PART V.

In closing this series of brief papers on Gilgal, we must turn our

thoughts to the practical application of that which has been engaging

our attention. If it be true--and it is true--that Jesus died for us, it

is equally true that we have died in Him; as one of our own poets has

sweetly put it:

"For me, Lord Jesus, Thou hast died

And I have died in Thee:

Thou'rt risen--my bands are all untied,

And now Thou livest in me.

The Father's face of radiant grace

Shines now in light on me."

Now this is a great practical truth--none more so. It lies at the very

foundation of all true Christianity. If Christ has died for us, then, in

very deed, He has taken us completely out of our old condition, with all

that appertained to it, and placed us upon an entirely new footing. We

can look back from resurrection-ground on which we now stand, into the

dark river of death, and see there, in its deepest depths, the memorial

of the victory gained for us by the Prince of Life. We do not look

forward to death; we look back at it. We can truly say, "The bitterness

of death is past."

Jesus met death for us in its most terrible form. Just as the river of

Jordan was divided when it presented its most formidable

appearance--"for Jordan overfloweth all its banks all the time of

harvest"--so our Jesus encountered our last great enemy, vanquished him

in his most fearful form, and left behind, in the very centre of death's

dark domain, the imperishable record of His glorious victory. All

praise, homage, and adoration to His peerless name! It is our privilege,

by faith and in spirit, to stand on Canaan's side of Jordan, and erect

our memorial of what the Saviour, the true Joshua, has done for us.

"And it came to pass, when all the people were clean passed over Jordan,

that the Lord spake unto Joshua, saying, Take you twelve men out of the

people, _out of every tribe a man_. And command ye them, saying, Take

you hence out of the midst of Jordan, _out of the place where the

priests' feet stood firm_, twelve stones; and ye shall carry them over

with you, and leave them in the lodging-place where ye shall lodge this

night. Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had prepared of the

children of Israel, _out of every tribe a man_. And Joshua said unto

them, Pass over before the ark of the Lord your God, into the midst of

Jordan, and take you up _every man of you_ a stone upon his shoulder,

according unto the number of the tribes of the children of Israel: that

this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers

in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? then ye shall

answer them, That the waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of

the covenant of the Lord; when it passed over Jordan, the waters of

Jordan were cut off: and these stones shall be _for a memorial_ unto the

children of Israel for ever" (Josh. iv: I-7).

The great fact was to be seized, and practically carried out by the

whole assembly, "of every tribe a man"--"every man of you a stone upon

his shoulder," a stone taken from the very spot where the priests' feet

stood firm. All were to be brought into living personal contact with the

great mysterious fact that the waters of Jordan were cut off. All were

to engage in erecting such a memorial of this fact as should elicit

inquiry from their children as to what it meant. It was never to be

forgotten.

What a lesson is here for us! Are we erecting our memorial? Are we

giving evidence--such evidence as may strike even the mind of a

child--of the fact that our Jesus has vanquished the power of death for

us? Are we affording any practical proof in daily life that Christ has

died for us, and that we have died in Him? Is there aught in our actual

history, from day to day, answering to the figure set forth in the

passage just quoted--"every man of you a stone upon his shoulder"? Are

we declaring plainly that we have passed clean over Jordan--that we

belong to heaven--that we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit? Do

our children see aught in our habits and ways, in our spirit and

deportment, in our whole character and manner of life, leading them to

inquire, "What mean ye by these things?" Are we living as those who are

dead with Christ--dead to sin--dead to the world?

Are we practically freed from the world--letting go our hold of present

things, in the power of communion with a risen Christ?

These are searching questions for the soul, beloved Christian reader.

Let us seek to meet them honestly, as in the divine presence. We profess

these things, we hold them in theory. We say we believe that Jesus died

for us, and that we died in Him. Where is the proof--where the abiding

memorial--where the stone on the shoulder? Let us judge ourselves

honestly before God. Let us no longer rest satisfied with anything short

of the thorough, practical, habitual carrying out of the great truth

that "we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God." Mere

profession is worthless. We want the living power--the true result--the

proper fruit.

"And the people came up out of Jordan on the tenth day of the first

month, and encamped in Gilgal, in the east border of Jericho. And _those

twelve stones which they took out of Jordan_"--stones of peculiar

import--no other stones could tell such a tale, teach such a lesson, or

symbolize such a stupendous fact--no other stones like them--"those

twelve stones did Joshua pitch in Gilgal. And he spake unto the children

of Israel, saying, When your children shall ask their fathers in time to

come, saying, What mean these stones? then ye shall let your children

know, saying, _Israel came over this Jordan on dry land_. For the Lord

your God dried up the waters of Jordan from before you, until ye were

passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which He dried up

from before us, until we were gone over: that all the people of the

earth might know the hand of the Lord, that it is mighty: that ye might

fear the Lord your God forever."

Here, then, we see Israel at Gilgal. "Everything was finished that the

Lord commanded Joshua to speak unto the people, according to all that

Moses commanded Joshua." Every member of the host had passed clean over

Jordan--not one had been suffered to feel the slightest touch of the

river of death. Grace had brought them all safely over into the

inheritance promised to their fathers. They were not only separated from

Egypt by the Red Sea, but actually brought into Canaan across the dry

bed of the Jordan, and encamped in Gilgal, in the plains of Jericho.

And now mark what follows. "And it came to pass, when all the kings of

the Amorites which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the

kings of the Canaanites which were by the sea, heard that the Lord had

dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until

we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit

in them any more, because of the children of Israel. _At that

time_"--note the words!--when all the nations were paralyzed with terror

at the very thought of this people--"at that time the Lord said unto

Joshua, Make thee _sharp knives_, and circumcise again the children of

Israel the second time."

How deeply significant is this: How suggestive are these "sharp knives"!

How needful! If Israel are about to bring the sword upon the Canaanites,

Israel must have the sharp knife applied to themselves. They had never

been circumcised in the wilderness. The reproach of Egypt had never been

rolled away from them. And ere they could celebrate the passover, and

eat of the old corn of the land of Canaan, they must have the sentence

of death written upon them. No doubt this was aught but agreeable to

nature; but it must be done. How could they take possession of Canaan

with the reproach of Egypt resting upon them? How could uncircumcised

people dispossess the Canaanites? Impossible! The sharp knives had to do

their work throughout the camp of Israel ere they could eat of Canaan's

food or prosecute the warfare which of necessity belongs to it.

"And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of

Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua

did circumcise. All the people that came out of Egypt that were males,

even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they

came out of Egypt.... And their children, whom he raised up in their

stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because

they had not circumcised them by the way.... And the Lord said unto

Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you.

Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal ("rolling") unto this

day. And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the

passover on the fourteenth day of the month, at even, in the plains of

Jericho. And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow

after the passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn, in the self-same

day. And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old

corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but

they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year."

Here, then, we have a type of the full Christian position. The Christian

is a heavenly man, dead to the world, crucified with Christ, associated

with Him where He now is, and, while waiting for His appearing, occupied

in heart with Him, feeding by faith upon Him as the proper nourishment

of the new man.

Such is the Christian's position--such his portion. But in order to

enter fully into the enjoyment thereof, there must be the application of

the "sharp knife" to all that belongs to mere nature. There must be the

sentence of death written upon that which Scripture designates as "the

old man."

All this must be really and practically entered into if we would

maintain our position or enjoy our proper portion as heavenly men. If we

are indulging nature; if we are living in a low, worldly atmosphere; if

we are going in for this world's pursuits, its pleasures, its politics,

its riches, its honors, its fashions, and its distinctions--then,

verily, it is impossible that we can be enjoying fellowship with our

risen Head and Lord.[VII.] Christ is in heaven, and to enjoy Him we must

be living, in spirit and by faith, where He is. He is not of this world;

and if we are of it, we cannot be enjoying fellowship with Him. "If we

say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and

do not the truth" (I John i. 6).

This is most solemn. If I am living in and of the world, I am walking in

darkness, and I can have no fellowship with a heavenly Christ.

"Wherefore," says the blessed apostle, "if ye be dead with Christ from

the rudiments of the world, why, _as though living in the world_, are ye

subject to ordinances?" Do we really understand these words? Have we

weighed the full force of the expression, "living in the world"? Is the

Christian not to be as one living in the world? Clearly not. He is to

live, in spirit, where Christ is. As to fact, he is obviously on this

earth, moving up and down, and in and out, in the varied relations of

life, and in the varied spheres of action in which the hand of God has

set him. But his home is in heaven. His life is there. His object, his

rest, his proper _all_, is in heaven. He does not belong to earth. His

citizenship is in heaven; and in order to make this good in practice

from day to day, there must be the denial of self, the mortification of

our members.

All this comes vividly out in Col. iii. Indeed, it would be impossible

to give a more striking exposition of the entire subject of "Gilgal"

than that presented in the following lines: "If ye then be risen with

Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the

right hand of God. Set your affections on things above, not on things on

the earth. For ye have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

When Christ our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in

glory." And now comes the true spiritual import and application of

"Gilgal" and its "sharp knives"--"Mortify, therefore, your members which

are upon the earth."

May the Holy Spirit lead us into a deeper and fuller understanding of

our place, portion and practice as Christians. Would to God that we

better knew what it is to feed upon the old corn of the land, at the

true spiritual Gilgal, that thus we might be better fitted for the

conflict and service to which we are called!

FOOTNOTE:

[VII.] The reader may here remark that "the old corn of the land of

Canaan" is a type of Christ risen and glorified. The manna is a type of

Christ in His humiliation. The remembrance of Him in the latter is

ineffably precious to the soul. It is sweet to look back and trace His

way as the lowly, humble, self-emptied man. This is to feed upon the

hidden manna--"Christ, once humbled here." Nevertheless, a risen,

ascended and glorified Christ is the true object for the heart of the

Christian; but to enjoy Him there, the reproach of this present evil

world--all conformity to it--must be rolled away from us by the

spiritual application of the circumcision of Christ. He was not

conformed to this world, and we must be prepared to identify ourselves

with Him in this.

THOUGHTS

ON

THE CONFIRMATION VOWS

"All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Such were the memorable

words with which the people of Israel virtually abandoned the ground on

which the blessed God had just been setting them, and on which, too, He

had dealt with them in bringing them up out of the land of Egypt. "Ye

have seen," said He, "what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you

on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself." All this was

grace--pure, perfect, divine grace. He heard the groans and beheld the

sorrows of the people amid the darkness and degradation of Egyptian

bondage, and in His unmingled mercy He came down to deliver them. He

sought not their aid, He looked not for aught from them. "His own arm

brought salvation." He acted _for_ them, _with_ them, and _in_ them; and

that, too, in the solitariness and sovereignty of His own unfailing

grace. He said to Moses at the opening of the book of Exodus, "_I am

come down to deliver them_." This was absolute and unqualified grace.

There was no "if," no "but," no condition, no vow, no resolve. It was

FREE GRACE, founded upon God's eternal counsels, and righteously

displayed in immediate connection with "the blood of the Lamb." Hence,

from first to last, the word to Israel was, "_stand still, and see the

salvation of Jehovah_." They were not called to "resolve," or to "vow,"

or to "do." God was acting for them--He was doing ALL: He placed Himself

between them and every enemy, and every evil. He spread forth the shield

of His salvation that they might hide themselves behind its impenetrable

defences, and abide there in peace.

But, alas, Israel made a vow--a strange, a singular vow indeed. Not

satisfied with God's doings, they would fain talk of their own. They

would be doing, as if God's salvation were incomplete; and in lamentable

ignorance of their own weakness and nothingness, they said, "All that

the Lord hath spoken we will do." This was taking a bold stand, a high

ground. For a poor worm to make such a vow proved how little grace was

really understood, or nature's true condition apprehended.

However, Israel having undertaken to "_do_," they were put to the test,

and the most cursory view of Ex. xix. will be sufficient to show what a

marked change took place the moment they had uttered the words "we will

do." The Lord had just reminded them of how He "bare them on eagles'

wings, and brought them unto Himself;" but now He says, "Set bounds unto

the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not

up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the

mount shall be surely put to death." This was a very different aspect of

things. And let my reader remember, it was the simple result of man's

having said, "I will do." There is far more involved in those words than

many might imagine. If we take our eyes off from God's actings, and fix

them on our own, the consequences must be disastrous in the extreme. But

we shall see this more fully ere we close this paper. Let us now inquire

how the house of Israel fulfilled their singular vow. We shall see that

it ended like human vows in every age.[VIII.]

Did they do "_all_" that the Lord commanded? Did they "continue in all

things which are written in the book of the law, to do them?" Alas, no.

On the contrary, we find that ere the tables of testimony were given,

they had broken the very first commandment in the Decalogue, by making a

golden calf, and bowing down thereto. This was the earliest fruit of

their broken vow; and then, onward they went, from stage to stage,

dishonoring the name of the Lord--breaking His laws, despising His

judgments, trampling under foot His sacred institutions. Then followed

the stoning of His messengers whom, in patient grace and long-suffering,

He sent unto them. Finally, when the only-begotten Son came forth from

the bosom of the Father, they with wicked hearts rejected and with

wicked hands crucified Him. Thus we pass from Sinai to Calvary: at the

former we hear man undertaking to do all the Lord's commandments, and at

the latter see him crucifying the Lord Himself. So much for man's vows,

so much for man's "_I will do_." The fragments of the tables of

testimony scattered beneath the fiery mount told the first melancholy

tale of the failure of man's audacious resolution: nor was there any

real break in the narrative, which has its closing scene around the

cross of Calvary. All was failure--gross, unmitigated failure. Thus it

must ever be when man presumes to vow or resolve in the presence of God.

Now there is a very striking resemblance between Israel's vow at the

foot of mount Sinai and the Confirmation Vow of the Establishment. We

have rapidly glanced at the former; let us now refer to the latter.

In "the ministration of public baptism of infants," after various

prayers and the reading of the Gospel, the minister addresses the

godfathers and godmothers on this wise: "Dearly beloved, ye have brought

this child here to be baptized; ye have prayed that our Lord Jesus

Christ would vouchsafe to receive him, to release him of his sins, to

sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of heaven and

everlasting life. Ye have heard also that our Lord Jesus Christ hath

promised in His gospel to grant all these things that ye have prayed

for: which promise He, for His part, will most surely keep and perform.

Wherefore, after this promise made by Christ, this infant must also

faithfully, for his part, promise by you that are his sureties (until he

come of age to take it upon himself), that _he will renounce_ the devil

and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word and

_obediently keep His commandments_. I demand, therefore, Dost thou, in

the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain

pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and

the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led

by them? _Answer_: I RENOUNCE THEM ALL." Again: "Wilt thou obediently

keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days

of thy life? _Answer_: I WILL."

Both the above vows the children, when come to years of discretion,

deliberately and solemnly take upon themselves, as may be seen by

reference to "The Order of Confirmation." Thus we have, in the first

place, people vowing and resolving, on behalf of unconscious infants, to

"renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil," and to keep all God's

commandments, all the days of their life; and, in the second place, we

find those children, in due time, placing themselves under the weight of

those awful vows; and all this, moreover, as a necessary condition to

the fulfilment of Christ's promise. That is to say, if they allow aught

of the world, the flesh or the devil to adhere to them; or if they fail

in the faithful keeping of _all_ God's commandments, then they cannot be

saved, but must, so far as they are concerned, inevitably be condemned.

In short, salvation is here made to depend on a covenant to which man

makes himself a party. Christ is represented as willing to do His part,

provided always that man accomplishes his; but not otherwise. In other

words, there is an "_if_" in the matter, and, as a consequence, there

never is, and never can be, the certainty of salvation; yea, there can

only be the constant terror of eternal condemnation hanging over the

soul; that is, if there is any thought about the matter at all.

If the heart is not perfectly assured of the fact that Christ has in

very deed done all; that He has put away our sin; that He has forever

canceled our debt; that He has settled, by His perfect sacrifice, every

question that could possibly arise, whether it be the charges of

conscience, the accusings of Satan, or the claims of divine justice;

that He has not left a cloud on the prospect; that all is perfectly

done--in a word, that we stand before God in the power of divine

righteousness, and in the same favor with His own Son; if, I say, there

be any doubt in the soul as to the eternal truth of all these

things--then there cannot be settled peace. And that there is not this

settled peace in the case of those who have taken on themselves the

above tremendous vows is but too evident from the clouds and darkness

which hang around their spirits as they tread the next stage of their

ecclesiastical journey.

We could hardly expect that persons who boldly vow to renounce all evil,

and perfectly to fulfil all good, could approach the Lord's table with

any other acknowledgment than the following, namely: "The burden of our

sins is intolerable." It would need an obtuse conscience to be able to

shake off the conviction that those vows have been unfulfilled; and

then, assuredly, the burden must be intolerable. If I have taken vows

upon me, they will, without doubt, prove in the sequel to be dishonored

vows; and thus the whole matter of my salvation comes to the ground, and

I find myself, according to the terms of my own self-chosen covenant,

righteously exposed to the curses of a broken law. I have undertaken to

do everything; and yet I have in reality done nothing. Hence I am

"cursed;" for the word is, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in

all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Nor will it at all alter the matter to say that those extraordinary vows

are entered into in dependence upon divine grace; for there cannot be

such a thing as dependence upon _grace_ when people are placing

themselves directly under the _law_. No two things can be more opposite

than law and grace. They are put in direct contrast in Paul's epistles

to the Romans and Galatians. "Whosoever of you are justified by the law

([Greek: en nomo]),[IX.] ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. v. 4). Hence, to

think of depending upon grace when putting myself under law is precisely

the same as if I were to look to God for grace to enable me to subvert

the entire gospel of His Son Jesus Christ. "As many as are of works of

law ([Greek: ergon nomou])[IX.] are under the curse." Could I depend

upon God's grace to enable me to abide under the curse? The thought is

preposterous in the extreme. And be it observed that the apostle, in the

last-quoted passage, does not merely say, "As many as fail to keep the

law are under the curse." This he distinctly teaches, no doubt; but the

special point is, that as many as attempt to stand before God on the

ground of "works of law," are of necessity under the curse, for the

simplest of all reasons, that they are not able to satisfy His claims.

In order for man to satisfy God's claims, he must bewhat in himself he

cannot be; that is, without sin. The law demands, as its right, perfect

obedience; and those who take upon them the Confirmation Vows promise

perfect obedience. They promise to renounce all evil, and to fulfil all

good, in the most absolute manner; and moreover, they make their

salvation to depend upon their fulfilment of those vows; else why make

them at all?

This, when looked at in the light of the apostolic teaching in Romans

and Galatians, is the most complete denial of all the fundamental truths

of the gospel. In the first place, it is a denial of man's total ruin,

of his condition as one "dead in trespasses and sins," "alienated from

the life of God," "without strength," "ungodly," "enmity against God."

If I can undertake to renounce all evil, and to do all God's

commandments, then, assuredly, I do not know myself to be a lost,

ruined, helpless creature; and, as a consequence, I do not need a

Saviour. If I can boldly undertake to "_renounce_" and to "_do_," to

"keep" and to "walk," I am manifestly not lost, and hence I do not want

salvation; I am not dead, and hence I do not want life; I am not

"without strength," and hence I do not want the energy of that new, that

divine life which is imparted by the Holy Ghost to all who, by His

grace, believe in the Son of God. If I am capable of doing for myself, I

do not want another, even the Lord Jesus Christ, to do all for me.

Again, as flowing out of what has already been stated, those vows do

entirely set aside the essential glories, divine dignities and sacred

virtues of the cross of Christ. If I can get a godfather and godmother

to take vows on them on my behalf until I am capable of taking them on

myself, then it is evident I cannot possibly know the deep blessedness

of having all my vows, all my responsibilities and liabilities as a lost

sinner, all my sins and shortcomings,--everything, in short,--fully and

eternally answered in the Cross. If there is anything in my case which

has not been perfectly settled in the Cross, then I must inevitably

perish. I may make vows and resolutions, but they are as the morning

cloud that passeth away. I may get a sponsor to renounce the devil on my

behalf, and I may in due time talk of renouncing him for myself; but

what if the devil all the while has fast hold of both my sponsor and

myself? He will not renounce me, unless the chain by which he binds me

has been snapped asunder by the Cross.

Again, I may get a sponsor to undertake to keep all God's commandments

for me, and, in due time, I may undertake to keep them for myself; but

what if neither my sponsor nor I really understand the true nature or

spirituality, the majesty or stringency, of that law? Yea, more. What if

both he and I are, by our very vows, made debtors to do the whole law,

and thus shut up under its terrible curse? What then becomes of all our

vows and resolutions? Is it not plain that I am throwing overboard the

cross? Truly so. That cross must either be everything or nothing to me.

If it is anything it must be everything; and if it is not everything it

is nothing. Thus it stands, my beloved reader. The gospel of the grace

of God sets forth Christ as the great Sponsor and Surety of His people.

The Confirmation Service sets one sinner to stand sponsor for another,

or for himself. The gospel sets forth One, who is possessed of

"unsearchable riches," as the security for His people; the Confirmation

Service sets one bankrupt to stand security for another or for himself.

What avails such security? Who would accept of it? It is perfectly

valueless to God and man. If I am a bankrupt, I cannot promise to pay

anything, and if I could promise, no one would accept of it--yea, it

would be justly regarded in the light of an empty formality. The

promissory note of a bankrupt is little worth; and truly the vows and

resolutions of a poor ruined sinner are not merely an empty formality,

but a solemn mockery, in the presence of Almighty God. No one who knows

himself would presume to vow, or resolve, to keep all God's

commandments--such an one would have the full conviction that he could

never do anything of the kind.

But, as a further reply to the statement that those Confirmation Vows

are made in entire dependence upon the grace of God, I would observe

that grace can only be known or trusted by those who are His. "They that

know Thy name will put their trust in Thee," and none else. Now, the

word of God connects eternal life with the knowledge of Him. "This is

life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus

Christ, whom Thou hast sent" (John xvii. 3). If, therefore, I have

eternal life, I need not make vows to get it. If I am eternally saved, I

need not make vows to get salvation. If my sins are all canceled by the

precious blood of the Lamb, I need not make vows to get them canceled.

Neither baptismal vows, confirmation vows, sacramental vows, nor any

other vows are necessary for one who has found life, righteousness,

wisdom, sanctification, redemption--yea, all things in Christ.

The comfort and peace of the feeblest believer are based upon the fact

that Christ took all his vows, all his liabilities, all his sins, all

his iniquities entirely upon Himself, and, by His death upon the cross,

gloriously discharged them all. This sets him entirely free. Hence, it

follows that if I am not a child of God, I cannot keep vows; and if I

am, I need not make them. In either case, I deny man's fallen condition,

and set aside the true glories of the Cross. It may be in ignorance--it

may be with the most sincere intention--no doubt; but the most profound

ignorance and the purest sincerity cannot alter the real principle which

lies at the root of all manner of vows, promises, and resolutions. There

is, beyond all question, involved therein a plain denial of the great

foundation-truths of the Christian religion. A vow assumes the

competency to fulfil. Well, then, if I vow to keep all God's

commandments perfectly, all the days of my life, I am not lost or

without strength. I must have strength, else I could not undertake such

a ponderous responsibility.

And, my reader, remark further the strange anomaly involved in this

system of vows; that while it denies my lost estate, it robs me of

everything approaching to a certainty of ever being saved. If I resolve

to keep God's commandments as a necessary condition of my salvation, I

never can be sure of being saved until I have fulfilled the condition;

but inasmuch as I never can fulfil it, I, therefore, never can be sure

of my salvation; and thus I travel on, from stage to stage, from baptism

to confirmation, from confirmation to communion, and from communion to

the death-bed, in a state of miserable doubt and torturing uncertainty.

This is not the gospel. It is "a different gospel which is not another."

The immediate effect of the work of Christ, when laid hold of by faith,

is to give settled peace to the conscience; the effect of the system of

vows, is to keep the heart in constant doubt and heaviness. How many

have approached the ordinance of confirmation with trembling hearts, at

the thought of having to take upon their own shoulders the solemn vows

which, from the period of their baptism, had rested on their godfathers

and godmothers. How could it be otherwise with an honest mind? If I am

really sincere, the thought of having to take on myself those solemn

baptismal vows, must fill me with horror. Some, alas! go through these

things with thoughtless hearts and frivolous minds; but it is evident

the confirmation service was never framed for such. It was designed for

thoughtful, serious, earnest spirits; and all such must, assuredly,

retire from the ceremony, with troubled hearts and burdened consciences.

With what different feelings we gaze upon the cross of the Son of God!

There, in good truth, Satan was renounced, and his works destroyed.

There the law of God was magnified and made honorable, vindicated, and

established. There the justice of God was fully answered. There Satan

was vanquished; there conscience gets its full answer; there the cup of

God's unmingled wrath against sin was drained to the dregs by His

blessed Son. Where is the proof of all this? Not in the unaccomplished,

dishonored vows of poor frail mortals; but in a risen, ascended,

glorified Christ, seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the

heavens.

Who that knows aught of the pure and most excellent grace of God, or

that has tasted aught of the true blessedness of divinely-accomplished

redemption, could tolerate such language as, "CHRIST FOR HIS PART" and

"THIS INFANT FOR HIS PART?" Who that has listened, by faith, to those

words, "It is finished," issuing, as they do, from amid the solemn

scenes of Calvary, could endure a sinful mortal's "_I do_," or "_I

will_?" What a total setting aside of grace! What a tarnishing of the

brightness of God's salvation! What an insult to the righteousness of

God, which is by faith, and without works! What a manifest return to a

religion of ordinances and the poor works of man! Christ and an infant,

or the infant's sureties, are placed on the same platform to work out

salvation. Is it not so? If not, what mean the words, "Christ for His

part, and this infant for his part?" Is it not plain that salvation is

made to depend upon something or some one besides Christ?

Unquestionably. The vows must be fulfilled, or there is no salvation!

Miserable condition! Christ's accomplished work abandoned for a sinner's

unaccomplishable vows and resolutions! Man's "I do" substituted for

Christ's "I have finished!"

My reader, can you own such a fearful surrender of the truth of God? Are

you content with such a sandy foundation? Whither, think you, will such

a system lead you? To heaven, or to Rome? Which? Be honest. Take the New

Testament, search it from cover to cover, and see if you can find such a

thing as infants making vows by proxy, to renounce the world, the flesh,

and the devil, and to keep all God's commandments, in order to

salvation. There is not so much as a shadow of a foundation for such an

idea. "By works of law shall no flesh living be justified." "But now the

righteousness of God, without law, is manifested, being witnessed by the

law and the prophets." "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him

that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for

righteousness." "For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not

of yourselves it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should

boast." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but

according to His mercy He saved us." (See Rom. iii. 20-28; iv. 4, 5;

Eph. ii. 8, 9; Titus iii. 5-7.)

These are but a very few of the numerous passages which might be adduced

in proof of the fact that the Confirmation Vows are diametrically

opposed to the truth of God--totally subversive of the grace of God. If

my vows mean anything I must be miserable, because I am in imminent

danger of being lost forever, inasmuch as I have _not_ kept them, and

never could keep them.

Oh! what sweet relief for the wearied heart and sin-burdened conscience

in the atoning blood of Jesus! What full deliverance from my worthless

and worse than worthless vows! _Christ has done all._ He has put away

sin--made peace--brought in everlasting righteousness--brought life and

immortality to light. In Him may you, my beloved reader, find abiding

peace, unfading joy, and everlasting glory. To Him and His perfect work

I now most affectionately commend you, body, soul, and spirit, fully

assuring you my object in this paper is not to attack the prejudices, or

wound the feelings of any, but simply to take occasion to show how the

perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ is thrown into full and blessed

relief by being looked at in contrast with the "Confirmation Vows."

FOOTNOTES:

[VIII.] There is a passage in the book of Deuteronomy which, as it may

present a difficulty to some minds, should be noticed here. "And the

Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord

said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people which

they have spoken unto thee: _they have well said all that they have

spoken_" (Deut. v. 28). From this passage, it might seem as though the

Lord approved of their making a vow; but if my reader will take the

trouble of reading the entire context, from verse 24 to 27, he will see

that it has nothing whatever to say to the vow, but that it contains the

expression of their terror at the consequences of their vow. They were

not able to endure that which was commanded. "If," said they "we hear

the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is

there of all flesh that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking

out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Go thou near, and

hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us all

that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it and do

it." It was the confession of their own inability to encounter Jehovah

in that awful aspect which their proud legality had led Him to assume.

It is impossible that the Lord could ever commend an abandonment of free

and changeless grace for a sandy foundation of works of law. (See "Notes

on the book of Exodus," page 253. Same publishers.)

[IX.] [That is, as many as are on that principle--of "law," "works of

law." ED.]

THOUGHTS

ON

THE LORD'S SUPPER;

DESIGNED FOR THE HELP OF CHRISTIANS IN THIS DAY OF DIFFICULTY.

_NEW EDITION, REVISED._

PREFACE

The institution of the Lord's Supper must be regarded, by every

spiritual mind, as a peculiarly touching proof of the Lord's gracious

care and considerate love for His Church. From the time of its

appointment until the present hour, it has been a steady, though silent,

witness to a truth which the enemy, by every means in his power, has

sought to corrupt and set aside, namely, that redemption is an

accomplished fact to be enjoyed by the weakest believer in Jesus.

Eighteen centuries have rolled away since the Lord Jesus appointed "the

bread and the cup" in the Eucharist as the significant symbols of His

broken body and His blood shed for us; and notwithstanding all the

heresy, all the schism, all the controversy and strife, the war of

principles and prejudices which the blotted page of ecclesiastical

history records, this most expressive institution has been observed by

the saints of God in every age. True, the enemy has succeeded,

throughout a vast section of the professing Church, in wrapping it up in

a shroud of dark superstition; in presenting it in such a way as

actually to hide from the view of the communicant the grand and eternal

reality of which it is the memorial; in displacing Christ and His

accomplished sacrifice by a powerless ordinance--an ordinance, moreover,

which by the very mode of its administration proves its utter

worthlessness and opposition to the truth. (See note to page 29.) Yet,

notwithstanding Rome's deadly error in reference to the ordinance of the

Lord's Supper, it still speaks to every circumcised ear and every

spiritual mind the same deep and precious truth--it "shows the Lord's

death till He come." The body has been broken, the blood has been shed

ONCE, no more to be repeated; and the breaking of bread is but the

memorial of this emancipating truth.

With what profound interest and thankfulness, therefore, should the

believer contemplate "the bread and the cup"! Without a word spoken,

there is the setting forth of truths at once the most precious and

glorious: grace reigning--redemption finished--sin put away--everlasting

righteousness brought in--the sting of death gone--eternal glory

secured--"grace and glory" revealed as the free gift of God and the

Lamb--the unity of the "one body," as baptized by "one Spirit." What a

feast! It carries the soul back, in the twinkling of an eye, over a

lapse of eighteen hundred years, and shows us the Master Himself, "in

the same night in which He was betrayed," sitting at the supper table,

and there instituting a feast which, from that solemn moment, that

memorable night, until the dawn of the morning, should lead every

believing heart at once backward to the cross and forward to the glory.

This feast has ever since, by the very simplicity of its character, and

yet the deep significance of its elements, rebuked the superstition that

would deify and worship it, the profanity that would desecrate it, and

the infidelity that would set it aside altogether: and furthermore,

while it has rebuked all these, it has strengthened, comforted and

refreshed the hearts of millions of God's beloved saints. It is sweet to

think of this--sweet to bear in mind, as we assemble on the first day of

the week round the supper of the Lord, that apostles, martyrs and saints

have gathered round that feast, and found therein, according to their

measure, refreshment and blessing. Schools of theology have arisen,

flourished, and disappeared; doctors and fathers have accumulated

ponderous tomes of divinity; deadly heresies have darkened the

atmosphere, and rent the professing Church from one end to the other;

superstition and fanaticism have put forth their baseless theories and

extravagant notions; professing Christians have split into sects

innumerable--all these things have taken place; but the Lord's Supper

has continued, amid the darkness and confusion, to tell out its simple

yet comprehensive tale. "As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this

cup, ye do show[X.] the Lord's death till He come" (I Cor. xi. 26).

Precious feast! Thank God for the great privilege of celebrating it! And

yet is it but a sign, the elements of which must, in nature's view, be

mean and contemptible. Bread broken, wine poured out--how simple! Faith

alone can read, in the sign, the thing signified; and therefore it

needs not the adventitious circumstances which false religion has

introduced in order to add dignity, solemnity and awe to that which

derives all its value, its power and its impressiveness from its being a

memorial of an eternal fact which false religion denies.

May you and I, beloved reader, enter with more freshness and

intelligence into the meaning of the Lord's Supper, and with deeper

experience into the blessedness of breaking that bread which is "the

communion of the body of Christ," and drinking of that cup which is "the

communion of the blood of Christ."

In closing these few prefatory lines, I commend this treatise to the

Lord's gracious care, praying Him to make it useful to the souls of His

people.

C. H. M.

FOOTNOTE:

[X.] [The Greek word translated "show" is more exactly rendered

"announce" or "proclaim"--same word as in I Cor. ix. 14. ED.]

THOUGHTS

ON

THE LORD'S SUPPER

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered

unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was

betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake

it, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for

you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also

He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the

new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it,

in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and

drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come."--I

Cor. xi. 23-26.

I desire to offer a few brief remarks on the subject of the Lord's

Supper, for the purpose of stirring up the minds of all who love the

name and institutions of Christ to a more fervent and affectionate

interest in this most important and refreshing ordinance.

We should bless the Lord for His gracious consideration of our need in

having established such a memorial of His dying love, and also in having

spread a table at which _all_ His members might present themselves

without any other condition than the indispensable one of personal

connection with and obedience to Him. The blessed Master knew well the

tendency of our hearts to slip away from Him, and from each other, and

to meet this tendency was _one_, at least, of His objects in the

institution of the Supper. He would gather His people around His own

blessed person; He would spread a table for them where, in view of His

broken body and shed blood, they might remember Him, and the intensity

of His love for them, and from whence, also, they might look forward

into the future, and contemplate the glory of which the Cross is the

everlasting foundation. There, if anywhere, they would learn to forget

their differences, and to love one another; there they might see around

them those whom THE LOVE OF GOD had invited to the feast, and whom THE

BLOOD OF CHRIST had made fit to be there.

However, in order that I may the more easily and briefly convey to the

mind of my reader what I have to say on this subject, I shall confine

myself to the four following points, viz.:

1st. The nature of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

2d. The circumstances under which it was instituted.

3d. The persons for whom it was designed.

4th. The time and manner of its observance.

I. And first, as to the nature of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

This is a cardinal point. If we understand not the nature of the

ordinance, we shall be astray in all our thoughts about it. The Supper,

then, is purely and distinctly a feast of thanksgiving--thanksgiving for

grace already received.

The Lord Himself, at the institution of it, marks its character by

giving thanks. "He took bread: ... when He had given thanks," etc.

Praise, and not prayer, is the suited utterance of those who sit at the

table of the Lord.

True, we have much to pray for, much to confess, much to mourn over; but

the table is not the place for mourners: its language is, "Give strong

drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of

heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his

misery no more." Ours is "a cup of blessing," a cup of thanksgiving, the

divinely appointed symbol of that precious blood which has procured our

ransom. "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body

of Christ?" How, then, could we break it with sad hearts or sorrowful

countenances? Could a family circle, after the toils of the day, sit

down to supper with sighs and gloomy looks? Surely not. The supper was

the great family meal, the only one that was sure to bring _all the

family together_. Faces that might not have been seen during the day

were sure to be seen at the supper table, and no doubt they would be

happy there. Just so it should be at the Lord's Supper: the family

should assemble there; and when assembled, they should be happy,

unfeignedly happy, in the love that brings them together. True, each

heart may have its own peculiar history--its secret sorrows, trials,

failures, and temptations, unknown to all around; but these are not the

objects to be contemplated at the supper: to bring them into view is to

dishonor the Lord of the feast, and make the cup of blessing a cup of

sorrow. The Lord has invited us to the feast, and commanded us,

notwithstanding all our shortcomings, to place the fulness of His love

and the cleansing efficacy of His blood between our souls and

everything; and when the eye of faith is filled with Christ, there is no

room for aught beside. If my sin be the object which fills my eye and

engages my thoughts, of course I must be miserable, because I am looking

right away from what God commands me to contemplate; I am remembering my

misery and poverty, the very things which God commands me to forget.

Hence the true character of the ordinance is lost, and, instead of being

a feast of joy and gladness, it becomes a season of gloom and spiritual

depression; and the preparation for it, and the thoughts which are

entertained about it are more what might be expected in reference to

mount Sinai than to a happy family feast.

If ever a feeling of sadness could have prevailed at the celebration of

this ordinance, surely it would have been on the occasion of its first

institution, when, as we shall see when we come to consider the second

point in our subject, there was everything that could possibly produce

deep sadness and desolation of spirit; yet the Lord Jesus could "give

thanks;" the tide of joy that flowed through His soul was far too deep

to be ruffled by surrounding circumstances; He had a joy even in the

breaking and bruising of His body and in the pouring forth of His blood

which lay far beyond the reach of human thought and feeling. And if He

could rejoice in spirit, and give thanks in breaking that bread which

was to be to all future generations of the faithful the memorial of His

broken body, should not we rejoice therein, we who stand in the blessed

results of all His toil and passion? Yes; it becomes us to rejoice.

But it may be asked, Is there no preparation necessary? are we to sit

down at the table of the Lord with as much indifference as if we were

sitting down to an ordinary supper table? Surely not--we need to be

right in our souls, and the first step toward this is peace with

God--that sweet assurance of our eternal salvation which most certainly

is not the result of human sighs or penitential tears, but the simple

result of the finished work of the Lamb of God, attested by the Spirit

of God. Apprehending this by faith, we apprehend that which makes us

perfectly fit for God. Many imagine that they are putting honor upon the

Lord's table when they approach it with their souls bowed down into the

very dust, under a sense of the intolerable burden of their sins. This

thought can only flow from the legalism of the human heart, that

ever-fruitful source of thoughts at once dishonoring to God, dishonoring

to the Cross of Christ, grievous to the Holy Ghost, and completely

subversive of our own peace. We may feel quite satisfied that the honor

and purity of the Lord's table are more fully maintained when THE BLOOD

OF CHRIST is made the only title than if human sorrow and human

penitence were superadded.[XI.]

However, the question of preparedness will come more fully before us as

we proceed with our subject; I shall therefore state another principle

connected with the nature of the Lord's Supper, viz., that there is

involved in it an intelligent recognition of the oneness of the body of

Christ. "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body

of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are

all partakers of that one bread." Now there was sad failure and sad

confusion in reference to this point at Corinth: indeed, the great

principle of the Church's oneness would seem to have been totally lost

sight of there. Hence the apostle observes that "when ye come together

into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for every one

taketh before other _his own_ supper" (I Cor. xi. 20, 21). Here, it was

isolation, and not unity; an individual, and not a corporate question:

"_his own supper_" is strikingly contrasted with "_the Lord's Supper_."

The _Lord's_ Supper demands that the body be fully recognized: if the

one body be not recognized, it is but sectarianism: the Lord Himself has

lost His place. If the table be spread upon any narrower principle than

that which would embrace the whole body of Christ, it is become a

sectarian table, and has lost its claim upon the hearts of the faithful.

On the contrary, where a table is spread upon this divine principle,

which embraces _all_ the members of the body _simply as such_, every one

who refuses to present himself at it is chargeable with schism, and

that, too, upon the plain principles of I Cor. xi. "There must," says

the apostle, "be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be

made manifest among you."

When the great Church principle is lost sight of by any portion of the

body, there must be heresies, in order that the approved ones may be

made manifest! and under such circumstances it becomes the business of

each one to approve himself, and so to eat. The "approved" ones stand in

contrast with the heretics, or those who were doing their own

will.[XII.]

But it may be asked, Do not the numerous denominations at present

existing in the professing Church altogether preclude the idea of ever

being able to gather the whole body together? and, under such

circumstances, is it not better for each denomination to have their own

table? If there be any force in this question, it merely goes to prove

that the people of God are no longer able to act upon God's principles,

but that they are left to the miserable alternative of acting on human

expediency. Thank God, such is not the case. The truth of the Lord

endureth forever, and what the Holy Ghost teaches in I Cor. xi. is

binding upon every member of the Church of God. There were divisions,

and heresies, and unholiness, existing in the assembly at Corinth, just

as there are divisions, and heresies, and unholiness, existing in the

professing Church now; but the apostle did not tell them to set up

separate tables on the one hand, nor yet to cease from breaking bread on

the other. No; he presses upon them the principles and the holiness

connected with "the Church of God," and tells those who could approve

themselves accordingly to eat. The expression is, "_So let him eat_." We

are to eat, therefore: our care must be to eat "_so_," as the Holy Ghost

teaches us; and that is in the true recognition of the holiness and

oneness of the Church of God.[XIII.] When the Church is despised, the

Spirit Be-must be grieved and dishonored, and the certain end will be

spiritual barrenness and freezing formalism: and although men may

substitute intellectual for spiritual power, and human talents and

attainments for the gifts of the Holy Ghost, yet will the end be "like

the heath in the desert." The true way to make progress in the divine

life is to live for the Church, and not for ourselves. The man who lives

for the Church is in full harmony with the mind of the Spirit, and must

necessarily grow. On the contrary, the man who is living for himself,

having his thoughts revolving round, and his energies concentrated upon,

himself, must soon become cramped and formal, and, in all probability,

openly worldly. Yes; he will become worldly, in some sense of that

extensive term; for the world and the Church stand in direct opposition,

the one to the other; nor is there any aspect of the world in which this

opposition is more fully seen than in its religious aspect. What is

commonly called the _religious world_ will be found, when examined in

the light of the presence of God, to be more thoroughly hostile to the

true interests of the Church of God than almost anything.

But I must hasten on to other branches of our subject, only stating

another simple principle connected with the Lord's Supper, to which I

desire to call the special attention of the Christian reader; it is

this: the celebration of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper should be

the distinct expression of the unity of ALL believers, and not merely of

the unity of a certain number gathered on certain principles, which

distinguish them from others. If there be any term of communion

proposed, save the all-important one of faith in the atonement of

Christ, and a walk consistent with that faith, the table becomes the

table of a sect, and possesses no claims upon the hearts of the

faithful.

Furthermore, if by sitting at the table I must identify myself with any

one thing, whether it be principle or practice, not enjoined in

Scripture, as a term of communion, there also the table becomes the

table of a sect. It is not a question of whether there may be Christians

there or not; it would be hard indeed to find a table amongst the

reformed communities of which some Christians are not partakers. The

apostle did not say, "there must be heresies among you, that they which

are _Christians_ may be made manifest among you." No; but "that they

which are _approved_." Nor did he say, "Let a man prove himself a

Christian, and so let him eat." No; but "let a man approve himself," i.

e., let him shew himself to be one of those who are not only upright in

their consciences as to their individual act in the matter, but who are

also confessing the oneness of the body of Christ. When men set up terms

of communion of their own, there you find the principle of heresy;

there, too, there must be schism. On the contrary, where a table is

spread in such a manner and upon such principles as that a Christian,

subject to God, can take his place at it, then it becomes schism not to

be there; for, by being there, and by walking consistently with our

position and profession there, we, so far as in us lies, confess the

oneness of the Church of God--that grand object for which the Holy Ghost

was sent from heaven to earth. The Lord Jesus, having been raised from

the dead, and having taken His seat at the right hand of God, sent down

the Holy Ghost to earth for the purpose of forming one body. Mark, to

form _one body_--not many bodies. He has no sympathy with the many

bodies, as such; though He has blessed sympathy with many members in

those bodies, because they, though being members of sects or schisms,

are nevertheless, members of the one body; but He does not form the many

bodies, but the one body, for "by one Spirit are we all baptized into

one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free;

and have all been made to drink into one Spirit" (I Cor. xii. 13).

I desire that there may be no misunderstanding on this point. I say the

Holy Ghost cannot approve the schisms in the professing Church, for He

Himself has said of such, "I praise you not." He is grieved by them--He

would counteract them; He baptizes all believers into the unity of the

one body, so that it cannot be thought, by any intelligent mind, that

the Holy Ghost could sustain schisms, which are a grief and a dishonor

to Him.

We must however, distinguish between the Spirit's dwelling in the

Church, and His dwelling in individuals. He dwells in the body of

Christ, which is the Church (see I Cor. iii. 17; Eph. ii. 22); He dwells

also in the body of the believer, as we read, "your body is the temple

of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God" (I Cor. vi.

19). The only body or community, therefore, in which the Spirit can

dwell, is _the whole Church of God_; and the only person in which He can

dwell is the believer. But, as has already been observed, the table of

the Lord, in any given locality, should be the exhibition of the unity

of the whole Church. This leads us to another principle connected with

the nature of the Lord's Supper, viz., this, It is an act whereby we not

only shew the death of the Lord until He come, but whereby we also give

expression to a fundamental truth, which cannot be too strongly or too

frequently pressed upon the minds of Christians, at the present day,

viz., that_ all believers are_ "_one loaf--one body_." It is a very

common error to view this ordinance merely as a channel through which

grace flows to the soul of the individual, and not as an act bearing

upon the whole body, and bearing also upon the glory of the Head of the

Church. That it is a channel through which grace flows to the soul of

the individual communicant there can be no doubt, for there is blessing

in every act of obedience. But that individual blessing is but a very

small part of it, can be seen by the attentive reader of I Cor. xi. It

is the Lord's death and the Lord's coming, that are brought prominently

before our souls in the Lord's Supper; and where any one of these

elements is excluded there must be something wrong. If there be anything

to hinder the complete showing forth of the Lord's death, or the

exhibition of the unity of the body, or the clear perception of the

Lord's coming, then there must be something radically wrong in the

principle on which the table is spread, and we only need a single eye,

and a mind entirely subject to the Word and Spirit of Christ, in order

to detect the wrong.

Let the Christian reader, now, prayerfully examine the table at which

he periodically takes his place and see if it will bear the threefold

test of I Cor. xi., and if not, let him, in the name of the Lord, and

for the sake of the Church, abandon it. There are heresies, and schisms

flowing from heresies, in the professing Church, but "let a man approve

himself, and so let him eat" the Lord's Supper; and if, once for all, it

be asked, What means the term "approved?" it may be answered, It is in

the first place, to be personally true to the Lord in the act of

breaking bread; and in the next place, to shake off all schism, and take

our stand, firmly and decidedly, upon the broad principle which will

embrace all the members of the flock of Christ. We are not only to be

careful that we ourselves are walking in purity of heart and life before

the Lord; but also, that the table of which we partake has nothing

connected with it that could at all act as a barrier to the unity of the

Church. It is not merely a personal question. Nothing more fully proves

the low ebb of Christianity at the present day, or the fearful extent to

which the Holy Ghost is grieved, than the miserable selfishness which

tinges, yea, pollutes, the thoughts of professing Christians. Everything

is made to hinge upon the mere question of self. It is _my_

forgiveness--_my_ safety--_my_ peace--_my_ happy frames and feelings, and

not the glory of Christ, or the welfare of His beloved Church. Well,

therefore, may the words of the prophet be applied to us, "Thus saith

the Lord, Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain and bring wood, and

BUILD THE HOUSE; and I will take pleasure in _it_ and I WILL BE

GLORIFIED. Ye looked for much, and lo, it came to little; and when ye

brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the Lord of hosts.

Because of _My house_ that is waste, and ye run every man to _his own_

house" (Hag. i. 7-9). Here is the root of the matter. Self stands in

contrast with the house of God; and, if self be made the object, no

marvel that there should be a sad lack of spiritual joy, energy, and

power. To have these, we must be in fellowship with the Spirit's

thoughts. He thinks of the body of Christ; and, if we are thinking of

self, we must be at issue with Him; and the consequences are but too

apparent.

II. Having now treated of what I conceive to be by far the most

important point in our subject, I shall proceed to consider, in the

second place, the circumstances under which the Lord's Supper was

instituted. These were particularly solemn and touching. The Lord was

about to enter into dreadful conflict with all the powers of

darkness--to meet all the deadly enmity of man; and to drain to the

dregs the cup of Jehovah's righteous wrath against sin. He had a

terrible morrow before Him--the most terrible that had ever been

encountered by man or angel; yet, notwithstanding all this, we read that

"on _the same night_ in which He was betrayed, He took bread." What

unselfish love is here! "The same night"--the night of profound

sorrow--the night of His agony and bloody sweat---the night of His

betrayal by one, and His denial by another, and His desertion by all of

His disciples--on that very night, the loving heart of Jesus was full of

thoughts about His Church--on that very night He instituted the

ordinance of the Lord's Supper. He appointed the bread to be the emblem

of His body broken, and the wine to be the emblem of His blood shed; and

such they are to us now, as often as we partake of them, for the Word

assures us that "as often as ye eat _this bread_ and drink _this cup_,

ye do show _the Lord's death_, till He come."

Now, all this, we may say, attaches peculiar importance and sacred

solemnity to the Supper of the Lord; and, moreover, gives us some idea

of the consequences of eating and drinking unworthily.[XIV.]

The voice which the ordinance utters in the circumcised ear is ever the

same. The bread and the wine are deeply significant symbols; the bruised

corn and the pressed grape being both combined to minister strength and

gladness to the heart: and not only are they significant in themselves,

but they are also to be used in the Lord's Supper, as being the very

emblems which the blessed Master Himself ordained on the night previous

to His crucifixion; so that faith can behold the Lord Jesus presiding at

_His own table_--can see Him take the bread and the wine, and hear Him

say, "Take, eat; this is My body;" and again, of the cup, "Drink ye

_all_ of it. For this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for

many for the remission of sins." In a word, the ordinance leads the soul

back to the eventful night already referred to--brings before us all the

reality of the cross and passion of the Lamb of God, in which our whole

souls can rest and rejoice; it reminds us, in the most impressive

manner, of the unselfish love and pure devotedness of Him, who, when

Calvary was casting its dark shadow across His path, and the cup of

Jehovah's righteous wrath against sin, of which He was about to be the

bearer, was being filled for Him, could, nevertheless, busy Himself

about us, and institute a feast which was to be both the expression of

our connection with Him, and with all the members of His body.

And may we not infer, that the Holy Ghost made use of the expression

"_the same night_," for the purpose of remedying the disorders that had

arisen in the church at Corinth? Was there not a severe rebuke

administered to the selfishness of those who were taking "_their own

supper_," in the Spirit's reference to the same night in which the Lord

of the feast was betrayed? Doubtless there was. Can selfishness live in

the view of the cross? Can thoughts about our own interests, or our own

gratification, be indulged in the presence of Him who sacrificed Himself

for us? Surely not. Could we heartlessly and wilfully despise the Church

of God--could we offend or exclude beloved members of the flock of

Christ, while gazing on that cross on which the Shepherd of the flock,

and the Head of the body, was crucified?[XV.] Ah, no; let believers

only keep near the cross--let them remember "the same night"--let them

keep in mind the broken body and shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ,

and there will soon be an end to heresy, schism, and selfishness. If we

could only bear in mind that the Lord Himself presides at the table, to

dispense the bread and wine; if we could hear Him say, "Take this, and

divide it among yourselves," we should be better able to meet _all_ our

brethren on the _only_ Christian ground of fellowship which God can own.

In a word, the person of Christ is God's centre of union. "I," said

Christ, "if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto _Me_."

Each believer can hear his blessed Master speaking from the cross, and

saying of his fellow believers, "_Behold thy brethren_;" and, truly, if

we could distinctly hear this, we should act, in a measure, as the

beloved disciple acted towards the mother of Jesus; our hearts and our

homes would be open to all who have been thus commended to our care. The

word is, "_Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the

glory of God_."

There is another point worthy of notice, in connection with the

circumstances under which the Lord's Supper was instituted, namely, its

connection with the Jewish Passover. "Then came the day of unleavened

bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John,

saying, Go and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat.... And _when

the hour was come_, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. And

He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with

you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat

thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And He took the

cup [i. e., the cup of the Passover], and gave thanks, and said, Take

this and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, I will not

drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come"

(Luke xxii. 7-18). The Passover was, as we know, the great feast of

Israel, first observed on the memorable night of their happy deliverance

from the thralldom of Egypt. As to its connection with the Lord's

Supper, it consists in its being the marked _type_ of that of which the

Supper is the _memorial_. The Passover pointed _forward_ to the cross;

the Supper points _back_ to it. But Israel was no longer in a fit moral

condition to keep the Passover, according to the divine thoughts about

it; and the Lord Jesus, on the occasion above referred to, was leading

His apostles away altogether from the Jewish element to a new order of

things. It was no longer to be a lamb sacrificed, but bread broken and

wine drunk in commemoration of a sacrifice ONCE offered, the efficacy of

which was to be eternal. Those whose minds are bowed down to Jewish

ordinances, may still look, in some way or another, for the periodical

repetition, either of a sacrifice, or of something which is to bring

them into a place of greater nearness to God.[XVI.]

Some there are who think that in the Lord's Supper the soul makes, or

renews, a covenant with God, not knowing that if we were to enter into

covenant with God, we should inevitably be ruined; as the only possible

issue of a covenant between God and man is the failure of one of the

parties (i. e., man), and consequent judgment. Thank God, there is no

such thing as a covenant with us. The bread and wine, in the Supper,

speak a deep and wondrous truth; they tell of the broken body and shed

blood of the Lamb of God--the Lamb of God's own providing. Here the soul

can rest with perfect complacency; it is THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE BLOOD

OF CHRIST, and not a covenant between God and man. Man's covenant had

signally failed, and the Lord Jesus had to allow the cup of the fruit of

the vine (the emblem of joy in the earth) to pass Him by. Earth had no

joy for Him--Israel had become "the degenerate plant of a strange

vine;" wherefore, He had only to say, "I will not drink of the fruit of

the vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come." A long and dreary season

was to pass over Israel, ere her King could take any joy in her moral

condition: but, during that time, "the Church of God" was to "keep the

feast" of unleavened bread, in all its moral power and significance, by

putting away the "old leaven of malice and wickedness," as the fruit of

fellowship with Him whose blood cleanseth from all sin.

However, the fact of the Lord's Supper having been instituted

immediately after the Passover, teaches us a very valuable principle of

truth, viz., this: the destinies of the Church and of Israel are

inseparably linked with the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. True, the

Church has a higher place, even identification with her risen and

glorified Head; yet all rests upon the Cross. Yes; it was on the cross

that the pure sheaf of corn was bruised and the juices of the living

vine pressed forth by the hand of Jehovah Himself, to yield strength and

gladness to the hearts of His heavenly and earthly people forever. The

Prince of Life took from Jehovah's righteous hand the cup of wrath, the

cup of trembling, and drained it to the dregs in order that He might put

into the hands of His people the cup of salvation, the cup of God's

ineffable love, that they might drink and forget their poverty, and

remember their misery no more. The Lord's Supper expresses all this.

There the Lord presides; there the redeemed should meet in holy

fellowship and brotherly love, to eat and drink before the Lord; and

while they do so, they can look back at their Master's _night_ of deep

sorrow, and forward to His day of glory--that "morning without clouds,"

when "He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in

all them that believe."

III. We shall now consider, in the third place, the persons for whom,

and for whom _alone_, the Lord's Supper was instituted.

The Lord's Supper, then, was instituted for the Church of God--the

family of the redeemed. All the members of that family should be there;

for none can be absent without incurring the guilt of disobedience to

the plain command of Christ and His inspired apostle; and the

consequence of this disobedience will be positive spiritual decline and

a complete failure in testimony for Christ. Such consequences, however,

are the result only of wilful absence from the Lord's table. There are

circumstances which, in certain cases, may present an insurmountable

barrier, though there might be the most earnest desire to be present at

the celebration of the ordinance, as there ever will be where the mind

is spiritual; but we may lay it down as a fixed principle of truth that

no one can make progress in the divine life who wilfully absents himself

from the Lord's table. "ALL the congregation of Israel" were commanded

to keep the passover (Ex. xii.).

No member of the congregation could with impunity be absent. "The man

that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the

passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people:

because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season,

that man shall bear his sin" (Num. ix. 13).

I feel that it would be rendering really valuable service to the cause

of truth, and a furtherance of the interests of the Church of God, if an

interest could be awakened on this important subject. There is too much

lightness and indifference in the minds of Christians as to the matter

of their attendance at the table of the Lord; and where there is not

this indifference, there is an unwillingness arising from imperfect

views of justification. Now both these hindrances, though so different

in their character, spring from one and the same source, viz.,

selfishness. He who is indifferent about the matter will selfishly allow

trifling circumstances to interfere with his attendance: he will be

hindered by family arrangements, love of personal ease, unfavorable

weather, trifling or, as it frequently happens, imaginary bodily

ailments--things which are lost sight of or counted as nothing when some

worldly object is to be gained. How often does it happen that men who

have not spiritual energy to leave their houses on the Lord's day have

abundant natural energy to carry them some miles to gain some worldly

object on Monday. Alas that it should be so! How sad to think that

worldly gain could exert a more powerful influence on the heart of the

Christian than the glory of Christ and the furtherance of the Church's

benefit! for this is the way in which we must view the question of the

Lord's Supper. What would be our feelings, amid the glory of the coming

kingdom, if we could remember that, while on earth, a fair or a market,

or some such worldly object, had commanded our time and energies, while

the assembly of the Lord's people around His table was neglected?

Beloved Christian reader, if you are in the habit of absenting yourself

from the assembly of Christians, I pray you to ponder the matter before

the Lord ere you absent yourself again. Reflect upon the pernicious

effect of your absence in every way. You are failing in your testimony

for Christ; you are injuring the souls of your brethren, and you are

hindering the progress of your own soul in grace and knowledge. Do not

suppose that your actings are without their influence on the whole

Church of God: you are at this moment either helping or hindering every

member of that body on earth. "If _one_ member suffer, all the members

suffer with it." This principle has not ceased to be true, though

professing Christians have split into so many different divisions. Nay,

it is so divinely true, that there is not a single believer on earth who

is not acting either as a helper to, or a drain upon, the whole body of

Christ; and if there be any truth in the principle already laid down

(viz., that the assembly of Christians and the breaking of bread in any

given locality is, or ought to be, the expression of the unity of the

whole body), you cannot fail to see that if you absent yourself from

that assembly, or refuse to join in giving expression to that unity, you

are doing serious damage to all your brethren as well as to your own

soul. I would lay these considerations on your heart and conscience, in

the name of the Lord, looking to Him to make them influential.[XVII.]

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 God'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 God, 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 God, and we are told in the law that we are not to go up

by steps to God's altar, lest our nakedness be discovered (Ex. xx. 26).

The meaning of which is, that all human efforts to approach God 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 God,

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 assembly: 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 nobler object to set before us than

anything connected with self? If He desires that His people should

assemble 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 assembly 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

assembling 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 assemblies, 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 God. The same law which commanded

_all_ the congregation of Israel to eat the passover, commanded all

uncircumcised strangers _not_ to eat; and now that Christ our Passover

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 circumstances under which it was instituted; 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_ instituted 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 institution of the ordinance, the Lord

led His disciples away from Jewish things altogether, (by refusing to

drink of the fruit of the vine--the passover cup,--and then instituting

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 assemble, 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 assembly 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 assuredly 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 God, 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 God, 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 fellowship with God; 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 God, 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 God 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 assembly 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

association, and all this on the ground of being God'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 God's Assembly. In Achan's case (Josh. vii.), although

there were six hundred thousand souls ignorant of his sin, yet God says,

"_Israel hath sinned_." Why? Because they were looked at as God's

Assembly, 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 God's will, and thus producing division; for God's will

had reference to the whole body. Those who were acting heretically were

despising the Church of God.

[XIII.] It may be well to add a word here for the guidance of any

simple-hearted Christian who may find himself placed in circumstances 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 God, or subversive of the unity of

the Church of God on earth; if, I say, such principles be admitted and

retained in the assembly, or if persons who hold and teach them be

received and acknowledged by the assembly; under such painful and

humiliating circumstances 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 assembly.

Now, if a number of Christians should find themselves placed in the

circumstances above described, they would be called upon to maintain THE

PURITY OF THE TRUTH OF GOD 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 God 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 passage, 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 God 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 Assembly 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 God.

"_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 mass,

"an unbloody 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 unbloody sacrifice, or mass." 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 mass 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

mass 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 refreshing institution 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 God, 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

assembly when it is gathered on proper Church ground, i. e., the ground

laid down in the New Testament. People may assemble, and call themselves

the Church of God, in any given locality, but if they do not exhibit the

characteristic features and principles of the Church of God 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 God to own. Hence the child of God 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 ASSEMBLY OF GOD

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 association, we cannot but feel the value

of having divinely formed convictions as to what the assembly of God

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 God.

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 lashing 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_.

Now, under such circumstances, what is one to do? All cannot possibly be

right. And yet, surely, there is something right. It cannot be that we

are _compelled_ to live in error, in darkness, or uncertainty. "_There

is a path_," blessed be God, though "no fowl knoweth it, and the

vulture's eye hath not seen it. The lion's whelps have not trodden it,

nor the fierce lion passed by it." Where is this safe and blessed path?

Hear the divine reply: "Behold, _the fear of the Lord_, that is wisdom:

and _to depart from evil_ is understanding" (Job xxviii.).

Let us, therefore, in the fear of the Lord, in the light of His

infallible truth, and in humble dependence upon the teaching of the Holy

Spirit, proceed to the examination of the subject which stands at the

head of this paper; and may we have grace to abandon all confidence in

our own thoughts, and the thoughts of others, so that we may heartily

and honestly yield ourselves up to be taught only of God.

Now, in order to get fairly into the grand and all-important subject of

the assembly of God, we have first to state _a fact_; and, secondly, to

ask _a question_. The fact is this, _There is an assembly of God on the

earth_. The question is, _What is that assembly_?