(Continued from page 24)

In my introductory paper last month, I quoted from Mr. M's pamphlet the two points to which he calls our special attention. We will now look at his first:"the place which the breaking of bread has in christian fellowship."

We will look at it first, as conceived by Mr. Mauro. He says :

" The breaking of bread is an act or event, each occurrence of which is complete in itself" (p. 4). Also,

"A proper meeting or gathering is constituted wherever two or more of these called ones assemble to the name of the Lord Jesus. Every meeting is thus distinct from every other, both as to time and place" (p. 8).

Then he counsels us, on page 13,

"To cease regarding the Lord's table as a continuing institution, and to treat it, as it should be treated, as a memorial act, to be observed from time to time ('As often as ye do this'), by those members of His body who are gathered in one place at the time. Every observance should be regarded as a distinct event, complete in itself, and disconnected from like observances at other times and in other places ; and the question of participation in it should depend upon the spiritual state at the time of those who are present. If it had been remembered that the breaking of bread is an event, or memorial act, and not a continuing institution, we should never have heard such expressions as, ' Setting up another table,' etc."

" The breaking of bread in remembrance of the Lord is, at each occurrence, an isolated event, complete in itself" (p. 21).

These quotations will suffice to give us a clear conception of Mr. M.'s idea as to the place the breaking of bread has in Christian fellowship. In connection with this is his idea also of a properly constituted meeting. Answering a correspondent he says:

"In this connection you say, however, that the breaking of bread in apostolic days was the practice of a company which existed as such all through the week; I must dissent from this, and would point out that the only company, which existed (has an existence) as such during the week is the entire company of the members of Christ's body on earth, and that those who may come together on the first day, or at any other time, constitute simply a meeting or gathering which derives its character as a Christian meeting solely from the presence of the Lord in the midst. It follows that such a meeting has no other or better status, authority, or sanction, than any and every other meeting-however small the numbers- at which the Lord Himself is present" (p. 17).

I do not need to quote more. It is evident to one who understands the fundamental constitution of the house of God, as set up by the apostle Paul, that Mr. M. 's reasoning mind has missed it. It is the believing mind which God teaches. Mr. M.'s conception of a properly constituted meeting is a denial both of the outward order and the internal arrangement of the house of God as Paul established them. It is a complete subversion of the relations of the assemblies to one another, as ordained by Paul. It is an entire denial of the place the breaking of bread has in Christian fellowship, according to the instruction of the apostle.

An examination of the teaching of Paul on these matters will make all this clear. A passage, quoted indeed by Mr. M., but not understood by him, has an important bearing on these points:"God is faithful by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (i Cor. i:9).

We hear it sometimes crudely and unintelligently remarked, "I know no other fellowship but that of i John i:3, the fellowship that is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ." Now, this fellowship is a participation in the nature and life of the Father and the Son. Every one born of God, necessarily by that fact, is a sharer in that nature and life. Of course the flow of it maybe hindered in many ways and from many causes, but of this the passage is not speaking. Every one who is in the light, however feebly that light may be in him, shares in the nature and life of the Father and the Son. It is common to all who are born of Him. But Paul is not speaking of this in i Cor. i:9. He is speaking here of a fellowship which has been set up on earth, which elsewhere he calls "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth "-the truth of the great mystery of the person of the Christ (i Tim. 3:15, 16). It is a fellowship set up to be the proclamation among men of the truth of Jesus Christ, and the upholder, the maintenance, of it. This is the fundamental character of the house of God. It is its fundamental character everywhere. Paul constituted the local assemblies alike in every place, depositing everywhere the same teaching, or doctrine, (i Cor. 4:17), ordaining the same customs (chap. 7:17; 11:16). He gave to the assemblies everywhere the same external order and the same internal arrangement.

He had divine authority for this, for an administration (Eph. 3 :2) was given to him. He was authorized to be the architect (i Cor. 3:10) of the house of God, to establish the pattern according to which the house of God was to be carried on and maintained. He was thus the authorized establisher of the fellowship of God's Son.

Now of this fellowship, the pattern of which was committed to and executed by the apostle Paul under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, I wish to make a few remarks. I believe they will prove helpful.

First:If we are in this fellowship, it is of grace. God hath called us unto it. Second:It is a fellowship of which God's Son is the Source. He is the establisher of it-the One who conferred on Paul the authority to set it up on earth-to build it. Third:As being the source of it, its establisher, He gives character to it. He not only participates in it, but He has originated it and given it its character. Fourth:This fellowship is an abiding, continuous fellowship, not intermitting-a continuously subsisting fellowship. It is not an occasional, but an abiding reality. Fifth; The Spirit of God continuously maintains it. He has never, during all the ages succeeding the apostolic, departed from the pattern He then set up through the apostle. Sixth:It is our responsibility to abide by the pattern the Holy Spirit then gave us.

Now, of course, we can understand that the fellowship of God's Son once set up here on earth should be the object of assault. Indeed, the first epistle to the Corinthians shows us the chief ways in which it is assailed, and which are to be refused:

In i Cor. 2:14-16 he exposes and expels worldly wisdom-the mere natural man. In chap. 3:16, 17 it is the destroyers-those fundamentally unsound. In chap. 5 :n it is lust-self-indulgence-which assails, and is refused; and in chap. 10:14-33 it is those in unholy associations. These are divine safeguards which we cannot neglect if we purpose to preserve the apostolic and fundamental character of the fellowship unto which by the grace of God we have been called.

We have seen that this fellowship is a continuously abiding fellowship. Our present purpose is to ascertain the place the breaking of bread has in it. It is most surely a feature-a prominent one-of the fellowship. What relations, then, has the breaking of bread with this continuously subsisting fellow-, ship-what is its connection with the fellowship of God's Son ? Does the word of God answer ? It does:and its answer is not in the least equivocal. It makes it plain that the breaking of bread is the very central feature of the fellowship God's Son has established here upon earth.

That fellowship is founded on, and centers in, the death of Christ. Our-blessing the cup and breaking the bread is the expression of that death which is the basis of the fellowship. The cup, containing the poured out wine, is the symbol of the poured out blood of Christ, and the loaf symbolizes the dead body of Christ. Our partaking of the cup and loaf expresses our identification with that death-the death that is the foundation on which the fellowship in which we participate depends (i Cor. 10:16-17).

Now the apostles and the saints of their days, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, met together every first day of the week for the purpose of breaking bread (Acts 20:7). Their custom is our rule. Each first day of the week we repeat the announcing the death (i Cor. 11:26) of the Lord. But every announcement of the death of the Lord is the expression of our identification with that death, and that we are partakers of a fellowship of which that death is the basis.

We have seen this fellowship is a continuing fellowship. It is not merely for the first day of the week. It is not merely for the time we are met together for the purpose of breaking bread. It is not in that way an intermitting fellowship. The fellowship is an established, continuously-subsisting fellowship, and the breaking of bread has a place that makes it the very center of it. It is its characteristic feature.

Surely, then, looking at the breaking of bread in the light of i Cor. 10:16, 17, it is impossible to regard it as an "act or event, each occurrence of which is complete in itself." It is not an "isolated event" or "meeting," to be regarded as "distinct from every other, both as to time and place."

But i Cor. 10 has still more to say to us on this point. I here wish to remind my readers that the apostle is speaking as the mouth-piece of God, as the exponent and interpreter of the mind of God. He is authoritatively giving what the will of God is. Well, then, he says:"I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils:ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils "(vers. 20, 21). He is speaking here, evidently, as verse 19 indicates, of the liberty some of them boasted they had to eat meat in an idol's temple (see chap. 8:9, 10). He does not deal with this matter here in chap. 10 as he deals with it in chap. 8. There he appeals to the effect it might have on a weak brother whose conscience still regarded the idol to be something. If he was emboldened to go in the idol's temple and eat meat sacrificed to it by the example of one who went in and partook on the ground of knowing the idol was nothing, it would mean for him a defiled conscience. The apostle denounces the use of this boasted liberty as inconsiderate destruction of conscience in the weak brother; as sinning against him, and as so sinning against Christ.

In chapter 10 the apostle looks at this matter from another standpoint. The act of eating the meat is the expression of identification with the fellowship of the idol, or the demon it represents. Such an act is in violation of the fellowship of God's Son. The one doing it would be regarded by all observers of it as connected with the fellowship of which the idol was the center. Now the fellowship of idols, or demons, is antagonistic in nature and character from the fellowship of God's Son. It follows therefore that eating meat in the temple of an idol on Monday is not merely inconsistent with breaking bread on the Lord's Day, but a denial of what the act of breaking bread on the Lord's Day is the expression of. If on the Lord's Day we are identified with the fellowship of God's Son, we are identified with it on Monday-on every day of the week. The fellowship of the breaking of bread is an expression of what does not end with that act or event. There is a very real and true sense in which the Christian is at the table of the Lord all the time-not only on the first day of the week, but all the days of the week. His daily, hourly life is inevitably linked with it.

To this point I may return again, but must now pass on to another. We have seen that the apostle insists on the principle that breaking bread expresses identification, continuous identification with a fellowship that is founded on the death of Christ. We have also seen how he applies the principle in reference to the fellowship of an idol. His application of the principle in this case is an illustration and example for us.

We are not surrounded with temples of idols, nor therefore with tables of devils. It will not do for us to say, however, we have no occasion for applying the principle revealed. Such occasions, alas, are but too common, and it is disloyalty to Christ who died for us, and a violation of the nature and character of the fellowship of which that death is the basis, if we are identified with what vitiates it.

While saying before that the Christian is always connected with the fellowship of which the breaking of bread is a central and characterizing feature, it does not follow that in existing conditions all Christians are to be allowed the privileges of it. We have noticed before those to whom it is denied. In i Cor. 5, the man to whom it is denied is owned a true Christian; and here in chap. 10 there is no question raised as to their reality. They even claim liberty on the plea of their strong faith, and they are denied the privileges of the fellowship with which they are connected as being Christians.

None denies the apostle as being the exponent and interpreter of the will of God ; his ruling is authoritative therefore. Those who are loyal to his legislation will be governed by it. If with him association and identification with the fellowship of a demon disqualified a Christian for the enjoyment of his privileges with his fellow-Christians, those who are subject to the apostle's authoritative ruling in the matter will observe the practice which he has thus directed to be followed by the Lord's people. Mr. Mauro resists it.

Much beside, in his paper, under expressions attractive to such as care little for the claims of Christ, yet are loud enough for their own, is but the boldest independency. Paul certainly regarded the gathering at Corinth as in relations with others in other places who "call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord " (i Cor. i:2). Mr. Mauro does not. His principles admitted by a meeting of Christians would forbid considering it a Christian meeting, or a company gathered to the Lord's name. They who profess to be gathered to the Lord's name should be subject to the Lord's order, as Wesleyans should be subject to Wesley's.

We may ask here, How does the house of God assemble? It certainly does not assemble as a universal house. There are many insuperable difficulties in the way of the universal house coming together at one time in one place. It should be manifest that the whole house assembles locally. The local gathering is the assembling of the house in the locality. The local gathering then is the representative of the universal house. To be that, however, the local gathering must be fundamentally the same everywhere. Again, the house of God is one. There are not many houses of God, but one house. Here again, we see a reason why the local assembly is the representative of the universal assembly. We may say also it is the representative in its locality of all the assemblies everywhere, but this necessitates the assemblies having everywhere the same fundamental character. But all this shows how close and intimate are the relations of the assemblies to each other.

That such is the fact, that the local assembly represents in its locality the universal house and also every assembly everywhere else; that such are the relations of the assemblies to one another in the Scriptures, is made manifest by the fact that the apostle insists that he gave to the assemblies everywhere the same fundamental character. Everywhere he established the same outward order. Everywhere he appointed the same internal arrangement. In i Cor. 4:17, he says, "As I teach every where in every church." In chap. 7:17, he says, "So ordain I in all churches." In chap, n:23, he tells us he received a special revelation as to the matter of the breaking of bread. He deposited this revelation with the saints at Corinth. Surely he delivered it to all the churches elsewhere, to "all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." A meeting, such as Mr. M. suggests, does not have this representative character. It is destructive of it. It is not Christian, but subversive of apostolic authority, and overruling the will and mind of God. It overthrows the nature and character of the fellowship our Lord has established and committed to the Church.

Mr. M. thinks his way would end much dissension. Very likely. Taking away Christianity from the earth would also end much dissension and division. And the apostle would certainly not have had to speak as he did of the heavy burden "which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches," had he had Mr. M.'s advice to follow. Independency is attractive, as it offers the privileges divested of their responsibilities.

Is not then the Lord present, and the table the Lord's table, in such a meeting as Mr. M. proposes ? This is not for man to determine. That which can neither be proved nor disproved is for God to judge, not us. Our province is to judge of principles approved or disapproved by the word of God; or of facts which can be proved or disproved by witnesses. Beyond that all belongs to God alone.* *But let us not be deceived:the precious privileges of God's house can only be retained and enjoyed in the connections with which and with whom God has put them.-[Ed.*
Mr. M. asserts much. He is fond of the expression "I maintain." Let God's people not be moved, but cling more than ever to His word. It will make them "wise unto salvation" in every subject; and every subject connected with Christ has serious issues.

My next paper will consider Mr. M. 's interpretation of 2 Tim. 2:20-22.

(To be completed in next issue.)