The reading on “Fellowship and the Lord's Supper” opens with the effort to draw the contrast between the coming together and the Assembly: the former in connection with our life down here; the latter having it in association with Christ (243). There is the usual fog of thought and phrase; not mystery, for this is God's revelation, but mist wrapping things up in dark ideas. “I think the supper is introductory in the assembly; the supper rallies the saints, and they come together in assembly to eat the supper: it is what is immediately before us in coming together, but as introductory to the assembly” (244). What does this mean? The Supper “is introductory in the assembly,” and yet “introductory to the assembly “, both in the same sentence, and each incompatible with the other, How can the same thing be introductory “in” and “to”? The mystification is increased by the care taken to show that “fellowship may exist even if we never come together” without the least pains to explain what sort of fellowship is meant. The enemy's aim is helped on by leaving high-sounding words in entire vagueness. Truth is not stated or even sought, save that 1 Cor. 10 is referred to for “fellowship” insisted on, without any “coming together.”
Now what true-hearted saint can fail to discern that this is the letter that kills, not the spirit that quickens? Here is what the apostle lays down in real and refreshing contrast with that vain and unprofitable idealizing. “I speak as to intelligent ones, judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not communion of the body of the Christ! Because we the many are one loaf, one body, for the whole of us partake of the one loaf.” In 1 Cor. 11 it is the authoritative order of the Lord's Supper where the coming together of the saints is in season and place to eat it. Here, where the object was to preserve from all taint of idolatry without and not from internal disorder, he even begins with the cup and ends with the one loaf as symbolizing the one body of Christ. Hence there was no moment here to speak of our coming together, but think of the folly of forgetting it is strictly presupposed! We have here as to cup and loaf the expression of our most intimate association with Christ, more so even than in chap. 11. It is not merely fellowship with one another, but also the communion of Christ's body and blood.
But we come next (245) to the still more solemn and most fatal error as to 1 John 1:1-41That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. (1 John 1:1‑4); for the effort is to confine the fellowship there to the apostles, or to omit the best. This troubled O. O. B. and no wonder.
No soul of the least intelligence doubts the special place of the apostles and prophets as inspired vehicles of Christianity; and here the beloved disciple treats of truth and privilege made known, second to none. The apostles' function is perverted to deny the selfsame fellowship to the Christian. Those heard, saw, contemplated, and handled; for this was manifested, and to many beyond them. But they had seen, and were witnessing and reporting to the saints generally, as none others could with like certainty and power, the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to them. To what end was this testimony and report? Expressly that others, Christians, also might have communion with them. “Yea, and our communion (says John) is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ; and these things write we to you that your [or, our] joy may be filled full.”
Due honor to the chosen witnesses; all praise to the Father and the Son made known in the Incarnate Word, the eternal life that was with the Father manifested. But even the witness and the report of the apostles came that the saints everywhere should know that they share the most essential boon grace bestows, the present possession of eternal life. No otherwise can there be communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. This communion is enjoyed in having life eternal. The way is this, and there is none else. Satan never more audaciously assailed “the proper Christian privilege.” Others in general may have been feeble, doubtful, and dark. F.E.R. is his deadly instrument, striking at its principle.
The reason why limitation to testimony is spoken of is because thereby life eternal as ours now in the Son is wholly denied. Thus and thus only had the apostles fellowship with the Father and with the Son; and they in the power of the Spirit communicated the truth of Christ to us, that we having the same eternal life as they should enjoy the same divine fellowship. There is many an inconsistent thing said in these readings; but the most awful feature is the consistency of the error with itself and its power of perverting other things to subserve and confirm the capital error. In my judgment only an evil spirit could effect such con catenation of falsehood and impose a gloss of truth so persuasively on unwary souls.
Observe how smoke from the pit darkens the truth of God: “If anyone will take the trouble to read the first four verses of John's epistle he will see that they are an introduction, in which the apostle shows their title to address us. Then it goes on to say this then is the message which we have heard of Him and declare unto you.” Such a remark proves fundamental ignorance of this scripture; for these verses, far from being a mere assertion of apostolic title, are the foundation laid for all that follows. What proof could be more complete, that this system leaves out the revealed manifestation on which depends the gift of life eternal to the apostles, as well as to the saints for whom their testimony was written, as well as that divine fellowship which follows?
“These things write we to you that your joy may be filled full” refers not to “the message” subsequently sent, but to that manifestation of which the opening speaks, the pillar on which depends all grace builds up. It is utterly false that John begins with the lowest point. This is the spiritual blindness generated by the enemy. He begins with Him fully and intimately manifested, Who was the eternal life with the Father, but afterward a Man as truly as the witnesses, though infinitely more; and what they had seen and heard, they report to other believers also, that they too may have that fellowship which they themselves had with the Father and His Son. And this is the truth to fill with joy, which is evaded and annulled by F.E.R. and his school. For it is plain that many besides himself are caught in the net of the fowler.
Very far is “the message” in the rest of the chapter from being that grace. It follows the true beginning in 1-4; and consists of tests in varied forms of the deepest wisdom and interest, applied to false profession under the name of Christ. The pretension to life is put to the proof by God as light, in whom is no darkness at all by the three “if we say” (6, 8, 10). The first two verses of chapter 2 are an appendix completing all by the provision of grace for any so blessed, if there should be a sin. But the deadly lie betrays itself by denying fellowship in heaven, because of the wildly false hypothesis that fellowship is in a scene of contrariety. If persons born of God can so think and talk, does it not show how far such can wander from the truth?
But this too is sad consistency with the statement in page 116, “I think eternal life refers to earth, I don't think that we should talk of eternal life in heaven.” Were it one demented who blurted out such folly and falsehood, one could compassionate. But no; it is a man with his wits, energized by will to undermine the most precious privileges of Christianity under the darkening work of the great enemy. If eternal life be not now given to be our life, and its best fruit communion with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, Christianity is unknown in its positive and proper character. But if and as it is our sure and present joy, where are F.E.R. and his echoes? That both the life eternal, and the divine fellowship thence, are our portion in God's love by faith in a scene of contrariety is most true, though denied by this dismal system; nor is there ground to doubt that they will be perfectly known and enjoyed in heaven and forever. It is distinctly affirmed in the “eternal” life, and the fellowship results unfailingly by grace.
Next (250 &c.) we find a quantity of truly small talk, as in the previous readings, unfounded and unedifying and indeed injurious: but we may skip these trifles now as before. But in 260 we arrive at words which manifest alienation from God's mind very plainly. “R.S.S. Does not the more blessed part of the meeting come properly after the breaking of the bread? F.E.R. The supper is introductory to the assembly; and that is the reason for finishing all that is formal at first. Passing round the bread and the cup and the box are so far formal; you cannot help this, but it is a great thing to be free of it, so that you may be prepared for the assembly in its proper character."!!! Surely no reverent believer will bear lightly such a profaning of that which is the very heart of true worship, as is the solemn calling of Christ to our remembrance. Can it be that the great thing which ordinarily follows is the speaking of one or more? And the same pair add yet more clearly to the same effect of irreverence and presumption. “R.S.S. Is the first part of the meeting what you do, and the last part what the Lord does? F.E.R. Yes, It is the cup we bless and the bread we break. The Lord never does that again. And then the presence of the Lord is realized; He has His place, and we are conscious of Him as Head.” “If the Supper is over it is over. If you get hymns and thanksgiving after, it is worship in connection with Christ as the Minister of the sanctuary. He leads the praises.” “We are risen with Christ and quickened with Him, and therefore are priests.”
Can words disclose more clearly men who have broken loose from God's word? This never hints at such splitting in two the gathering for the breaking of bread, that is, the Lord's Supper? Least of all, does it sanction any such slight put on the saints in sharing the bread and the wine for remembrance of Christ. There is no part, no time, so profoundly near or deep in the meeting; and the contrast of what goes before with what follows is a myth. The Lord does not come into the midst at the Supper, nor does His word justify such words as you cannot help the formality of passing round the bread and the cup and the box, and a “great thing to be free of it,” or again that “when the Supper is over” it is “worship in connection with Christ as the Minister of the sanctuary.” It is letter work and theorizing with little reality and not a little contempt for the Lord's Supper. And where does scripture connect the Christian priesthood with being risen and quickened with Christ? It is random and sensational effort or mere dogma.
So in One Spirit and one body (263), the Lord and His death are lowered to a means: “the subject leads on to the assembly.” Where is such an “idea” in scripture? In this page the error grows bolder still. “F.E.R. You cannot call Him to mind as dead, but as One who is living, Who did die.” This is to destroy the force of the Lord's repeated words, Do this for remembrance of Me; which is simply, expressly, and exclusively recalling Him to mind in His death, His body given, His blood shed. It is in no way looking up to Him as alive again for evermore and glorified. This is a present joy, not at all His remembrance: His headship or our risen state are not what should then occupy the heart. The argument about the Duke of Wellington is beside the mark. Christ's love in dying for us, for the remission of our sins, is His alone; and Him thus would He have us call to mind. His being made known to the two disciples in the breaking of bread, though it was not His supper, is not “curious” but most instructive.
Further, the contrast (268) between the Corinthian saints and the Hebrews in the Epistle is utterly contrary to scripture and facts. They were alike short of being “perfect” or full-grown Christians; and their state distressed the apostle according to both Epistles. He speaks of falling away or reprobation, and warns solemnly of such an end. Nowhere have we the body of Christ more unfolded than in 1 Cor. 12, save on the still more elevated ground taken for the Ephesians; the practical interior of the assembly on earth is given in 1 Cor. 14. The Epistle of the Hebrews richly treats the heavenly calling and gives the key to the Jewish shadows, and more; but it is silent on the great mystery as to Christ and as to the church.
Again, how incorrect to say that Matt. 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20) has to do “with prayer, not discipline!” In fact it lays down the great governing assurance of His presence in the midst of even two or three if gathered together unto His name, including both discipline (18) and prayer (19), as well as a larger range not limited to those aims. This may seem a comparatively small mistake; but does it not expose the folly of so unfit a person assuming, or accepted, to “correct” “what is defective or erroneous?” See page 5.
One can hardly conceive a greater muddle of speculation than the theory advanced on spurious authority without a tittle of scripture for a progress from the Lord's supper to the assembly, and thence for some to the sanctuary. As throughout, it is confusion of things which differ, and here of the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Hebrews (270-280). How loose too to say that “if a man is a believer, he is a Christian!” Cornelius is a sample of genuine piety by faith before Peter was sent with words whereby he and his house should be saved. So indeed it had been for Peter and the rest when they received the same gift from God. No doubt all such had been born of the Spirit; but sealing with the Holy Spirit of promise is essential to the new relationship. The error is owing to denying the difference of having life eternal and receiving the Spirit, an error shared with all the uninstructed in Christendom. Only in F.E.R. and his companions it is departure from all that was fully believed, and I hope is still believed by not a few who connive at this painful declension and incredulity. Faith in the gospel of salvation goes far beyond faith in Christ's person. How misleading to say “you may accept the truth of these chapters [presumably 1 Cor. 11 and 12.] and never enter into the reality of the calling, that is, of the sanctuary and the service of God In chap. 15 the apostle deposits tee truth of the gospel with the Corinthians! and in the second epistle he brings to them the new covenant and reconciliation !! So they could not as yet enter into the calling of God !!! (281).” Contrast with it what the apostle says to the Corinthians (i. 26-31). No doubt they were shallow; but this is a sadly common complaint. Is it necessary to refute falsehood so palpable? Was there ever among brethren such a bungler in print? and with pretension so unbounded, yet unrebuked?
The same dark departure appears throughout “Things Unseen” (283-304). Truth, well known comparatively, on Heb. 12:18-2918For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) 22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29For our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:18‑29), is set aside, from first to last, yet with a superficial gloss suited to deceive. Speaking of Mount Zion, he says, “I don't think there is the idea of sovereignty in grace so much as in mercy.” Why? Was it his pleasure and Satan's plan here, to oppose one in particular to whom God's children are pre-eminently indebted? to repay his own debt by the vain contradiction that characterizes much through this wretched book? He refers to Eph. 2:4-64But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 2:4‑6); to Ex. 33:1919And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19) (where divine mercy occurs), and to the fact that the mass of the people in Indianapolis were not present. But how does all this support his correction of J.N.D.'s “defective or erroneous terms”? The truth is that “mercy” in no way characterizes Jehovah's choice of Zion; nor yet grace only, but royal grace in view of David, and of his greater Son and Lord. This makes it the most honored seat on earth and clothed with the principle of such grace in contrast with Sinai or law.
Next he is equally astray as to “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:2222But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (Hebrews 12:22)), which like other untaught men he will have to be the church, with of course his correction. “I think the idea presented is [not God's revelation to himself, but] according to the work of the twelve, especially according to Peter” anything to change and differ. Now there are plain and solid and unanswerable grounds to disprove the general thought, to say nothing of the futile specialty. For first, the epistle speaks fully and 'distinctly of this very city (as none can dispute) in Heb. 11:10, 16; 13:1410For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11:10)
16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:16)
14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. (Hebrews 13:14). By a suited figure it is the designation of heavenly glory, for which the patriarchs waited. But they never awaited the church of God, Christ's body and bride, either in its present condition or in that which is to be. The mystery in all its parts was then hid in God. Secondly, the context itself refutes “the idea.” It is not the truth. “The church of the firstborns enrolled in heaven” is given as a fresh object in its due place within this group (ver. 23).
We may leave the childish talk, and turn to the object subjoined, “To an innumerable company [or myriads] of angels, [not “to"] the general assembly.” Here we have baseless speculations imported from Rev. 21:99And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Revelation 21:9) et seqq. which does present the bride, the Lamb's wife, symbolized as the holy city, new Jerusalem: not the heavenly glory where she is to be, but herself. The only one of these vague remarks worth a notice is the strange fancy that “God's providence may in a way appear to be against His people; but angels are not the providence of God, but agents employed for His people” (288)! Is this to “correct” the belief that they were and are so used in His providence?
Then comes the notable idea that “the church of the firstborn which are written in heaven” is “another aspect,” Paul's work here, as the former Peter's. O brethren, is it come to this, that even the least of you should be so readily and madly deceived? Can you have entertained for a moment this double of the church? Separated too by “myriads of angels,” universal gathering as they are, and wholly distinct? Once you were not so easily taken in; but now that you have so soon forgotten the sound teaching of so many departed to be with Christ, you are become the prey of folly and imposture; and silence pervades the better sort, lest the truth should lead to a universal explosion. O why do you not trust the Lord, clear His name, save your own souls from blighting errors, warn the deluded, and deal with the deceivers? If all fail to deliver others, deliver your own souls from His dishonor.
Having demonstrated the false teaching thus far, I have no wish to occupy the reader with lesser points, though it is sad to think even F.E.R. could not see an incomparably higher reference of the firstborns than to those of Israel. The truth is that it beautifully agrees with Heb. 2:1212Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. (Hebrews 2:12), and means the assembly of persons thus associated individually with the Firstborn, an aggregate, not a unity, in accordance with the Epistle. Nor need we discuss the curt and unsatisfactory remarks on the other objects in this group of glory, which are far from a just explanation. All is poverty-stricken as well as untrue. And you who know it, and are one lump with all, hold your peace Is there not even a watchman to blow the trumpet? How different of old what pity for mere weakness and ignorance! What hatred of presumption in divine things! What intolerance of error! Now you seem looser within your borders than the loosest you used to loathe. Beware too of hypocrisy. You still profess veneration for Mr. Darby as a great expounder of “divine teaching.” Yet none but a simpleton or a knave can fail to discern that this deplorable book undermines his witness in all that is here pointed out and in much more that it would be a wearisome and needless task to expose. Are you now, through desire to hold together at all cost, imitating those with whom we have had “no communion”? They would be ashamed of much which here and till now passes as “great blessing” among you.