The article has been reproduced here as the discussion has a very current bearing on belief and practice of fellowship in the Christadelphian community, with widely varying views. The majority belief, based on observation and personal communications, is that a brother or sister who attends memorial meetings only at ecclesias where there is no known false doctrine is obedient to the demands of scriptural fellowship. There is a smaller number who will break bread at any ecclesia regardless of there being members holding first principle doctrinal error.

It is hoped that by highlighting the opposing views in the following discussion will result in brethren and sisters re-examining their own views in the light of the scriptural quotations used by F. The apostle Paul pleads with us to "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Romans 12:2Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.). If we fellowship those with unscriptural ideas and practices then Paul's pleading is falling on deaf ears, and we are being transformed by the ways of the world which are soon to perish. May we all be obedient to our Heavenly Father's Word so that we do not perish with the world but reign as kings and priests with our Lord and Master.

The following article first appeared as two separate entries in consecutive issues of "The Christadelphian" magazine, and is reproduced here with minor adjustments to the formatting only. The arguments presented by F. in the article may surprise some brethren and sisters, but nonetheless, they are scriptural as will be seen. The implications of the conclusions that will be drawn by the reader who understands the arguments may surprise some, that fellowship is a serious matter and deserves attention and subsequent action to firstly reinstate and then maintain the holiness of our fellowship.

As a follow-up to this discussion see "The Need to Withdraw from those who walk Disorderly".

ECCLESIAL FELLOWSHIP

By Brother G. Jannaway, London.

The following argumentative conversation arose out of a private verbal discussion between W. and F. as to whether a particular doctrine had to be believed before immersion, and as a condition of fellowship. W. seemed distressed at the idea of separation on a single doctrine (while agreed on all others), and groundlessly charged the Christadelphians with teaching that all brethren out of fellowship with them were practically regarded as without hope; hence F. replied that W. should keep in mind the proposition stated below, and which proposition called forth the discussion that follows thereon. All the paragraphs headed “W” are the very words of the essay written by W., and which essay has been divided into sections so that the arguments contained therein might be the more thoroughly dealt with.

PROPOSITION TO BE REMEMBERED

“That in many cases we have to refuse fellowship to those we hope to see accepted by and bye through the mercy of God, but that it would not be Scriptural to allow this hope to be the ground of fellowship; otherwise, fellowship would vary with the amount of hope a man possessed.”

1. W.—I cannot agree to remember this, as I have never learned it. The only book I rely upon for my ideas of fellowship is the Bible, and I find nothing in its pages requiring any such thing. . . . I only hope to see men in the Kingdom when I believe there is some possibility of them being there; and when I could see no reason for hoping, there I should refuse fellowship, but nowhere else. . . . . It is a principle that I have plainly taught in the meetings, and my teaching has never been challenged. I take the liberty of enclosing an address that I once delivered upon the subject.

2. F.—The real drift of a theory is seldom gathered from an address that is read. Perhaps this is the reason your teaching was not challenged, for your address contains ideas totally subversive of the unity of the faith which Christ’s brethren have to maintain. Your contention that in fellowshipping others we incur no responsibility for their actions or beliefs is quite opposed to Bible teaching, and some of your admissions will help to make such manifest.

3. W.—Search the Scriptures and measure all I have said by the rule you will find there, and if you find any discrepancy, discard it and shew me where I am wrong.

4. F.—Just so; that is our intention, but we would ask you to confine yourself to points on which you are at issue with us, as there are many statements in your essay which we do not question, and therefore to repeat them will only unnecessarily occupy time. Now for your first complaint.

5. W.—I believe fellowship is a subject that has really received very little consideration, and, consequently, is but imperfectly understood.

6. F.—By whom, yourself or others?

7. W.—I have thought carefully and long upon what I am about to lay before you.

8. F.—So you mean it is your brethren who are ignorant on the matter! What leads you to that conclusion?

9. W.—It [Ed.: originally "Is"] is a significant fact, that among the voluminous literature that has sprung into existence dealing with almost every phrase of the Truth, the doctrine of fellowship has been given little or no place.

10. F.—But that is no evidence that the subject has not been carefully thought out by the brethren. Speaking of the ecclesias in London with which we have been connected for nearly 17 years, we can truly say that “fellowship” has repeatedly been most critically discussed, as much if not more so, than any other doctrine. But further, your assertion respecting our literature is not true. The doctrine alluded to has been given a large place, by bro. Roberts, in the pages of the “Christadelphian,” especially so when false brethren have introduced heresy into our midst. So that what you ought to have said was—“Not having heard or read much on the subject, I have concluded that little or nothing has been said or written thereon, and that all others are no better informed than myself.” But this way of expressing the fact you will not endorse; for you profess even greater progress than others. This self-confidence is distastefully manifest throughout your address (to wit, your first paragraph—pronoun, first person singular, 13 times).

11. W.—It is now nearly two years since I came to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship was radically unsound, and since that time, I have been looking for some brother to come forward and instruct us more perfectly upon this subject.

12. F.—Two years looking for instruction! Surely that cannot strike you as a commendable attitude for a servant of Deity. You must have been doing something in the meantime.

13. W.—Meanwhile, the cogitations of my own mind, assisted by the experiences through which our Church has passed, and also by the exchange of thought with other brethren, have compelled me to a conclusion with which I am pleased to know many agree.

14. F.—No wonder at your unscriptural conclusions. Your guide has been your “own mind,” assisted by certain “experiences,” and “the thoughts” of others with a similar mind. It looks almost as though you had forgotten that Book wherein alone is to be found infallible guidance which should be used as a “lamp” for our feet and a “guide” for our path, and which Book warns us that “it is not in man to direct his steps.” But there, let us proceed with the subject of fellowship. Go on.

15. W.—First of all, and in order that its bearings may be fully appreciated, it will be better to give some sort of a definition of fellowship as it is generally understood by us. It is usually believed to consist of the act of breaking bread and drinking wine in memory of the death of our Lord, and in recognition of our adoption into the family of God.

16. F.—Nonsense. That “fellowship consists of this act” is not usually believed by us. In fact, you are the only person we ever heard had such an idea, and a moment’s reflection will make manifest your error; for if fellowship “consists of this act,” then fellowship only exists between those who have actually met together, and thus we should have no fellowship with our brethren abroad. You must know we do not so believe or teach. We also have fellowship with God and with Christ without the act of breaking of bread (see I. John 1–3). We would recommend you to again read paragraph 10, and reflect on the moral.

17. W.—It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God-speed to all with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems.

18. F.—True, we do so believe, and when you give reasons for believing otherwise, we will deal with such and give you testimony to support our belief. We shall also have something to say of our belief that breaking of bread is simply an act of fellowship, and not its sum total. But go on.

19. W.—It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by them or unrighteous conduct that they may practise.

20. F.—True also; provided (a) that the errors affect first principles; (b) that the unrighteous conduct had not been repented of, and (c) that we are cognisant of such errors of belief and conduct.

21. W.—And we have refused to break bread with brethren, whose faith we know to be identically our own, because they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or other.

22. F.—If by “some point or other,” you mean errors referred to in paragraph 20, we are justified in so refusing, and the grounds for such refusal will be manifest as we proceed with our arguments.

23. W.—Our fear has been that the responsibility of error would be transmitted to us through the medium of one, who had himself become subject to that responsibility through the act of fellowship.

24. F.—What do you mean by “responsibility transmitted?”

25. W.—To make myself clear by using a simile that has been quoted before to convey the same thought—that evil either of faith or practice is conveyed from one to another by the act of breaking bread, much in the same way as uncleanness was conveyed from the leper, through another who came into personal contact with him, to a third person, a fourth, and so on.

26. F.—Then your understanding of the matter is not correct. As to responsibility being transmitted through mediums, we have never held any such idea. A man is only responsible for his own errors (and quite enough too). We believe that if he knowingly fellowships false teachers, he is responsible for so doing, but that is a very different thing to having the particular evil of such teachers transmitted to him. By careful reading, you will observe that “knowing” was an important element in the law to which you refer. (Lev. 5:3Lev. 5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. .)

27. W.—Now if this principle be a true one, it———

28. F.—But we have not contended it is, and, therefore, there is no need to speculate as to where it leads, or what the results may be of the application of such principle.

29. W.—It has led to the severing of the brotherhood.

30. F.—As the principle has no existence with us, it cannot lead us to anything. What has led to the severance of the brotherhood is the fact of certain ones bringing into its midst ideas contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:101 Tim. 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;) thus causing division, which has been ended by the earnest contenders of the Faith withdrawing themselves (2 Thess. 3:62 Thess. 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.), marking those who have been the cause of the division (Rom. 16:17Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.).

31. W.—It is continually troubling us with questions of an aggravating character that prevents us occupying our whole time in building ourselves up in the Faith.

32. F.—Surely you fail to recognise what is included in that “building up.” A “scamping” builder is not particular as to what material he uses. A wise builder uses only that which will meet with the architect’s approval. And so a faithful workman in assisting to build up the Spiritual temple (2 Cor. 6:162 Cor. 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.) will scrupulously avoid compromising the work by using what he believes the Divine Architect does not approve of. The work is not ours but His and must be done according to His specifications. Wind and water-proof (Matt. 7:24–29Matt. 7:24–29 24 ¶Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. ). As to the disastrous effect a little bad material will have on even a large building, you will do well to read 1 Cor. 5:1–111 Cor. 5:1–11 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 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 an one no not to eat., and such like testimony.

33. W.—We spend too much time in considering whom we ought to admit to be in faithful service to Christ.

34. F.—In view of your circumscribed ideas of “building up,” we cannot wonder that you think so.

35. W.—And leave too little time to do our own faithfully and well.

36. F.—We have already seen that to be faithful needs our doing what you condemn.

37. W.—The way out of this difficulty we believe to be through an acknowledgment that this doctrine of fellowship just mentioned (which is responsible for such a lamentable state of things) is a false doctrine.

38. F.—As we are in no difficulty, we have no occasion to seek for a way out. In your desire to avoid unpleasantness, you would purchase peace at the expense of purity. Christ will not countenance this. He would prefer that sword separate father from son than that such a price should be paid. Yea, he predicted that such should be the case (Matt. 10:34–35Matt. 10:34–35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.). When trouble arises, through faithfulness to the doctrines of Christ, it would be an easy “way out of the difficulty” to conclude that the doctrines were false, and thus (but only for the present) avoid a “lamentable state of things.” But, says the Bible, “In all things consider the end.” A wise man will do so, always bearing in mind “that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom.”

39. W.—Actions which have been made upon its basis are steps in the wrong direction, that have brought us into a position that is altogether unjustifiable, and must be displeasing in the sight of God. But it is not enough that we should say this. We must show that this doctrine of fellowship is unscriptural, and also what the Bible really does teach upon the subject.

40. F.—Hear, hear.

41. W.—The word fellowship occurs 17 times in the Bible.

42. F.—Well.

43. W.—But not in one instance is it used as meaning the act of breaking of bread.

44. F.—That is denying what is not affirmed. The converse is what we believe, viz., that breaking of bread is fellowship, one of the highest forms of it in fact; but this is a very different thing from what you are opposing. If you affirmed that an oak was a noble tree, and we began to show you that all noble trees were not oaks, you would conclude that we were ignorant of the most elementary logic. Your denial is on a par with this illustration.

45. W. — The original word translated fellowship is given in a lexicon as “companionship, agreement, or communion.”

46. F.—That is just how we understand it, provided the idea of “distribution” is combined therewith; in fact, the Greek word had been so rendered in 2 Cor. 9:132 Cor. 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;. This goes to show the permeating character of fellowship.

47. W.—In Acts 2:41–42, we are told “there were added unto the Church about 3,000 souls, and they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” This, of itself, is sufficient to show that fellowship is not breaking of bread, for the two things are separately spoken of.

48. F.—Quite so. The converse of your statement is what we impugn.

49. W.—And are as distinct as the two others mentioned—the apostles’ doctrine and prayers.

50. F.—In a sense, yes; but from the Bible point of view, they cannot be separated. They stand or fall together. True fellowship, like true charity, comprises many items, but consists in no individual one. (Cor. 1:13).

51. W.—In the tenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, we are taught the true distinction between the breaking of bread and fellowship, for the apostle plainly declares that the one is the representation or acknowledgment of the other.

52. F.—Quite true; and you will do well to note and bear in mind the two admissions involved in your statement; (a), that we must not separate the breaking of bread from the fellowship which “it represents;” and (b), that when we break bread it is “an acknowledgment” that fellowship exists.

53. W.—The 20th verse confirms this idea, for he wrote that “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”

54. F.—That completely overthrows your contention that we do not involve ourselves in the errors (of belief or practice) of those with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. Here Paul distinctly counsels them not to fellowship devils by eating and drinking to them.

55. W.—But they could not break bread and drink wine with devils.

56. F.—Just so, and therefore the way in which these Corinthians could fellowship devils was by breaking bread and drinking wine with those who believed in the devils, and in that manner they would involve themselves in the errors of devil worshippers. Thus it is plain from Paul, that to fellowship anything does not necessitate personal communion. A profession of agreement with their votaries is all-sufficient, and such profession you have already admitted is found in the “breaking of bread” (see paragraph 51). Moreover, Paul in the chapter to which you refer — (1 Cor. 10:181 Cor. 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?.) — plainly declares that those who eat do thereby “fellowship.” (The text reads “partakes,” but the original is the same as translated, “fellowship,” in verse 201 Cor. 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.).

57. W.—In the second letter to the Corinthians, 8:42 Cor. 8:4 Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints., we have the word fellowship used with apparently a still different meaning. Writing of the churches of Macedonia, Paul said—“To their power I bear record—yea, and beyond their power—they were willing of themselves; praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” Here a certain office or capacity appears to be spoken of. . . . . It is manifest that the ordinance of breaking bread can have no reference to Paul’s words.

58. F.—If you would but recognise that breaking of bread is but one of many forms of fellowship, these passages would all become plain to you. The word in the text you quote is, as we have already said, rendered, in verse 13 of the next chapter2 Cor. 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;, “distribution,” which is another form of fellowship among the saints.

59. W.—We have probably adduced sufficient passages to prove the present contention—that the word fellowship, as used in the Scriptures, is not an equivalent of the act of breaking bread.

60. F.—You have not adduced a single passage that proves we are wrong in maintaining that to “break bread, and drink wine,” in remembrance of Christ, is a form of fellowship, by reason of being the acknowledgment of such.

61. W.—We admit that the ordinance instituted by Christ is an acknowledgment, or an outward sign of fellowship, but it is not the thing itself.

62. F.—True, the ordinance of “breaking bread” is not the sum total of fellowship, but, nevertheless, it is “an act of fellowship,” as you (no doubt unwittingly) admit (see paragraphs 18 and 23). Paul’s reasoning with regard to the body, and its many members, forcibly applies to your mode of argument (1 Cor. 12:141 Cor. 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.). Although the whole body be not simply the eye, or the ear, yet both form portions of the body, and so, though fellowship be not simply “breaking of bread,” or “prayers,” yet both form important elements of it.

63. W.—It is a matter entirely beyond our control, and there is no meaning in our words when we will fellowship this brother, and we will not fellowship another.

64. F.—If your statement is true, then we must deprive the early Christians of any merit in continuing “steadfastly in fellowship” for, according to you, to do otherwise was “beyond their control.” Paul says (Heb. 13:16)—“To do good and communicate (original, “fellowship” as in Acts 2:42Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ) forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Your statement teaches that we need no reminding to fellowship, as to do otherwise is “beyond our control;” and for the same reason there can be no sacrifice in the matter, and therefore God is simply well pleased with our doing a thing that we cannot help doing as it is “beyond our control” to do otherwise.

65. W.—Brethren who believe the same Gospel and are working in the service of Christ are in fellowship with each other.

66. F.—True.

67. W.—Their common faith and common labour constitute that fellowship and it cannot exist without them.

68. F.—True, always remembering that such common labour includes “Assembling together” and “eating” of the sacrificial emblems when the circumstances admit of it.

69. W.—We cannot be in agreement with any upon the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ without being in fellowship with them.

70. F.—It would be more scriptural if you used the expression “things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), and “continue in well-doing” (Rom. 11:7). But perhaps you mean such—if so your statement is true

71. W.—Neither can we be in disagreement upon the essentials of that Gospel and yet be in fellowship.

72. F. — That follows as the logical sequence.

73. W.—We cannot fellowship false doctrine concerning the teaching of the Scriptures without being in agreement with it, and therefore believing it.

74. F.—That is not true; the Scriptures declare we can fellowship false doctrine without believing it. One illustration will suffice. In the chapter already referred to (1 Cor 1:101 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.), we have seen that Paul tells his brethren that those who eat of the sacrifices offered to idols are “partakers” (original same as fellowship in verse 20) of the altar, and therefore fellowship all represented there by, which in this case were demons or idols (for all gods but the true one are idols) Now you have admitted that they did not eat with the idols (paragraph 55) but with their worshippers, and the Corinthian believers knew with Paul that an “idol is nothing in the world” (1 Cor., 8:41 Cor., 8:4 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.); therefore it is clear from Paul’s counsel to them that they could fellowship false doctrine without being believers in it themselves.

75. W.—We cannot fellowship the evil deeds of another without being in agreement with them and doing the same things.

76. F.—The remarks made in paragraph 74 will apply to this—but further; John in his 2nd epistle 2 John 1:10-11 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. calls false teaching concerning Christ an “evil deed,” and he says if we bid the man with this false doctrine “God speed,” we become partakers of his evil deeds. It is quite clear he is not referring to those who believed or were doing the same things, for he says it is the bidding him God speed that creates the participation. Now what is meant by “God speed?” Reference to its use in the New Testament soon enlightens us. The word (original) is found 74 times, and while only rendered “God speed” twice, is translated—hail, rejoice, rejoicing, greeting, joy, glad and farewell 72 times—so that evidently the primary meaning is “welcome.” Not to welcome a holder of false doctrine. Not to welcome him where? At our homes or at the table? Why at the table of the Lord, for surely you cannot contend that we ought to welcome a person there when we cannot welcome him at our house.

77. W.—The idea of responsibility for the beliefs and doings of others being transferred to us by the breaking of bread is a false idea.

78. F.—Your ideas on this “transference of responsibility” are entirely without foundation, and we would recommend you to study paragraphs 23 to 26.

79. W.—The principle taught throughout the Bible is that declared in Ezekiel’s prophecy, “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

80. F.—Yes, and every true Christadelphian heartily endorses that testimony. In no way does it militate against their belief that God will not hold him guiltless who presumes to “hail” or bid “God speed” to those who fail to respect the “holy,” “separate,” or peculiar position to which He calls them.

81. W.—This was said by God in reply to a statement made by the Israelites to the effect that His way is not equal because they believed that the evil doings of an individual should be visited upon another.

82. F.—What then?

83. W.—Let us be careful how we make this same accusation against God.

84. F.—Nay; rather let us refrain from making it at all. The accusation is certainly not to be found in the Christadelphian doctrine of fellowship, one of the principles of which is that each member is responsible to God for the company he keeps.

85. W.—It is as true in the 19th century after Christ’s death as it was five centuries before he was born that “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

86. F.—Yes, quite as true. And that man who bids erroneous teachers and evildoers “God speed” or “joy” by partaking of the emblems with them will not suffer for the “evil deeds” of his companions, but for his own unfaithfulness in holding fellowship where God has forbidden it.

87. W.—There are many other considerations that plainly shew the fallacy of the idea that the breaking of bread is a medium for the transference of evil.

88. F.—No doubt—but such a thing as “transference of evil” is not believed by the Christadelphians, hence there is no need to go into “other considerations.” But while the “breaking of bread” cannot be the medium for the “transference of evil,” it can be the means of making a man an “evildoer” by partaking with evil doers, as we have most clearly proved from the epistles of Paul and John.

89. W.—We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove and would not practise ourselves. We constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching—but do you think for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with those that practise them?

90. F.—Firstly, we again have to deny that any such responsibility is created (see paragraph 26). Secondly, God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us—hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word “essentials” (paragraph 71), and by that we presume you mean “first principles.” Only errors which multiply those “essentials” or “first principles” should bar our fellowship.

91. W.—If we break bread with a brother whose idea upon some doctrinal subject is different from our own, does that act make us believe the same as he?

92. F.—Of course not. The question is too ridiculous to think you seriously ask it.

93. W.—Then we have no agreement with such belief, and consequently do not fellowship it.

94. F.—You have made that last statement before (paragraph 73), and we have shown the unscriptural character of it (paragraphs 74, 76).

95. W.—If evil be thus transferred, then upon the same principle, the good would also.

96. F.—Certainly; but as “evil” is not transferred, on the same principle “the good” is not. It would be better if you kept to the word “partake” or “fellowship” instead of coining the word “transfer” for us.

97. W.—Why should we become partakers of a brother’s sin by breaking bread with him, and not be partakers in another brother’s well-doing by the same means?

98. F.—Just as we “partake” of sin in bidding “God speed” to evil-doers, so we “partake” of good in doing likewise with “well-doers” (Mal. 3:16Mal. 3:16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.).

99. W.—If every time we break bread in the same company with a righteous and a wicked brother, we have fellowship with their righteousness and iniquity respectively, then both righteousness and wickedness would be imputed to us as a consequence?

100. F.—With regard to the typical uncleanliness under the law of Moses, created by contact with unclean persons (to which you have referred), it distinctly states, “When he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty” (Lev. 5:3). In like manner, under Christ’s law, iniquity is not imputed where we unwittingly “sacrifice” or “break bread” with a “wicked brother.” We only, knowingly, fellowship righteous brethren, and therefore only righteousness is imputed to us.

101. W.—John wrote, “Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” Now, we read from the same writer that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,” for “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” But, although we are all sinners, yet “we have fellowship with the Father and the Son.” Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?

102. F.—If we are “walking in the light” then the “sin” which we have is not imputed to us, but the righteousness of Christ; and clothed with this garment, we have the fellowship of the Father and Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their fellowship. While we have fellowship with them we “are clean every whit,” and thus there is no wickedness for them to be “involved” in.

103. W.—If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son, and that cannot be put negatively.

104. F.—Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote from 1 John 1.?—“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children “cleansed from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:91 John 1:9 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.), and that therefore, there is no sin for the Father and Son to be involved in, Without this forgiveness, there is no fellowship, and that man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of Father and Son.

105. W.—If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong doings by the fellowship that we are permitted to have with them—then our brethen are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with us.

106. F.—Firstly, by our previous arguments, you will see there is no longer wrong doing for them to be involved in; and, secondly, responsibility for other men’s sins we do not believe or teach, but that it is for our own sins in knowingly partaking with unrepentent wrong doers that we are held responsible.

107. W.—These few points, if carefully reflected upon, especially bearing in mind the fact that not a tittle of Scripture evidence arrays itself against them, are sufficient to destroy the idea hitherto held by most of us.

108. F.—It ill becomes you to talk about “Scripture evidence,” for, from beginning to end, you quote but seven texts, and those, be it noted, in a long written address in which you profess to have demonstrated the unscriptural nature of what we contend is a Bulwark of the Unity of the household of Christ. Your quotations are: Lev. 6:2Lev. 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;, Ps. 94:20Ps. 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?, Acts 2:41Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls., 1 Cor. 10:151 Cor. 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say., 2 Cor. 8:42 Cor. 8:4 Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints., Ezek. 18:4Ezek. 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die., 2 John2 John 1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; 2 For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever. 3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. 13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen. . We have shown that these do not help you, but us, and we have amply supported them with other quotations. Your assertion about “not a title of evidence” is on a par with your statement about the “subject being imperfectly understood” (see paragraphs 5–10).

109. W.—The idea has gained a place in our minds by being handed from one to another and accepted without examination; and thus it has operated for a considerable time without any feeling called upon to give a reason for it.

110. F.—If the “our minds” consists of your own, we do not object to your assertion, but if you mean the brethren generally, we impugn it, and have already given our reason for so doing.

111. W.—This doctrine has been responsible for most of the awful divisions that have taken place among the brotherhood.

112. F.—But that is no reason, to a student of the Word, for rejecting the doctrine. The beloved Apostle alone informs us of three divisions on account of Christ in the short space of one year (John 7:43John 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him.; 9:16John 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.; 10:19John 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.). Christ Himself tells us that obedience to Him would result in division (Luke 12:51Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:). Peter and Paul both speak of Christ as “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence” (1 Pet. 2:81 Pet. 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed., Rom. 9:33Rom. 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. , 1 Cor. 1:231 Cor. 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;); and upon one occasion, Christ said even “all” His disciples would be “offended” because of Him (Matt. 26:31Matt. 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.). But shall we reject Him because He was the reason for all these divisions? Nay, is it not rather to be expected that as Christ was Himself the “fruitful source” of so many divisions, so His doctrines would also, if faithfully contended for?

113. W.—If we are in agreement upon the subject matter of “The One Faith” and mutually strive to walk in harmony with Christ’s commands—our fellowship remains even though we may not “break bread together” till Christ comes.

114. F.—That is true, provided it is not our fault that we do not break bread with others, such as inability to get to the meetings, etc., but if we refuse to break bread when opportunity occurs, then we are wilfully disobedient and cannot expect the fellowship of God and his faithful children.

115. W.—Do not let me be misunderstood . . . We ought not to acknowledge fellowship where there is no agreement upon fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ. That is the basis of our fellowship—of our communion.

116. F.—And a Scriptural basis it is, too, but in the statements you have made, you decline to confine your acknowledgment of this fellowship to those who are in agreement on this question, being willing to extend it to those who do not see the need for such agreement on those fundamental elements, and who thereby destroy unity of mind among the ecclesias on this highly important doctrine of fellowship.

117. W.—If there be agreement among ourselves and others upon the ground of our faith and companionship in our efforts to conform to the spirit of God’s commands, then we ought to be glad and willing to acknowledge the fellowship.

118. F.—Yes, if! but there is no such agreement if you acknowledge fellowship with those who, while believing with you on the “essentials,” are nevertheless willing to acknowledge fellowship with others who do not see the need for having the same mind on those doctrines.

119. W.—Don’t let us think that perfection of agreement is requisite upon all sorts of recondite matters in connection with the truth in order to the establishment of the fellowship of the Gospel.

120. F.—You must know we have never so believed, and therefore such a remark is not creditable to you.

121. W.—Those things that God has plainly declared are necessary before a man can be truly baptised into Christ are the only essentials of fellowship, and there can be no fellowship without them.

122. F.—True, and that must be the gauge or test to be applied not only to those with whom we personally acknowledge fellowship, but also to those who are acknowledged by them, and so on.

123. W.—Where they are believed and observed, fellowship is established, whether we recognise it or not.

124. F.—Believed and observed! True.

125. W.—It behoves us to act towards each other as we would have Jehovah act towards us.

126. F.—Yes, provided no command of God is thereby violated, for in some cases faithfulness prohibits us so acting.

127. W.—He admits men into His fellowship who are not perfect.

128. F.—That is not true. Only those clothed in His Son’s righteousness (and therefore perfect in him) are so admitted.

129. W.—Not one of us dare say that many brethren who are denied the privilege of sitting with us at the Lord’s table are not the adopted children of God even as we.

130. F.—And neither do we so say, but there are faithful and unfaithful children, and connivance at, or condonation of, unfaithfulness is not permissible.

131. W.—Not one of us dare assert that they are less worthy of the divine approval, or that they are not admitted into the fellowship of the Father and Son.

132. F.—And we have no desire to make such assertions. We leave Christ to do the asserting. We simply say we believe you are dishonouring God and His Son by partaking with those who do not maintain the Unity of the Faith or do not recognise the essentiality of entire separation from the isms of the world, and we decline to participate in unfaithfulness by receiving your fellowship.

133. W.—I say again that there is only one way in which we can fellowship iniquitous conduct, and that is by practising the same things or conniving at their practise.

134. F.—Yes, but you have simply given us such “say,” while we have clearly proved from the Bible that this “say” is unscriptural.

135. W.—Let us require no more on the part of others before we will recognise the fellowship that actually does exist between us, whether we consent or not; let us require no more of them than we are ready to render ourselves.

136. F.—If that means anything at all, it means that you believe we are those “who say and do not” (Matt. 23:3Matt. 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.), in fact, “whited sepulchres, hypocrites” (Matt. 23:27Matt. 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.). In making such grave charges (by implication or innuendo), it would be as well if you kept yourself to a pronoun of the first person singular instead of plural, as you have proved yourself incompetent to speak for the brethren generally.

137. W.—On the one hand let us continue to refuse to break bread with all who hold not the truth as it is in Jesus.

138. F.—Good. But then you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood generally with whom you are in fellowship, maintaining that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so recognise in fellowship. The logical result can be but one—and that is, you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a community that permits acknowledgment of fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines you now believe to be fundamental, and your alleged unity of faith will go to the winds and be destroyed by unsound principles.

139. W.—Let us cease to think so much of the responsibility for the actions of others that cannot belong to us.

140. F.—It will be more scriptural to cease to talk in that way and begin to remember “He that biddeth him God-speed is a partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 11). To remember also that Christ threatened the early Churches for keeping in the Church evil thinkers and evil doers (Rev. 2:14, 15Rev. 2:14, 15 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.), while not charging them with personally believing or doing the same things.

141. W.—Let us spend less time in the unnecessary carefulness to keep ourselves immaculate from the blemishes of others by reason of touching but the border of their garments.

142. F.—A smart sentence: but it is sad to hear it from one who has known the truth. In reply we will simply give you a few texts to think over and which some day you may see inculcate the carefulness you now condemn: Rom. 16:17Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.; 1 Cor. 5:61 Cor. 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?; 15:331 Cor. 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.; 2 Cor. 6:142 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?, 172 Cor. 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,; Eph. 5:7Eph. 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them., 11Eph. 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.; 2 Thess. 3:62 Thess. 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.; 1 Tim. 5:221 Tim. 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.; Rev. 18:4Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues..

143. W.—Let us take greater care to keep our own garments unspotted from the world.

144. F.—To do this effectually, we must attend to the counsel given in the texts just quoted.

145. W.—Christ came into direct contact with worldly filth enough, but it did not adhere to his own robe of righteousness.

146. F.—Aye! but although “in the world,” he was not “of the world.” He had “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reproved them” (Phil. 5:11). We are counselled to “follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:211 Pet. 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:).

147. W.—In conclusion . . . If you conclude that the principle I advocate is true, and is taught in the Scriptures, then accept it as you would all divine truth, and let us together act in accordance with the truth we have found, and rejoice to be delivered from the most fruitful sources of disagreement, difficulty and disunion we have ever experienced.

148. F.—But we do not so “conclude,” for the simple reason that the Scriptures do not so teach—therefore we cannot act in accordance, nor rejoice in deliverance from a difficult situation which is of our Heavenly Father’s good providence.

FRANK G. JANNAWAY.

London, November, 1891.

The Christadelphian : Volume 29, 1892. (Vol. 29, Pages 59-63 and 99-103).