NOVEMBER 24TH, 1894

NOVEMBER 24TH, 1894

What I see is that the assembly is actually here both vitally and responsibly, that is, as Christ’s body and God’s house. All would allow that the body is here in completeness (co-extensive with the Spirit) and that christendom has the responsibility of the house, hence my objection to the assumption by any company of christians of assembly status, etc. Even in early days before ruin came in, I imagine that there were comparatively few who entered into the proper privilege of the church as united to Christ, and hence I can see no reason why those privileges should not be enjoyed by a few now, but they are spiritual and do not necessitate the assumption of assembly status; but I do not believe we could enjoy them but as having departed from iniquity. This is of all moment. As to Matthew 18:20, I believe it was spoken for the saints when the assembly was in order, but I judge it would stand equally good for two or three now in the truth of the assembly, and apart from evil in a day of ruin. We constantly and I should say rightly come together in the faith of it, but I doubt if it was intended to constitute the two or three “the assembly” as referred to in verse 17. It seems to me that verses 19 and 20 are a distinct point from verses 15 to 18.

^[p. 95] My contention with was that Matthew 18:20 contemplated an actual meeting together of saints, not a fellowship, and that as the ground for our fellowship in a day of ruin we must go to 2 Timothy 2:22 where we find that the foundation of it is moral and not ecclesiastical. The Lord’s table properly represents the fellowship, that is, of all the saints in a place — as one body in the fellowship of Christ’s death. But this can now only be seen in Scripture — not now in practice. It is a great thing to be in the light of it, and as far as we are concerned, in the fellowship of Christ’s death. I feel sure brethren have to get away from formalism and ecclesiastical moorings, and to remember that the church is in ruins.