Foreword

The following letters were first published by brother F.W. Grant in 1870, and reprinted in Help and Food in 1906.

The First Letter has to do with the principles of reception to fellowship with remarks as to what has been called "occasional" fellowship.

The Second Letter emphasizes the unity of the assembly as promoted and maintained by the connection with the Center—the Lord Himself, at His Table.

The Third Letter takes up the remembrance of the Lord Himself in the Lord's Supper.

The Fourth Letter points out the resulting worship through communion with the Father by the Holy Spirit's power.

May the Lord be pleased to bless these precious truths to His beloved people—truths which are just as fresh and vital for the testimony of Christ and His assembly today as they were when this was written more than one hundred years ago, or when first revealed through the apostle of the Gentiles in the Holy Scriptures. —D.T.J.

First Letter

My Dear Brother: It is upon my heart to write to you freely and familiarly about some things affecting the practical state of the gatherings, which the Lord (we may trust) is bringing into being in so many places now—often in great weakness and isolation—separated by long distances from one another, especially on this immense continent of North America. The weakness, if only realized, would be indeed matter for thanksgiving and an occasion of real strength; the isolation from other help should cast them more immediately upon the Church's Head. I cannot speak then of felt weakness as being really that, or lament that circumstances should be favorable to that walk with God alone, which is what at all times the Lord has called His people to. Still, these circumstances have their peculiar difficulties, and call for some special consideration, as I think—some special attempt to minister to the need by those who have in some measure felt it, and who, by their very mistakes and failures, have been taught what they would desire others to learn in a better way. That so much of what we speak of has been knowledge acquired in this painful manner may serve to free the writer from even the appearance of self-conceit in communicating it.

Without further preface, then, let me commence with some thoughts as to the gathering itself, which is indeed the first consideration, and a matter of all importance. For this very reason its beginning in any place is so critical a thing. A bad constitution at the beginning, just as in the physical condition of an individual, may lead to an unhealthy state which may never be recovered from. Let me say, then, that the first of all requisites for a true gathering to the Lord's Name is that it be of the Lord's making. You will understand that I do not mean merely that those gathered together should be themselves the Lord's. That is a matter of course, which I need not dwell on, for I am not now seeking to establish what the Church of God is, or what the gathering to Christ's Name is; I assume that to be known and acknowledged by those I speak of. But I mean that their actual drawing together should be by the Spirit working by the truth upon the heart, and by nothing else.

I believe the very thought of the unity of the Church of God may be unintelligently used to hinder this. That every Christian (the maintenance of a Scriptural discipline being understood of course) has a right to the Lord's Table may become an argument for methods of gathering which are quite unsuited to the days in which we live, and tend only to produce confusion instead of what will glorify God.

For real gathering the Holy Ghost must gather, and Christ therefore it is who must be the attractive Object, for thus alone the Holy Ghost works. It is only weakness, for instance, where a wife follows a husband into fellowship, or a husband his wife, or children their parents, without personal exercise and conviction. Or where pleasant companionship is the object even in divine things. Or where people come in just because converted under one in fellowship. Or where one's personal blessing is the object sought. All these are motives short of Christ Himself, and acting upon them should be discouraged as far as possible. We cannot indeed refuse Christians their place upon this ground only, but we can and ought to put them solemnly upon their responsibility to act as to and under the Lord alone.*

* Without "refusing" a person, an assembly may well postpone the "receiving" until it is quite clear to do so. —Ed.

Intelligence as to more than fundamental truth we must not require.** When the Church first began, and disciples came together to break bread, the truth of the One Body was not yet known; "babes" have their place at the Father's board as well as full-grown sons. On the other hand, profession is absolutely worthless except justified by the life; we have to remember that our rule for a day of failure is to purge ourselves from the vessels to dishonor, and "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Timothy 2:22). We do not pretend to judge who is who, as Christians; we do not pretend, in refusing fellowship, to say that the person is not a Christian: "the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Timothy 2:19), not we. But we cannot associate with "vessels to dishonor," and be ourselves vessels "unto honor, sanctified and meet for the Master's use" (2 Timothy 2:21). We know the pure-hearted by the righteousness, as well as faith and love, that we follow with them. In days of common and easy profession, the test which is not imposed by the circumstances amid which we move, must be only the more rigidly imposed by those with whom "truth in the inward parts" is recognized as the Lord's requirement.

** Intelligence in the truth is not the first thing, but singleness of eye. —Ed.

And here let me insist a little—for there is need—that a most Scriptural test, and an important one, is that of one's associations. Even the world has its proverbs bearing upon this. "Tell me who your companions are, and I will tell you who you are," says one of them, and as an estimate of moral character we recognize the truth of this. A man's moral level cannot be much above that of his voluntary associations. Above all, where Christ is denied or dishonored, one who winks at this dishonor is plainly unfit for communion with Himself. Let me illustrate by an example. A Freemason, if a Christian, is not only yoked unequally with unbelievers, but still more with those who purposely omit the Lord's Name out of their corporate prayers to accommodate orthodox Jews and unbelievers generally; he is openly linked with the Lord's dishonor. The same may be said of those who sit down in communion with it. The teaching of Scripture is that, "he that biddeth him God speed," or gives him salutation, "is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 11), and that "if any man therefore purge himself from these [vessels to dishonor], he shall be a vessel unto honor" (2 Timothy 2:21). Have we then any right to count those vessels unto honor who do not so purge themselves?

It is a question thus of practical walk, this association, and as truly a matter of discipline—or of exclusion—as any other. In these days in which "confederacy" is so leading a principle, it is one of very solemn importance.

Now a word or two as to reception. It is the act of the whole gathering in a place—just as much as is exclusion—whether there be "two or three" gathered, or two or three hundred. This leads to the practical necessity of submitting the name of anyone to be received to the whole gathering a sufficient time before reception, to allow all to know and realize what they are doing. Practically it may be that there are a few who have the confidence of the assembly, upon whom the work of visiting and inquiry will usually devolve. However, these ought never upon such ground assume to act for the assembly, nor can the assembly rightly rest their responsibility upon these. Communication is a thing which concerns every individual, as to "receive one another" must of necessity be individual.

It has been objected that there is no Scripture for making people wait a week or more, and it is quite true that in those words there is none. But every text which enforces our responsibility as to our associations with others enforces also the necessity of giving opportunity to all to be of one mind in such a matter as this. And a really godly person, who understands that the reason of his being asked to wait proceeds from care for the Lord's glory, and from a desire to have fellowship be a real thing, will be content to wait, even if it were a month, rather than hinder this; he will be only too glad to see this care practically exercised.

This touches another point—the matter of introduction to fellowship, on the part of a brother or more, for one occasion, as of a visitor to the assembly known by him to be a Christian. Ought such individual judgment be imposed on an assembly without giving them time or opportunity to express their own mind intelligently about it? It is my own clear and deliberate conviction that this ought never be done, and I think full and Scriptural reason can be given for it.

The right of a Christian to communion is not in question: the question is who is to recognize the right? Is it the assembly, or is it the individual? The two or three gathered to the Name of the Lord have His promise to be with them, but they cannot transfer this to one or more among them acting for the rest. If it be allowed to all to introduce, how many are there whose judgment could not at all be trusted in a matter of the kind? If, on the other hand, it be only the privilege of a few to do so, an official class is set up, wholly unknown to Scripture.

If it be said that this only applies to occasional—not regular—communion, I answer that if a person be recognized as entitled to "break bread" for a single time, he cannot be rightly refused at any other (except of course in a case where discipline has to be maintained, to which all are equally subject who are at the table of the Lord). The place is exactly the same for all, and reception is exactly the same also. If we admit the idea of "occasional" communion, we make provision for what is contrary to the Lord's mind; for He certainly gives no permission to wander from His table. And while we cannot prevent this, nor require intelligence as a prerequisite where the heart is really right with God, we cannot and may not on the other hand ourselves agree that one has a right to wander from His table.

I have said all this, dear brother, in so brief a way that I feel there is need to ask you not to mistake brevity for dogmatism. I have indeed myself the strongest belief that what I have said will stand the fullest test of the Word of God, and I trust and believe you will not receive anything on my part that the blessed Word does not authenticate. Here, for the present, then, I close, though with much more upon my mind, to which at a future time I may ask you to listen.

Second Letter

My Dear Brother: In my last letter we were speaking of the gathering as such, and necessarily somewhat of communion, as that which is involved—or implied—in gathering. I want now to say a few words as to how far this is implied in it, and as to its true nature.

Our fellowship is first of all "with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3), and in the measure this is attained, "with one another." We are united together by the Center, as the spokes of a wheel are with the hub. We are gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus, and find our place at His table as having individually heard Him say, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). This alone puts fellowship with one another in the right place. It makes my presence at the Lord's table a matter of loving obedience to Him whose voice alone I am to listen to, and not first of all a pledge of fellowship with all who may be there.

It is very needful to maintain this as a point of duty to the Lord Himself; for, clearly, I must not make my remembrance of the Lord depend upon the right condition of those with whom I sit down at His table. I must be in my place with Him, whatever may be the state of others, so long as I can recognize that the place where I am is according to truth and righteousness. I can neither ensure nor assume a right state in all. I must be right myself, of course. "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat" (1 Corinthians 11:28).

And at this point let me diverge a little to say that the less we assume as to anything where we are concerned the better. It is a day in which universal failure is the most patent of all things, and the more we are with God, the more we shall realize it. God has not failed—will never. We can say this of Him, and for no one else; of ourselves, certainly, least of all. Confession, not assumption, as with Daniel in his day, alone suits the real character of remnant times.

Suppose you put (as some incline to do) into the gracious promise of Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name," the words "by the Holy Ghost"—could we always assure ourselves that without doubt our gathering was that—as to all in it? And if not, how far could we claim the promise, "there am I in the midst of them"?

These words, "by the Holy Ghost," are not there, as, if they were essential, they certainly would be; nor does the word "gathered" necessarily imply them. All sorts of assemblages—of the multitudes, or of the Pharisees, for example—are described in precisely the same language. It is a great blessing to us that it is so, for only thus can we—without assumption or pretension of any kind—grasp in faith the promise upon which so much depends. We can be honest and real, lowly and self-suspecting, and yet draw near in confidence to Him who promises His presence in the midst.

Ought it, then, to be "by the Holy Ghost" that we are gathered? Surely, and let us test and see how far it is so. Just as with communion, ought we not to be—each one of us and all together—in the enjoyment of this among ourselves? Yes, undoubtedly, but let us test ourselves as to this and seek earnestly after it—not assume it. We may be happy with each other in a very different way, and yet mistake it for that which alone can please God; thus we may force Him even to come in and break up what we deemed so happy, because we are assuming the sham to be the true, and because He would give us the truth and not the sham. But there is a danger with us, if "communion" takes the form of what is manward rather than what is Godward, that the first unhappiness between us and our brethren—the first suspicion, or perception, of what is wrong in them—should make us act as if it were the Lord we had fallen out with, by withdrawing from that which is the remembrance of Him, and the expression of fellowship with Him.

There is all the more danger because that which brought Christians constantly together in the first, fresh days of Christianity has ceased to be—with most—what it was of old. The coming together "to break bread" has been largely displaced by meetings for prayer and preaching, and the value of the Lord's Supper is often the less realized even by those who do come together for it. The great meeting of the Church in which we recognize what the Lord is to us all, and what we are to one another, and in which He Himself has the central place, has given way to meetings over which preside officially-appointed teachers, and in which Church and world alike have place. The Lord's Supper would, they think, lose its solemnity by frequent repetition; whereas, in fact, it is thus it makes its mark upon us, bringing us back, week by week, face to face with those wondrous relationships which are established upon so dear a foundation as "the Lord's death," and to be realized in their fullness at that unknown but ever-looked-for time—His coming again.

To be with Him where He has especially promised His presence, looking back together to His death and forward to His coming—this is what preeminently characterizes the sweet and solemn meeting "to break bread," in which surely He Himself has the central place, and fellowship with Him is the one great essential, which, if it be maintained, brings us into fellowship with all His people who are capable of, and enjoying, fellowship with Him. This, of course, does not set aside in the least the obligation to promote meetings for prayer and preaching in every possible way.

Now concerning our brethren, it would be an immense thing if we realized each breach of fellowship as a breach with Him. How it would free us from the petty, personal feelings which so beset us, if we understood our connection with one another to be by the Center, and only so! With what a different spirit we would take up anything of this kind if we looked at it as something between the Lord and one of His own, and only thus affecting us at all! Are we not apt to take such up in the very reverse way, and feel first and weightiest that which touches us? It is for this very reason that it is so safe to refuse ever to pursue what may be deemed our quarrel, and to leave it (if the first steps to "gain one's brother" as seen in Matthew 18:15 are not effectual) in the hands of those who can give more dispassionate judgment than we may be capable of.

If we realized this connection by the Center, would not the bonds that bind us together bind us each more closely to the Lord, and the least relaxation of them be felt as introducing and implying less practical nearness? And would not He be the One we turned to instinctively to settle things and get them right, instead of, first of all, the assembly? Would not He be thus between us and our brethren, instead of our brethren between us and Christ?

You will understand that I am not making light of the necessity for holiness, or of Scriptural discipline to maintain this. Here we cannot act singularly; all must act together. To separate ourselves from the Lord's table is to put ourselves where discipline is no longer practical, and to leave the evil (if such there be) behind us at the table and to defile our brethren. Moreover, how large a class of things there is in which the assembly should never be called in at all! How many personal matters in which the apostle's question becomes pertinent, "Why do ye not rather take wrong?" (1 Corinthians 6:7). Above all, how needful to remember that grace is that which gives dominion over sin—-as law, on the other hand, is its strength. We must not ever deem showing grace as allowing unholiness, or imagine for a moment that there is no way of putting sin away except by judgment.

I feel I have spoken somewhat vaguely in all this; yet, after all, Scripture gives mainly principles, leaving us to apply them to each case. Simplicity and dependence upon God alone can guide us aright.

Third Letter

My Dear Brother: Having taken up in some measure the subject of the Lord's Table, it is natural to go on to think a little of the Lord's Supper—that solemn and precious remembrance of Christ Himself which puts us in the right attitude, if it be real with us, for looking at other things. It thus, as you will probably have noticed, precedes the whole question of gifts and of their exercise in the epistle to the Corinthians—and even of membership in the body of Christ. With our eyes really on Him we are in communion, and competent to entertain these questions.

Therefore the great importance of seeing clearly, in the first place, is the object and character of that great central meeting which gives its character to all other meetings. It is described for us in simple and familiar style in the Acts, but so as to show us what, in the mind of Christians, was its primary object: "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7). As the Passover had changed for Israel the order of the months, and the year must begin with the sign of accomplished redemption, so, for Christians, time must begin its reckoning with the joyful celebration of the love that has visited them. On the first day, therefore, they came together to "break bread." It does not say, as we sometimes hear, "to a worship meeting." Worship, no doubt, they would; but that was not what was foremost in their minds. It was their Lord who was before them—Him of whom that bread spoke.The purpose of coming together should be distinctly before our minds. We must be simple in it. In two opposite ways this simplicity may be destroyed, and the character of the meeting lowered, and souls made to suffer. Let us spend a little time in the consideration of this.

In the first place, when we come together, after six days of warfare in the world (would that were always spiritual warfare, and that we realized the world as an enemy's country), we are apt to come full of our spiritual needs, to be recruited and refreshed. We may not use the term, but still the idea in the Lord's Supper to us thus will be that it is a "means of grace." We bring jaded spirits and unstrung energies to a meeting where we trust the weariness will be dispelled and the lassitude recovered from. We come to be ministered to and helped. We require the character of it to be soothing and comforting, speaking much of grace and quieting our overdone nerves for another week before us, in which we know too surely that we shall go through the same course exactly, and come back next Lord's Day as weary as before, with the same need and thought of refreshment; with the same self, in fact, as an object, and scarcely Christ at all, or Christ as a means to an end, and not Himself the end.

This is the evil of this state of things—Christ is not in any due sense before our soul, but rather our need, which He is to be the means of supplying. No doubt there is a measure of truth in this view of the Lord's Supper. Can we ever come to Him without finding refreshment from the coming? Does He not, blessed Lord, delight to serve us? Do not the bread and wine speak of refreshment ministered: "wine that maketh glad the heart of man … and bread which strengtheneth man's heart" (Psalm 104:15)? Has He not spread us here a table in the wilderness—a table in the very presence of our enemies? Is not His language still, "Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved" (Song of Solomon 5:1)?

Surely all this is true. But true as it is, it is not this that gathers us. "To show the Lord's death"—has this not deeper meaning? Are not His own words, "Do this"—not for the satisfaction of our own need, not for the recruiting of your own strength, but—"in remembrance of Me"? Thus this sacramental use of Christ, as I may term it (common as it really is, alas, among those who think that they have outgrown sacraments) essentially lowers the whole thought of the Lord's Supper. The remembrance of Christ is something more and other than what I get by the remembrance; something more than "the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ."

Of course, I do not mean to deny that Christ is gracious, and meets us oftentimes in unexpected ways. Sovereign He is, and beyond expression gracious. Still, if our blessing flows from the apprehension of Christ, how will such apprehension of Him as this ensure a blessing? If we make ourselves our object, will that be a blessing? What honor has Christ, and what place, in all this? And what must be the character of meetings to which languid and wayworn souls come, seeking to be refreshed and invigorated, only then to return to those other things which seem to be the main business of their lives?

We may have to approach this subject from another side. Let us look now, however, at the other way in which our souls may be tempted from the simplicity of the remembrance of Christ.

Scripture does not speak of a "worship meeting." It does not then, of course, style the meeting to break bread this. The term may be used very innocently, I do not doubt at all; nor do I in the least oppose the thought that the atmosphere, so to speak, of the Lord's supper will be "worship." "In His temple doth every one speak of His glory" (Psalm 29:9). But we need to guard against the abuse of calling the breaking of bread a "worship meeting," as is frequently done.

When we look at the worship of heaven, in that picture which so often tempts our eyes in Revelation 5, it is the simple presence of the Lamb slain that calls out the adoration of those elders, whom some of us have learned to recognize as our representatives. Worship, with them, was no arranged, premeditated thing, but the pouring out of hearts that could not be restrained in the presence of Him who had redeemed them to God by His blood. And here is the mistake on our parts, when we think we can make worship a matter of prearrangement, while it is, in fact, a thing dependent upon another thing—the true remembrance of the Lord.

We can recognize the fact that in this thought we have a very different and a much truer one than in that which makes the motive to come to the Lord's supper a motive of mere self-interest. Still, the mistake often leads to a similar result—that the very thing we are seeking becomes an impossibility. Worship itself becomes a legal claim, which, as such, we cannot render. We are in the presence of ourselves, not of the Lord, and the result is a strained and artificial service, painfully reaching out after an ideal which is quite beyond it, and robbed of power and naturalness.

Thus there will be in proportion blessing on the one hand and worship on the other as our eyes are taken off ourselves and fixed upon the Object which both ministers the one and calls forth the other. Blessing there will be, for how can the sight of Him do otherwise than bless? And worship there will be, for this is the true and spontaneous response of heart to the sight of One who, being the Son of God, yet loved us and gave Himself for us. The great point pressed, therefore, in Scripture, is discernment—remembrance—"This do in remembrance of Me." "Ye do show the Lord's death." "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Earnestly, affectionately, solemnly, is this pressed, as the essence of the whole matter.

Of course, we are not to forget that while our eyes look back upon the Lamb slain, it is from this side of His resurrection that we contemplate it. "The first day of the week" speaks of resurrection out of death, and gives Him back to us in all the reality of a living person. While we remember His death, we do it in the glad knowledge of His resurrection, and with the Lord Himself in our midst. Who could celebrate the Lord's death but for this? Who could sound a note of praise did He not Himself first raise it? As He says, "In the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee" (Hebrews 2:12). No spectre—as the astonished disciples thought—not conquered of the grave, but Conqueror, Himself with us—this alone turns the most calamitous sorrow into exulting joy. Not death, but death passed, do we celebrate; death which, thus seen, is only the depths of a living love which we carry with us, unexhausted, inexhaustible, unfathomed, and unfathomable.

"Lo! the tokens of His passion,
Though in glory, still He bears;
Cause of endless exultation
To His ransomed worshippers."

"A Lamb as it had been slain" is the object of the elders' worship (Revelation 5:6). The Living One bears with Him forever the memorials of His blessed death. The cross is not only atonement effected for us, but the bright and blessed display of God manifest in Christ, and for us, in every attribute displayed.

Fourth Letter

My Dear Brother: The grand point then, surely, in the Lord's Supper is the remembrance of Him, while nevertheless doing it in the apprehension of His presence with us always, according to His promise, "In the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee." We shall best enter into His praise as we most simply have our eyes fixed upon Himself—as our sayings and doings cease to occupy us, and we become receptive of His glory, and of His joy. Thus the pipes will be filled and the stream of praise flow out. The scene in the upper chamber at Jerusalem will be repeated, only upon His dear face will be no shadow of the darkness soon to come, but the brightness of a morning without clouds—the morning of resurrection. His own hands will distribute the bread to us, the melody of His own praise will fill our hearts, the nearness in which He stands to God will make our meeting to be indeed in the holiest of all as He presents us to His Father and our Father. Oh that He Himself were thus ever before us as the great Actor in the Presence-chamber of God, anticipating His future Melchisedec work, as He brings forth the bread and wine, and blesses God in our behalf, and blesses us from God.

Only let me guard this from any mistake. We must not so conceive His acting for and by us here, as to suppose it needful to exclude His being the Object of praise as well as the Giver. We must not think it an interruption if our voice break in too with "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain"; for here the Spirit of God is only putting us "in communion with the Father," as well as "with His Son Jesus Christ." Surely we may say this is needed, in order that "fullness of joy," which the apostle connects with this, may be manifested in our assembly. Would there be no lack of harmony in the Father's ear, if the note of praise to the beloved Son were absent from our worship? Does not the Father claim our communion with Himself, as also the Son with Himself? Do we worship the Father aright, when we refuse or omit the worship of the Son? When every knee shall bow in subjection to the Son, it will be "to the glory of God the Father," and now, as our hearts bow in homage to the Son, the Father too is glorified.

It may be asked, "When the Lord gave thanks in the upper chamber at Jerusalem, did He give thanks unto Himself?" It may be fully conceded that He did not and could not; but this by no means implies that we are in such sense either to imitate Him, or to be His mouthpieces, as to be excluded from His praise. Pipes we may be through which His joy and praise flow forth, but yet not mere pipes; the figure would fail, if thus pressed, as all figures somewhere fail. We are not mere pipes, or machines, but beings with hearts, which, if God fills and uses, He uses according to their nature, not arbitrarily repressing the emotions stirred by Himself. Our praise would not even be the echo of His praise if He who leads it has not His own place in it. "Communion with the Father" necessitates it, as I have said, and without communion with the Father the whole character of worship—which is the fruit of communion—is fatally lowered.

I return to what we were just now considering, that occupation with Christ is what is to give character to gathering at His table. From this, worship will follow, not as a legal requirement, and not as an official performance, but as the overflow of hearts filled up with Him.

The tendency to degenerate into officialism has to be watched and guarded against. So many, alas, are just not in the requisite state of soul—so many who are occupied all the week with other things, and on the Lord's day are disposed to hand over to others the activities of a priestly calling which belongs to all. Hence, certain individuals come to be looked upon as the quasi-official priesthood. Those who are known as publicly engaged in the Lord's work—preachers and teachers, for example—are apt to be put into this place. A long step towards clericalism is thus taken, and an actual—if not formal—barrier for any other saints is set up to infringing upon that which comes to be looked upon as the place of a special few.

This is a great evil, which is budding out extensively into a real quenching of the Spirit and destruction of the power of worship, while those engaged in secular employments (so called) shelter their unspirituality under these. Let brethren look to it how they acquiesce in this, whether by putting or being put into any such distinctive place. Worship is not official, and all God's saints are worshippers—women alone being (because of what is suited to their creation-place) enjoined to be silent in the assembly. All other restriction is unscriptural and injurious, and terribly so the thought of any lawful vocation (lawful to the Christian, of course I mean) being opposed or derogatory to spirituality. If we cannot "abide with God" in it, we have no business with it at all. No real duty is a weight. If it seems to be so to us, either it is not a duty, or we are not taking it up in reality as such.

There are few places like the Lord's table for revealing to oneself the true state of one's soul. If with the precious memorials of His death before us, and Himself present in our midst, the Holy Ghost, who is come to occupy us with Him, is only able to occupy us with ourselves; or worse still, if our thoughts wander without rebuke from Him who should have power to engage them with Himself, what does it reveal but a state in which Christ shares but the lesser portion of a divided heart? Whatever our burdens, whatever filled our hands or took up our time—were our hearts free, what a blessed time that would be in which they could escape to the object of their desire! And the blessed Spirit of God—could He lack power or will to fulfil the work which He has taken upon Himself? The rabble of disorderly thoughts—could they press in to take possession of a soul in the presence of its Lord?

May He possess us so with Himself that all else shall fall into its place in the great anthem which our lives should raise to Him, and which should never find more complete and harmonious expression than when, with Himself before us, we (anticipating the song of eternity) "show the Lord's death until He come."

—F. W. G.