FEBRUARY 14TH, 1928

FEBRUARY 14TH, 1928

BELOVED BROTHER, — It is always a pleasure to me to see a line from your pen, and I thank you for your letter.

The subject of “the cup” is so important, and lies so near to the heart of the Lord in relation to His own, that one is glad to have one’s attention drawn to it again and again. I have noticed in relation to the cup that the Lord refers to repeated partaking — “as often as ye shall drink it” — suggesting that He had pleasure in contemplating the frequency of its being done.

I do not think there can be any question that it was one vessel which the Lord took when He instituted the Supper, and which He gave to His disciples, saying, “Drink ye all of it”, Matthew 26: 27, and of which it is expressly said, “they all drank out of it”, Mark 14: 23. It was expressive of the new and holy communion in which He would set His loved ones together.

That “one loaf” is essential to the communion would be admitted by all intelligent believers, but some seem to think that we can have two or more cups without in any way detracting from the significance of what we do. But are we justified in thinking so?

^[p. 164] We all realise that a number of little squares of bread do not suggest “one loaf” and that where things are done in this way the thought of the Supper being a communion or fellowship is almost, if not quite, lost, though no doubt in many cases where it is so done there is personal affection for the Lord.

We do not get the actual words “one cup” in Scripture, but we do get repeatedly “the cup”, referring to the vessel of which we are told that at the time of the institution “they all drank out of it”. In doing so their participation in the blessings of the new covenant as a source of divine joy was set forth in a striking and divinely appointed symbol. They did not enter into it merely as individuals, but as something common to them all. It was not what people would do naturally, though it may be imitated in other fellowships, and even in demon-worship.

My impression is that 1 Corinthians 12: 13 has some reference to the Supper, and that all being “given to drink of one Spirit” is a suggestion which has some relation to the cup. Indeed it is as all drinking of one Spirit that we can alone truly participate in the new covenant. We are here in a region of most blessed spiritual realities which have their appropriate and divinely appointed symbols in the loaf and the cup. Who would care to intrude into such a region by suggesting that two cups express the divine thought just as well as one? I know that beloved brethren say that they regard it as one cup, though put into two or more vessels for convenience. I am sure they do, but I do not find two vessels in the institution. I read that all present drank out of one vessel, and I learn from 1 Corinthians that their doing so is expressive of a communion which in its very nature is marked by unity. We can only get clear on any spiritual matter by approaching it from the spiritual side. I see the Lord setting up amongst His own a new and divine communion — they partake of one loaf, they drink out of one vessel. The more we think of what the loaf and the cup are in their spiritual significance, the less shall we be inclined to weaken the thought of the unity and communion expressed thereby by any concession to convenience.

If we add a feature which had no place in the Lord’s institution of the Supper, can we be quite sure that it will not interfere (perhaps in some way unobserved by us) with His ^[p. 165] thought and design in it? It may possibly have a more far reaching bearing than we suppose. For example, if it had been realised that the Lord’s thought was that all who ate His Supper together should drink out of one vessel, it would have intimated to the saints that He did not contemplate the Supper being eaten by companies larger than could suitably do so. It would have reminded them that under His ordering, when there were in one locality five thousand men besides women and children, they sat down in companies — “by hundreds and by fifties” as in Mark, “by fifties” as in Luke. It would have suggested an increase in the number of places where the saints came together rather than largely increased numbers in one place. There would have been no place, under such an arrangement, for large and pretentious buildings; huge churches and cathedrals would never have been thought of. Much that has grown up in christendom would have been entirely shut out. With increasing numbers there is always the tendency to lose family character and to become congregational, and this gives room for the clerical element to come in. We can all see that this has been so in christendom.

In many places professing Christians have introduced individual cups on hygienic grounds. We cannot wonder that where such innovations are introduced the spiritual thought of communion is wholly lost. What should be the sweet and holy expression of the communion of saints is reduced to individual privilege. I am sure that all intelligent believers would repudiate this, but if we introduce the hygienic thought into the Supper we have begun to move in that direction.

It is not conceivable that any person who was suffering from a disease likely to be contagious would fail to exercise consideration for the saints. Such a person would accept the dealings of God, and would either take the cup after others, or abstain from bringing infection amongst the saints, or to give occasion, at such a moment, to thoughts or fears of a distracting nature.

I do not know that I can add more at present, save my much love in the Lord to you and yours.

Yours very affectionately in Him,

February 14th, 1928.