The Breaking of Bread.
1878 143 1. Two or three saints in fellowship at the Lord's table, meet, with or without previous concert, at some place where they have gone for a temporary purpose — a watering-place commonly — where there is no gathering, and no one in fellowship. Can they rightly spread the table for the time they are together in the place, the whole thing being discontinued (unless in the meantime some residents should be brought into fellowship) as soon as they leave? Under such circumstances is the true character of the table maintained? And if so, is it material whether the fact of their breaking bread be known only to themselves, or done in such a way that others may know and perhaps come to the room?
2. If there be a resident brother or sister in fellowship at the place, but no breaking of bread, can the table be spread at any time that another brother in fellowship may happen to be there for a limited time, and then discontinued until another similar occasion arise? If the brother should go to the place on an occasional day for the express purpose of enabling the resident brother or sister to enjoy the privilege of breaking bread, would it make any difference?
3. In the case of several in fellowship removing, with a view to permanent residence, to another town where there is no gathering, or where several may be converted or brought out of the denominations, should they begin breaking bread at once, and of their own accord? or should they announce their intention and seek the fellowship of the surrounding gatherings before doing so?
4. If the practice of beginning to break bread under the circumstances specified in these cases, and more particularly in the two first mentioned, is right in your judgment, in what way would scripture enable us to guard against the danger of its being accompanied with self-will — considering one's own convenience — lack of due godly exercise — and of its leading, if it were generally acted on, to disorder?
—
Berne, July 30th [1878].
Dear Brethren,
I see nothing at all to hinder brethren, who find themselves together for bathing, breaking bread together, provided it be done in a spirit of unity with the meetings they belong to. In the case of a resident Christian walking uprightly in the truth, "calling on [the name of] the Lord out of a pure heart," he has the same title if he desired to walk permanently with brethren. There is nothing to hinder; but it would be happy (specially if those at the bathing place were young brethren) that the matter be communicated to the meeting they belong to, that the thing may be done seriously and with christian care. In the former case it is to preserve confidence and unity, in the latter for right christian care. The true character of the gathering is preserved, that is, two or three gathered together to Christ's name; but it is important that it should be done in unity with those already gathered. Full liberty, but liberty in hearty unity, is what we have to seek, and subjection of individual will to the action of the Holy Ghost in the whole.
As to your second question, it is practically answered. Provided it be done in a spirit of unity, I see nothing to hinder. It might be on purpose to act against the assembly when the single absent brother did not walk well. This would be clearly wrong, and what I say always supposes that all are walking godlily and in grace.
As to the third question, it is always desirable that they should do it in unity with those united in the place nearest, or whence they come. No one can hinder their doing it, but it is not done happily or godlily when it is not done in communion with those with whom they are already in communion.
As to the fourth, the grace of God and the application of the word to the conscience can alone hinder the exercise of self-will.
Yours affectionately in Christ, J. N. Darby.
—
1 Corinthians 5.
Q. 1 Corinthians 5. In an excommunicable, case, that is, one of grave or gross wickedness, can rebuke or withdrawal be substituted for "putting out?" If insisted on by leaders and accepted by an assembly, spite of the strongest protest, in what position does it involve that assembly? Is it really proved "clear"?
A. If a person gave just occasion for public discipline, and there was good ground to fear worse, of which no adequate evidence to convict appeared, it would be godly order to rebuke one thus sinning; and, if he withdrew, it would in the actual state be not only a relief to all, but a more proper course for the assembly to accept his withdrawal by announcing it formally before all, than to put him out without full proof of guilt.
But if the guilt were grave and palpable, so that the common conscience of the saints rejects such offenders, merely to rebuke the person is not to "purge out the old leaven," nor is it to be a new lump but a leavened one. And if further and heinous evil came to light, it would still more show the state, not of the offender only but of that assembly, if they then let him withdraw by announcing it, instead of distinctly refusing such a wish at such a time, and forthwith putting out the wicked person from among themselves. We have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God, as to treat rebuke and withdrawal under such circumstances as tantamount to putting out, or allowable to God's assembly; nor does scripture warrant it. No doubt the assembly cannot put out a man if they have accepted his going out; but who has ever known the acceptance and announcement of withdrawal where the assembly had before it the proof of guilt demanding excision? Such a course would give a premium to the wicked in evading solemn judgment, and the command to put out would soon become a dead letter. It has been often tried but always refused hitherto. And no wonder; for it would hinder all adequate clearing of themselves among the saints; it would annul the Lord's authority by His word in the last resort of the church's responsibility; and it would lower a professing assembly of God (yea, in principle the assembly as a whole if acquiesced in) beneath a decent club of the world, which assuredly would not deal so lightly with flagrant offences against public law or common morality. No special pleading, no detraction of others, can extenuate so plain a dereliction of a holy duty on the part of those who are unleavened. Such an assembly, to its own ease, may have got rid of the offender, as well as of those whose consciences protested against such ways as ungodly; but it has never vindicated the Lord in thorough hatred of the manifest evil, nor so much as mourned that the evildoer might be taken away from among them, still less sorrowed to repentance after a godly sort with diligence, clearing of themselves, indignation, fear, longing desire, zeal or revenge. In no way therefore has it proved itself to be pure in the matter, but the contrary. Till it does, it should not in my judgment be owned as God's assembly by all who would obey Him rather than man.
To Correspondents.
[1878 160] 1 Corinthians 5. On the Question and Answer in the last number a letter was written, but not received till after its writer had agreed that it should not appear. Only he wished it stated that a meeting, which gave rise to the later (in contrast with the earlier) remarks, subsequently declared him who withdrew to be a wicked person outside, instead of merely letting him withdraw by his own act. In the last sentence however, room had been left expressly for adequate clearance: if truly done as in God's sight, it is well and due to Him. And it should be understood that the judgment thus added studiously avoided going beyond the recent guilt: the rest of the question remains where it was.