and most injurious to his brethren and himself; and if it be an imperfect sense of justification that prevents, it is not only unwarrantable, but most dishonoring to the love of the Father, the work of the Son, and the clear and unequivocal testimony of the Holy Ghost.

But it is not unfrequently said, and that, too, by those who profess spirituality and intelligence, "I derive no spiritual benefit by going to the a.s.sembly: I am as happy in my own room, reading my Bible." I would affectionately ask such, Are we to have no higher object before us in our actings than our own happiness? Is not obedience to the command of our blessed Master--a command delivered on "the same night in which He was betrayed"--a far higher and n.o.bler object to set before us than anything connected with self? If He desires that His people should a.s.semble in His name, for the express object of showing forth His death till He come, shall we refuse because we feel happier in our own rooms?

He tells us to be there: we reply, "We feel happier at home." Our happiness, therefore, must be based on disobedience; and, as such, it is an unholy happiness. It is much better, if it should be so, to be unhappy in the path of obedience than happy in the path of disobedience.

But I verily believe, the thought of being happier at home is a mere delusion, and the end of those deluded by it will prove it such. Thomas might have deemed it indifferent whether he was present with the other disciples, but he had to do without the Lord's presence, and to wait for eight days, until the disciples came together on the first day of the week; for there and then the Lord was pleased to reveal Himself to his soul. And just so will it be with those who say, "We feel happier at home than in the a.s.sembly of believers." They will surely be behindhand in knowledge and experience; yea, it will be well if they come not under the terrible woe denounced by the prophet: "Woe to the idol shepherd that _leaveth the flock_! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye; his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened" (Zech. xi. 17). And again, "Not forsaking the a.s.sembling of ourselves together, _as the manner of some is_; but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. x. 25-27).

As to the objection upon the grounds of the barrenness and unprofitableness of Christian a.s.semblies, it will generally be remarked that the greatest spiritual barrenness will always be found in connection with a captious and complaining spirit; and I doubt not that if those who complain of the unprofitableness of meetings, and draw from thence an argument in favor of their remaining at home, were to spend more time in secret waiting on the Lord for His blessing on the meetings, they would have a very different experience.

And now, having shown from Scripture who ought to be at the breaking of bread, we shall proceed to consider who ought _not_. On this point Scripture is equally explicit: in a word, then, none should be there who are not members of the true Church of G.o.d. The same law which commanded _all_ the congregation of Israel to eat the pa.s.sover, commanded all uncirc.u.mcised strangers _not_ to eat; and now that Christ our Pa.s.sover has been sacrificed for us, none can keep the feast, (which is to extend throughout this entire dispensation,) nor break the bread nor drink the wine in true remembrance of Him, save those who know the cleansing and healing virtues of His precious blood. To eat and drink without this knowledge, is to eat and drink unworthily--to eat and drink judgment; like the woman in Num. v. who drank the water of jealousy, to make the condemnation more manifest and awfully solemn.

Now it is in this that Christendom's guilt is specially manifest. In taking the Lord's Supper, the professing Church has, like Judas, put her hand on the table with Christ and betrayed Him; she has eaten with Him, and at the same time lifted up her heel against Him. What will be her end? Just like the end of Judas. "He, then, having received the sop, _went immediately out_: and"--the Holy Ghost adds, in awful solemnity--"IT WAS NIGHT." Terrible night! The strongest expression of divine love only elicited the strongest expression of human hatred. So will it be with the false professing Church collectively, and each false professor individually; and all those who, though baptized in the name of Christ, and sitting down at the table of Christ, have nevertheless been His betrayers, will find themselves at last thrust out into outer darkness--involved in a night which shall never see the beams of the morning--plunged in a gulf of endless and ineffable woe; and though they may be able to say to the Lord, "We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets," yet His solemn, heartrending reply will be, while He shuts the door against them, "Depart from Me! I never knew you." O reader, think of this, I pray you; and if you be yet in your sins, defile not the Lord's table by your presence; but instead of going thither as a hypocrite, repair to Calvary as a poor ruined and guilty sinner, and there receive pardon and cleansing from Him who died to save just such as you are.

IV. Having now considered, through the Lord's mercy, the nature of the Lord's Supper; the circ.u.mstances under which it was inst.i.tuted; and the persons for whom it was designed; I would only add a word as to what Scripture teaches us about the time and manner of its celebration.

Although the Lord's Supper was not _first_ inst.i.tuted on the first day of the week, yet the twenty-fourth of Luke and the twentieth of Acts are quite sufficient to prove, to a mind subject to the Word, that that is the day on which the ordinance should specially be observed. The Lord broke bread with His disciples on "the first day of the week" (Luke xxiv. 30); and "on the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts xx. 7). These scriptures are quite sufficient to prove that it is not once a month, nor once in three months, nor once in six months, that disciples should come together to break bread, but once a week at least, and that upon the first day of the week. Nor can we have any difficulty in seeing that there is a moral fitness in the first day of the week for the celebration of the Lord's Supper: it is the resurrection day--the Church's day, in contrast with the seventh, which was Israel's day; and as, in the inst.i.tution of the ordinance, the Lord led His disciples away from Jewish things altogether, (by refusing to drink of the fruit of the vine--the pa.s.sover cup,--and then inst.i.tuting another ordinance) so, in the day on which that ordinance was to be celebrated, we observe the same contrast between heavenly and earthly things. It is in the power of resurrection that we can rightly show the Lord's death. When the conflict was over, Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abram, in the name of the Lord. Thus, too, our Melchizedek, when all the conflict was over and the victory gained, came forth in resurrection with bread and wine, to strengthen and cheer the hearts of His people, and to breathe upon them that peace which He had so dearly purchased.

If, then, the first day of the week be the day on which Scripture teaches the disciples to break bread, it is clear that man has no authority to alter the period to once a month, or once in six months.

And I doubt not, when the affections are lively and fervent toward the person of the Lord Himself, the Christian will desire to show the Lord's death as frequently as possible: indeed, it would seem, from the opening of Acts, that the disciples broke bread daily. This we may infer from the expression "breaking bread from house to house" (or "at home").

However, we are not left to depend upon mere inference as to the question of the first day of the week being the day on which the disciples came together to break bread: we are distinctly taught this, and we see its moral fitness and beauty.

Thus much as to the _time_. And now one word about the _manner_. It should be the special aim of Christians to show that the breaking of bread is their grand and primary object in coming together on the first day of the week. They should show that it is not for preaching or teaching that they a.s.semble, though teaching may be a happy adjunct, but that the breaking of bread is the leading object before their minds. It is the work of Christ which we show forth in the Supper, wherefore it should have the first place; and when it has been duly set forth, there should be a full and unqualified opening left for the work of the Holy Ghost in ministry. The office of the Spirit is to set forth and exalt the name, the person and the work of Christ; and if He be allowed to order and govern the a.s.sembly of Christians, as He undoubtedly should, He will ever give the work of Christ the primary place.

I cannot close this paper without expressing my deep sense of the feebleness and shallowness of all that I have advanced, on a subject of really commanding interest. I do feel before the Lord, in whose presence I desire to write and speak, that I have so failed to bring out the full truth about this matter, that I almost shrink from letting these pages see the light. It is not that I have a shadow of doubt as to the truth of what I have endeavored to state; no: but I feel that, in writing upon such a subject as the breaking of bread, at the time when there is such sad confusion among professing Christians, there is a demand for pointed, clear, and lucid statements, to which I am little able to respond.

We have but little conception of how entirely the question of the breaking of bread is connected with the Church's position and testimony on earth; and we have as little conception of how thoroughly the question has been misunderstood by the professing Church. The breaking of bread ought to be the distinct enunciation of the fact that all believers are _one body_; but the professing Church, by splitting into sects, and by setting up a table for each sect, has practically denied that fact.

In truth, the breaking of bread has been cast into the background. The table, at which the Lord should preside, is almost lost sight of, by being placed in the shade of the pulpit, in which man presides: the pulpit, which, alas! is too often the instrument of creating and perpetuating disunion, is, to many minds, the commanding object; while the table, which if properly understood would perpetuate love and unity, is made quite a secondary thing. And even in the most laudable effort to recover from such a lamentable condition of things, what complete failure have we seen. What has the Evangelical Alliance effected? It has effected this, at least, it has developed a need existing among professing Christians, which they are confessedly unable to meet. They want union, and are unable to attain it. Why? Because they will not give up everything which has been _added_ to the truth to meet together according to the truth, to break bread as disciples. I say, _as disciples_, and not as Church-men, Independents, Baptists, etc. It is not that all such may not have much valuable truth, I mean those of them who love our Lord Jesus Christ: they certainly may; but they have no _truth_ that should prevent them from meeting _together_ to break bread.

How could truth ever hinder Christians from giving expression to the unity of the Church? Impossible! A sectarian spirit in those who hold truth may do this, but truth never can. But how is it now in the professing Church? Christians, of various communities, can meet for the purpose of reading, praying, and singing together during the week, but when the first day of the week arrives, they have not the least idea of giving the only real and effectual expression of their unity, which the Holy Ghost can recognize, which is the breaking of bread. "We being many are one bread and one body; for we are _all_ partakers of that _one_ bread."

The sin at Corinth was their not tarrying one for another. This appears from the exhortation with which the apostle sums up the whole question (I Cor. xi.), "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." Why were they to tarry one for another? Surely, in order that they might the more clearly express their unity. But what would the apostle have said, if, instead of coming together, into one place, they had gone to different places, according to their different views of truth? He might then say with, if possible, greater force, "Ye cannot eat the Lord's Supper." (See _margin_.)

It may, however, be asked, "How could all the believers in London meet in one place?" I reply, if they could not meet in one place, they could, at least, meet on one principle. But how did the believers at Jerusalem meet together? The answer is, they were "_of one accord_." This being so, they had little difficulty about the question of a meeting-room.

"Solomon's porch," or anywhere else, would suit their purpose. They gave expression to their unity, and that, too, in a way not to be mistaken.

Neither various localities, nor various measures of knowledge and attainment, could, in the least, interfere with their unity. There was "one body and one Spirit."

Finally, I would say, the Lord will a.s.suredly honor those who have faith to believe and confess the unity of the Church on earth; and the greater the difficulty in the way of doing so, the greater will be the honor.

The Lord grant to all His people a single eye, and a humble and honest spirit.

Thy broken body, gracious Lord, Is shadowed by this broken bread; The wine which in this cup is poured Points to the blood which Thou hast shed.

And while we meet together thus, We show that we are one in Thee; Thy precious blood was shed for us-- Thy death, O Lord, has set us free.

Brethren in Thee, in union sweet-- Forever be Thy grace adored-- 'Tis in Thy name, that now we meet, And know Thou'rt with us, gracious Lord.

We have one hope--that Thou wilt come; Thee in the air we wait to see, When Thou wilt take Thy people home, And we shall ever reign with Thee.

FOOTNOTES:

[XI.] It is needful to bear in mind that, while the blood of Christ is that alone which introduces the believer, in holy boldness, into the presence of G.o.d, yet it is nowhere set forth as our centre, or bond of union. Truly precious is it for every blood-washed soul to remember, in the secret of the divine presence, that the atoning blood of Jesus has rolled away for ever his heavy burden of sin. Yet the Holy Ghost can only gather us to the person of a risen and glorified Christ, who, having shed the blood of the everlasting covenant, is gone up into heaven in the power of an endless life, to which divine righteousness inseparably attaches. A living Christ, therefore, is our centre and bond of union. The blood having answered for us to G.o.d, we gather round our risen and exalted Head in the heavens. "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto _Me_." We behold in the cup in the Lord's Supper the symbol of shed blood; but we are neither gathered round the cup nor the blood, but round Him who shed it. The blood of the Lamb has put away every obstacle to our fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d; and in proof of this the Holy Ghost has come down to baptize believers into one body, and gather them round the risen and glorified Head. The wine is _the memorial_ of a life shed out for sin: the bread is _the memorial_ of a body broken for sin: but we are not gathered round a life poured out, nor round a body broken, but round a living Christ, who dieth no more, who cannot have His body broken any more, or His blood shed any more.

This makes a serious difference; and when looked at in connection with the discipline of the house of G.o.d, the difference is immensely important. Very many are apt to imagine that when any one is put away from or refused communion, the question is raised as to there being a link between his soul and Christ. A moment's consideration of this point in the light of Scripture will be sufficient to prove that no such question is raised. If we look at the case of the "wicked person" in I Cor. v., we see one put away from the communion of the Church on earth who was nevertheless a Christian, as people say. He was not, therefore, put away because he was not a Christian: such a question was never raised; nor should it be in any case. How can we tell whether a man is eternally linked with Christ or not? Have we the custody of the Lamb's book of life? Is the discipline of the Church of G.o.d founded upon what we can know, or upon what we _cannot_? Was the man in I Cor. v. linked eternally with Christ, or not? Was the Church told to inquire? Even suppose we could see a man's name written in the book of life, that would not be the ground of receiving him into the a.s.sembly on earth, or retaining him there. That which the Church is held responsible for, is to keep herself pure in doctrine, pure in practice, and pure in a.s.sociation, and all this on the ground of being G.o.d's house. "Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh Thy house, O Lord, for ever." When any one was separated, or "cut off," from the congregation of Israel, was it because of not being an Israelite? By no means; but because of some moral or ceremonial defilement which could not be tolerated in G.o.d's a.s.sembly. In Achan's case (Josh. vii.), although there were six hundred thousand souls ignorant of his sin, yet G.o.d says, "_Israel hath sinned_." Why? Because they were looked at as G.o.d's a.s.sembly, and there was defilement there which, if not judged, all would have been broken up.

[XII.] Those who are competent to do so can look at the original of this important chapter, where they will see that the word translated "approved" (ver. 19) comes from the same root as that translated "examine himself" (ver. 28). Thus we see that the man who approves himself takes his place amongst the approved, and is the very opposite of those who were amongst the heretics. Now the meaning of a heretic is not merely one who holds false doctrine, though one may be a heretic in so doing, but one who persists in the exercise of _his own will_. The apostle knew that there must be heresies at Corinth, seeing that there were sects: those who were doing their own will were acting in opposition to G.o.d's will, and thus producing division; for G.o.d's will had reference to the whole body. Those who were acting heretically were despising the Church of G.o.d.

[XIII.] It may be well to add a word here for the guidance of any simple-hearted Christian who may find himself placed in circ.u.mstances in which he is called upon to decide between the claims of different tables which might seem to be spread upon the same principle. To confirm and encourage such an one in a truthful course of action, I should regard as a most valuable service.

Suppose, then, I find myself in a place where two or more tables have been spread; what am I to do? I believe I am to inquire into the _origin_ of these various tables, to see how it became needful to have more than one table. If, for example, a number of Christians meeting together have admitted and retained amongst them any unsound principles, affecting the person of the Son of G.o.d, or subversive of the unity of the Church of G.o.d on earth; if, I say, such principles be admitted and retained in the a.s.sembly, or if persons who hold and teach them be received and acknowledged by the a.s.sembly; under such painful and humiliating circ.u.mstances the faithful can no longer be there. Why?

Because I cannot take my place at it without identifying myself with manifestly unchristian principles. The same remark, of course, applies if the case be that of corrupt conduct unjudged by the a.s.sembly.

Now, if a number of Christians should find themselves placed in the circ.u.mstances above described, they would be called upon to maintain THE PURITY OF THE TRUTH OF G.o.d while acknowledging as ever the oneness of the body. We have not only to maintain the grace of the Lord's table, but the _holiness_ of it also. Truth is not to be sacrificed in order to maintain unity, nor will _true_ unity ever be interfered with by the strict maintenance of truth.

It is not to be imagined that the unity of the body of Christ is interfered with when a community based upon unsound principles, or countenancing unsound doctrine or practice, is separated from. The Church of Rome charged the Reformers with schism because they separated from her; but we know that the Church of Rome lay, and still lies, under the charge of schism because she imposes false doctrine upon her members. Let it only be ascertained that the truth of G.o.d is called in question by any community, and that, to be a member of that community, I must identify myself with unsound doctrine or corrupt practice, and then it cannot be schism to separate from such a community; nay, I am bound to separate.

[XIV.] It is usual to apply the term "unworthily," in this pa.s.sage, to _persons_ doing the act, whereas it really refers to the _manner_ of doing it. The apostle never thought of calling in question the Christianity of the Corinthians; nay, in the opening address of his epistle, he looks at them as "the Church of G.o.d which is at Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints" (or saints by calling). How could he use this language in the first chapter, and in the eleventh call in question the worthiness of these saints to take their seat at the Lord's Supper? Impossible. He looked upon them as saints, and as such he exhorted them to celebrate the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner.

The question of any but true Christians being there, is never raised; so that it is utterly impossible that the word "unworthily" could apply to _persons_. Its application is entirely to the _manner_. The persons were worthy, but their manner was not; and they were called, as saints, to judge themselves as to their _ways_, else the Lord might judge them in their _persons_ as was already the case. In a word, it was as true Christians they were called to judge themselves. If they were in doubt as to that, they were utterly unable to judge anything. I never think of setting my child to judge as to whether he is my child or not; but I expect him to judge himself as to his habits, else, if he do not, I may have to do, by chastening, what he ought to do by self-judgment. It is because I look upon him as my child, that I will not allow him to sit at my table with soiled garments and disorderly manners.

[XV.] The reader will bear in mind that the text does not touch the question of Scriptural discipline. There may be many members of the flock of Christ who could not be received into the a.s.sembly on earth, inasmuch as they may possibly be leavened by false doctrine, or wrong practice. But, though we might not be able to receive them, we do not, by any means, raise the question as to their being in the Lamb's book of life. This is not the province nor the prerogative of the Church of G.o.d.

"_The Lord_ knoweth them that are His; and let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim. ii. 19).

[XVI.] The church of Rome has so entirely departed from the truth set forth in the Lord's Supper, that she professes to offer, in the ma.s.s, "an unb.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." Now, we are taught, in Heb. ix. 22, that "without shedding of blood is no remission;" consequently, the church of Rome has no remission of sins for her members. She robs them of this precious reality, and instead thereof, gives them an anomalous and utterly unscriptural thing, called "an unb.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice, or ma.s.s." This, which, according to her own practice and the testimony of Heb. ix. 22, can never take away sin, she offers day by day, week by week, and year by year. A sacrifice without blood must, if Scripture be true, be a sacrifice without remission.

Hence, therefore, the sacrifice of the ma.s.s is a positive blind raised by the devil, through the agency of Rome, to hide from the sinner's view the glorious sacrifice of Christ, "_once offered_," and never to be repeated. "Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him" (Rom. vi. 9). Every fresh sacrifice of the ma.s.s only declares the inefficiency of all the previous sacrifices, so that Rome is only mocking the sinner with an empty shadow. But she is consistent in her wickedness, for she withholds the cup from the laity, and teaches her members that they have body and blood and all in the wafer. But, if the blood be still in the body, it is manifestly not shed, and then we get back to the same gloomy point, namely, "no remission." "Without shedding of blood is no remission."

How totally different is the precious and most refres.h.i.+ng inst.i.tution of the Lord's Supper, as set before us in the New Testament. There we find the bread broken, and the wine poured out--the significant symbols of a body broken, and of blood shed. The wine is not in the bread, because the blood is not in the body, for, if it were, there would be "no remission." In a word, the Lord's Supper is the distinct memorial of an eternally accomplished sacrifice; and none can communicate thereat, with intelligence or blessing, save those who know the full remission of sins. It is not that we would, by any means, make knowledge a term of communion, for very many of the children of G.o.d, through bad teaching, and various other causes, do not know the perfect remission of sins, and were they to be excluded on that ground, it would be making _knowledge_ a term of communion, instead of _life_ and _obedience_. Still, if I do not know, experimentally, that redemption is an accomplished fact, I shall see but little meaning in the symbols of bread and wine; and, moreover, I shall be in great danger of attaching a species of efficacy to the memorials, which belongs only to the great reality to which they point.

[XVII.] I can only feel myself responsible to present myself in the a.s.sembly when it is gathered on proper Church ground, i. e., the ground laid down in the New Testament. People may a.s.semble, and call themselves the Church of G.o.d, in any given locality, but if they do not exhibit the characteristic features and principles of the Church of G.o.d as set forth in Holy Scripture, I cannot own them. If they refuse, or lack spiritual power, to judge worldliness, carnality, or false doctrine, they are evidently not on proper Church ground: they are merely a religious fraternity, which, in its collective character, I am in no wise responsible before G.o.d to own. Hence the child of G.o.d needs much spiritual power, and subjection to the Word, to be able to carry himself through all the windings of the professing Church in this peculiarly evil and difficult day.

THE a.s.sEMBLY OF G.o.d

OR, THE

ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF THE NAME OF JESUS

In a day like the present, when almost every new idea becomes the centre or gathering-point of some new a.s.sociation, we cannot but feel the value of having divinely formed convictions as to what the a.s.sembly of G.o.d really is. We live in a time of unusual mental activity, and hence there is the more urgent need of calm and prayerful study of the word of G.o.d.

That Word, blessed be its Author, is like a rock amid the ocean of human thought. There it stands unmoved, notwithstanding the raging of the storm and the ceaseless las.h.i.+ng of the waves. And not only does it thus stand unmoved itself, but it imparts its own stability to all who simply take their stand upon it. What a mercy to make one's escape from the heavings and tossings of the stormy ocean, and find a calm resting place on that everlasting Rock.

This, truly, is a mercy. Were it not that we have "the law and the testimony," where should we be? Whither should we go? What should we do?

What darkness! What confusion! What perplexity!

A thousand jarring voices fall, at times, upon the ear, and each voice seems to speak with such authority, that if one is not well taught and grounded in the Word, there is great danger of being drawn away, or, at least, sadly unhinged. One man will tell you that _this_ is right; another will tell you _that_ is right; a third will tell you that _everything_ is right; and a fourth will tell you that _nothing_ is right. With reference to the question of church position, you will meet with some who go _here_; some who go _there_; some who go _everywhere_; and some who go _nowhere_.