BY C. CRAIN

In a small pamphlet entitled, "Concerning Fellowship in Breaking Bread," by Mr. Mauro, we are invited to give special attention to the two following points, as stated by himself:

" First, The proposition that the breaking of bread is an act, or event, each occurrence of which is complete in itself, so that there cannot be such a thing as 'setting up the Lord's table in any place,' nor among any particular group or association of believers. Second, The true interpretation and application of 2 Tim. 2 :20-22."

Having read his paper with patient care, I can say with assurance that his first proposition is flatly contradicted in the Scriptures, and that his interpretation and application of 2 Tim. 2:20-22 is a serious perversion of it, evacuating it of its meaning and sanctifying power.

I purpose an examination of these two points by the infallible word of God, to show what is its verdict on them. But I have some remarks of a more general character which I desire to make first. My examination will be in two papers following.

Mr. M. is a vigorous writer, and were he more mature in the mind of God would be helpful to the Lord's people. But not only this tract, but most of his writings which have come to my notice, are marred by ill-digested thoughts and extreme statements which the Scriptures do not support, and which in some cases quite nullify the words of God. This renders him unsafe as a guide and leader to the people of God.

While carefully reading the above mentioned paper I have been much impressed with this characteristic. Many statements in it could not emanate from a mind formed by the Holy Scriptures as to the fundamental character of the house of God, and the responsibility of the Lord's servants to maintain, carry on, and preserve that fundamental character. In result there frequently is an unfair characterizing of the thoughts and views of others, which he opposes. It is unjust to attribute to another what he does not hold. Mr. M. is guilty of this. Undoubtedly it is not malice, but, as I have suggested, the result of haste to publish without adequate spiritual knowledge.

Another matter is more difficult to associate with immaturity, though a mind matured in the truth would not fall into it. I refer to the actual insertion at times, in Mr. Mauro's treatment of a passage of Scripture, what is not in the passage. This is very serious, and springs, I believe, from the power of a wrong principle imbibed. This so blinds the mind that the evident force and meaning of the passage is denied. It then becomes necessary to find and adopt an explanation which will reconcile the passage to the wrong principle already accepted.

Convinced of these things, and that some of them, at least, seem to be characteristic of Mr. M. as a writer, it has become to me a duty to call the attention of God's people to them, as far as I am able to reach them, especially as there appears to be evidence of efforts being made to give his writings a widespread circulation. It is with a desire to be faithful to the Lord that I warn His people of the necessity of special care and discrimination in reading Mr. M.'s writings.
Scripture shows that there are several classes of persons that should be debarred, not only from collective fellowship in the breaking of bread, but from all Christian fellowship. In one class only is there exception, as I shall point out further on.

1. All unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-18). No yoke (nothing that binds people together) is to exist between believers and unbelievers.

2. All professing believers who are unsound as to the doctrine of the person of Christ (2 John 10, 11). "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed. For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." The language is sufficiently plain and forceful. Even a Christian woman is to refuse private or individual Christian fellowship to a person who is unsound as to the person of Christ; and if private fellowship is to be denied to such, surely the collective as well. Unitarians and all others who deny the deity of the Man Jesus Christ are barred out. It also excludes those who, whether they deny His deity or not, deny His true humanity.

3. Those who are fundamentally unsound as to the nature and necessity of the sacrificial death of Christ. Among many passages showing this, is John 6:53. It is decisive. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." Another is John 12:24:"Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone." Apart from that one only atoning death, there is no salvation. All Christian fellowship is based on the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who denies the foundation on which Christian fellowship rests is disqualified for participating in it.

I presume there are few who are sound as to the person of Christ that are unsound as to the nature and necessity of His death. Those who are so, probably give only a passive, and not an active, acceptance to the truth of His person. In view of this fact, this and the previous class might well be put together, as indeed is generally done.

4. Those who in their individual life and walk compromise holiness. One passage showing this will suffice. It is i Cor. 5:11:"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat." Here is plainly an authoritative ruling by which we are made responsible to refuse all Christian fellowship to those who live in unholiness.

5. Those who maintain unholy associations. There are many passages which show this. I cite two:i Cor. 10:14-33, which is very explicit. We shall return to it later on. The other is, 2 Tim. 2; 19-22; a passage which, rightly understood, is very strong. Great efforts have been put forth to break down the evident and plain meaning of this latter passage, but without success, as we shall see.

Mr. M. very evidently agrees that all persons belonging to the first four classes named are disqualified for Christian fellowship; but he disagrees as to the last. He reasons very vigorously against debarring persons who are merely in unholy associations. His reasoning is very special pleading, antagonistic to the evident mind of the Spirit, and a complete nullification of the passage he fights, destroying its sanctifying power.

I desire here to make it perfectly clear what is in contention. I do not insist, and I know of none who do, that all private fellowship is to be withdrawn from all who belong to this last class. I judge that there are many circumstances in which having Christian fellowship individually, or privately, with many whose associations are evil is quite permissible. I have found nothing in the Scriptures against it. But collective or assembly fellowship is certainly prohibited. We shall consider it in our examination.

Here I only insist that a mind divinely taught as to Christian fellowship, thoroughly imbued with the conception of its nature and character, as set forth in the word of God, would not only accept that persons belonging to the first four classes are debarred from the privileges of such fellowship, but would agree as well to the authoritative ruling by the apostle which excludes from it also, at least in its collective form, persons of the fifth class, 1:e., persons in unholy associations.

Mr. M.'s tract not only denies this holy safeguard given us as a protection for the normal character of Christian assembly fellowship, but he in fact denies the fundamental character and nature of the fellowship itself. This we will see as we proceed.

Mr. M. admits that the principle of separation from evil is right. But it seems to be only a "theory" with him, for he complains that "in actual practice" it does not operate aright. In essence this is infidelity. If a principle is true, it is right to practice it, whatever be the difficulties and cost. But in his examination of its practice Mr. M. is unfair. He does not speak of inconsistency in the practice of a right principle. If he did, one would readily admit there has been much of it. There does not appear to be the slightest evidence that he looks on the failures in the practice as being through Satan's attacks on the principle itself, or on the weakness of those holding the principle in making practical application of it. Had he seen this, he would not have unfairly and falsely characterized the practice, as he has done.

I might say much more in this line; but as it is only the truth of God which delivers from error, we will give ourselves to this in our next.