ON BOARD R.M.S. MAURETANIA, JULY 5TH, 1910
ON BOARD R.M.S. MAURETANIA, JULY 5TH, 1910
Mr. J. S. Allen.
Dear Me. Allen, — I had hoped to have replied to your letter before sailing, but time failed me. I am glad to have your views on the Supper.
During my visit to your side of the water, nothing has impressed me more than the great need at the present time of keeping to the way Scripture presents the truth, and of allowing it to have its full force and authority in the way in which it may set forth any subject. Therefore, as the Supper is not introduced in an epistle which views the saints as risen with Christ, I hesitate to accept that it is on this ground; on the [p. 86] other hand, I am thankful to know that I can at all times account of myself as risen with Christ — for it is a matter of faith, not actual. But I find that risen with Christ is connected in Scripture (Colossians 2) with a spiritual state — “quickened together” — indeed it is only in the power of the latter that the former is of practical value. I think there is perfect wisdom in the way the truth is presented.
Your remark, ‘There can, I think, be no doubt that it is on resurrection ground that one truly apprehends the Supper’, I agree with, only I would connect the power of apprehension with a spiritual state rather than with a ground which faith takes. But then our apprehension is not the point, but rather, In what position does Scripture regard us when breaking bread? First, we are where Christ is not, for the Supper is, “till He comes;” it is during His absence, for it is a remembrance; the place of Christ’s absence is not Canaan. Secondly, we are in a flesh and blood condition, and our eating the bread and drinking the cup is before the world and a testimony to it of our complete identification with the Christ it crucified — ye do show the Lord’s death till He come. Thirdly, the Supper is celebrated in the assembly viewed as recognised in this world, not as a new creation in Christ, in which latter view it is beyond the ken of the world. It is celebrated in the assembly as marked off from Jew and Gentile. There was the Jew, the Gentile, and the church of God. In other words, it is in the assembly as under man’s eye, where divine order (involving the relative place of man and woman) is seen, and where all are publicly committed to the death of Christ. What may go on in our souls is another matter, and our spiritual states will vary, but Scripture contemplates all as partaking of the Supper.
I would not undervalue for a moment the spiritual state by which we are enabled to appreciate the Supper; this the Lord takes account of, and it will involve power to pass over to His side as He is brought to our minds by the breaking of bread. The latter (passing to His side) is entirely a spiritual action and is outside of the world and nature altogether. It belongs to Canaan. The Supper is the introduction to it.
As regards the breaking of bread, it is quite clear to me that this is distinct from the communion; that is, the former is what Christ did, and we are to do it also. “The Lord Jesus ... took bread, and having given thanks, broke it and said ... this do”. Hence, “the bread which we break”. Nothing can be plainer [p. 87] than this, it seems to me. Our partaking or eating is another thought — this is communion. In other words, breaking bread is one thing, and eating another, both necessary to the Supper. J.N.D.’s remarks I do not well understand, but I judge he is dwelling on the communion side, evidently showing that this is distinct from the breaking of the loaf. But he does say the latter is ‘absolutely necessary as a figure’. But we have to go by the Lord’s words — Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24.
I am glad you wrote me, and I do not think we differ very much on this point.
I must thank you again for all your kindness to me while in Liverpool. It is an advantage to me to have met the brethren in that district.
With love in Christ,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.