I believe we ought to preach the love of God to sinners, and appeal to them more than we do, though I do so more when addressing a mixed crowd of, probably, careless people, than in the assemblies where you would hear me. In these you must remember that the great body are believers, and want rather to be better founded than called. All I look for is that the preaching should be such that it should convict of sin, and the impossibility of sin and God going together, so that it should be well understood that there is need of reconciling. And here Christ at once comes in, and atonement and righteousness. Holiness precludes all sin from God; righteousness judges it. This I believe the sinner should understand, so that he should know what love applies to, yet that love should be fully preached. It does itself often convict of sin, for the conscience has often its wants already, and this draws them out, so that men find consciously where they are. But conviction of sin under righteousness is a very useful thing, if grace be fully preached with it, and both unite in Christ.
I think it very important that preachers should go to the world, especially now, with a message of distinct love to them. All I desire is that it should be love manifested in Christ, so as to bring out the sinner's condition to himself; that it should not be mere easiness as to sin; that it is a gracious love to sinners- grace abounding over sin- grace reigning through righteousness, than which nothing is more perfectly grace. Sometimes I think the love of God is so preached as if it were a kind of boon of the sinner to accept it. It is God's joy. Still, as a sinner, his being a debtor to God, ought to be before his soul I count evangelizing the happiest service. Yet my heart yearns over the saints, and the glory of Christ in the truth too. Happily there is One above who does all. J. N. D.
The following six questions were sent him:-
Is it well or scriptural to say that we put away from the Lord's Table? For example, " So-and-so has joined the Baptists. and is put away from the Lord's Table." Does such a mode of expression give sufficient place to the worship of other Christians in this day of brokenness, or would it be time-serving to avoid saying the Table around which we meet is the only Lord's Table?
Is the name of "Lord" that of authority only, or can it be used in reference to communion? And does the Lord's Table imply communion, or does it mean the Table over which the Lord's authority is set?
Could it be said that other christian tables are the tables of devils, or has the passage in 1 Cor. 10 no reference to Christendom as it now is?
Is it right to say that all professing Christians are of the church of God (not the body)?
Could a Christian, holding that he stands for acceptance before God in Christ's imputed righteousness, be orthodox as to the nature of Christ's Person, or must he necessarily hold the consequences of such doctrine so far as they relate to Christ being under divine wrath throughout His lifetime on earth?
6. When it says "communion of the body of Christ," is the body of the Lord spoken of, or is the corporate body of believers intended?
DEAR BROTHER,- I should not say "is put away from the Table," but "is no longer in communion with us;" he has left you and you cannot put him away. But I should not in the least avoid saying that we meet around the Lord's Table. I could not own sectarian tables as the Lord's Table with the light I have; but saints who may honestly think us in disorder go to it as such, and, I do not doubt, enjoy individual communion with the Lord.
The Lord's Table is used simply as a title of Christ in contrast with devils. In itself a title of authority, it has nothing to do whatever with communion: where communion is spoken of it is not used, nor, that I am aware of, is Lord of an assembly a scriptural idea. He is either Lord absolutely, or of individual servants.
To call the table of nationals, or tables of sects, "tables of devils" is a simple absurdity, in defiance of plain language of scripture. I could not go to them; but what "devils" means is distinctly stated in scripture, and means nothing but the gods of the heathen- and is a reference to Deut. 32:1717They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. (Deuteronomy 32:17), "they offered to devils and not to God." To refer this to Baptists or Independents is a gross abuse. The apostle speaks of communion with devils (in idol temples) and heathen sacrifices, and of nothing else, and to apply this to wrong ecclesiastical principles, where the Lord is owned as the only object, is trifling with scripture and nonsense in itself.
Saying that all professing Christians are of the church of God may be called into question. The church of God is employed in two senses- or better, two things are spoken of the assembly- one, that it is the body of Christ, and of this all professors were not, as soon as false brethren crept in; it is also the habitation of God through the Spirit, the house of the living God, and in this hay, wood, and stubble may be built in, all professors are of or in the house. It is not true if we speak of the body, though they take the place; it is true if we speak of the house.
As to the 5th question, I do not doubt that a Christian holding he stands for acceptance in Christ's imputed righteousness may be quite sound as to the nature of Christ. I have known most true and beloved saints who were muddy on the point- though I think they lose a great deal. We must not impute even true consequences of a doctrine to the persons who hold it- it may be if they saw the consequences they would give it up- we may use them to show the doctrine false, seeing it leads to such.
As to communion of the body of Christ, in 1 Cor. 11:1616But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16), it is the body of the Lord, as in the same verse the blood, but the other is closely connected with it. What the apostle is speaking of is, that the priests, in eating of the altar, were identified with the idol, had κοινωνία, not merely μετεχός, or partook, but were morally completely associated with it- hence with demons- so the Christians with Christ. But then if all were associated with the body of Christ they were with one another, and only one body themselves: it was included in it, but verse 16 refers expressly to the body of Christ, verse 17 shows the other, our unity in one body, to be included in it.
I have only to add, dear brother, that the servant of the Lord must not strive. I know by my own experience how difficult it is. Without the most distant thought of an unkind feeling, we are not always gentle to all men. Affectionately yours in the Lord, J. N. D.