3). The Essential Points Made in "The Doctrine of Fellowship" and How They Should be Understood

Which interpretation?

The purpose of the booklet, "The Doctrine of Fellowship" was to exhibit the original Christadelphian position on Fellowship to Central brethren. It makes three essential points.

1). It makes the point that it is contrary to the commandments of Christ to fellowship with error.

2). It also makes the point that if a brother is sound himself, but fellowships error, then that brother is disobedient to divine command and cannot be fellowshipped by faithful brethren.

3). And finally, it makes the point that ecclesias of a community are in fellowship with each other, whether or not they receive visits from each other.

Nicodemites consistently say that they agree with the articles I use to prove these positions, but do not agree with the interpretation placed on the articles.  They contend that there is nothing in this collection that supports the Berean position.  I think it must be clear that this is not the case.  It is inconceivable that my little collection of works would have earned a place in Central's time line of error, if it was not an effective tool in attacking Central.  One Nicodemite himself says he found himself in a "schismatic" group, at least partly due to the influence of the writings in that booklet.  He admitted to me:

"2) Since you raised the point, for the record, I was not in Central at the time -- not that I was making that an issue. I was in another schismatic fellowship partly due to the misrepresentative nature of your book."

So it must be clear that the booklet does make the point adequately enough, that withdrawal from error is a divine requirement.  In fact, it makes the point so completely, that some have even been influenced to act, in part, on its principles.  So lets look at the charges.  The only real point made to me concerning the book itself, was an historical reference.  It is claimed that the historical actions of bre. Thomas and Roberts do not match their teachings, as exhibited in the booklet.  This is an important admission on the part of the Nicodemites.  It shows that our understanding of what bre. Thomas and Roberts taught, is correct!  In other words, the Bereans do what the Pioneer brethren said to do.  But, it is suggested, we should ignore their teachings, and rather follow their practices as Nicodemites define it.  They believe that there is evidence that bre. Thomas and Roberts did not "practice what they preached."  We are told:

"Your booklet proved that its possible to provide context to a quote while presenting them in a way that misrepresents the quotes."

So here it is admitted that we have provided writings in context.  We have provided full context for the quotes.  But somehow, we have still done something wrong!  So what is it?  Our Nicodemite brother continues"

"I fully endorse the quotes... but not YOUR ATTEMPT TO CLAIM JT OR RR WOULD BEHAVE THE WAY YOU DO. IT IS OBVIOUS, BY THEIR HISTORY, THEY DIDN'T. But if you choose to soothe your conscience with lies that's your responsibility."  (Quoted from 002)

Here is a claim to "fully endorse the quotes" in the booklet, presumably he means after the misrepresented articles are placed in their proper context, by observing their histories.  So his suggestion is that even though we have provided full quotes and context, we still misrepresent their position, because their actions do not match the quotes. 

Well, there can be little question about what they taught, particularly in the case of bro. Roberts.  They taught you could not fellowship false doctrine "elsewhere and anywhere."  He taught that if you did fellowship with false doctrine, even if you didn't believe it, then you could not fellowship with him.  There is some basis for questioning what bro. Thomas taught if we think his earliest writings represent his full judgment on the matter, or if we even think those things laid a foundation for his later beliefs.  Clearly, writing in 1851, four years following his baptism, bro. Thomas justified fellowshipping all the reformist churches.  Note that point, because it is very important.  He didn't just justify fellowshipping similar brethren astray on a point here or a point there; but he justified fellowshipping all the errors of Christendom.  He justified fellowshipping unbaptized individuals in his own ecclesia.  He had no problem fellowshipping with those who believed in the immortal soul, or any of the other errors of Christendom.  His fellowship position in 1851 went far beyond what even Central generally, practices today.  But these ideas are soundly rejected later by bro. Thomas  as witnessed by Bro. Roberts' comments on bro. Thomas' early belief, and by bro. Thomas' own later writings.  All these things are considered here.  Bro. Roberts claims that at this time, bro. Thomas was just leaving the fog of Christendom, and that those who quote these things of bro. Thomas as a reasonable fellowship position, are returning to that fog.

But the question is whether the pioneer brethren practiced fellowship as do the Bereans, or as do our Central brethren.  I believe that an examination of the question about what both of them practiced, and insisted on in fellowship from 1860 and forward, and probably before, yields that answer.  

But, we have to ask,  if it was true that they preached one thing, and practiced another, would not the Christadelphian magazine be full of such criticisms?  Bro. Roberts answered many detractors on many different points in his magazine.  But scour the pages, and you will find no such references, or defenses. You will never find bro. Roberts saying "well, we did allow bro. X to break bread with us, but he really isn't in our fellowship, and it is OK."   Nor will you find bro. Roberts defending a brother who went to an ecclesia out of fellowship with him, telling others it was OK because he was individually sound.  Further, I really doubt that sincere brethren would for a minute, be interested in following such brethren.  But the curious thing about our Nicodemite brother's historical charge, is that after having made this charge,  throughout our entire discussion never once was evidence brought to support the historical claim he makes.  He never once advances proof of his charge, even from an historical perspective!  We were told:

1) One of the biggest problems your position has is that there is an obvious disconnect in what =you claim= is the Pioneer position and what we know they actually did both in their local ecclesial settings and worldwide travel. All you have to do is read the writings of JT and RR, read their own historical accounts -- where they went, who they broke bread with, under varied circumstances, how they handled heresies etc. The Berean slant (C, D & E) you put on their doctrinal expositions does not match what they actually did. There is no inconsistency with their words and works but rather with your interpretation of their words vs. their works.

For example, take any example of error you like from brother Robert Roberts' days. Brother Roberts never dictated to the community what position to take, though he could have tried to assert his "authority" (and brother John Thomas declined to dictate as well). He did exercise his influence as far he thought appropriate but not as Berean leaders do today. Brother Roberts knew it was not his, or even a select group (eg. the Berean "Trinity") of brothers' place to dictate to worldwide ecclesias what position to take. Not so with the Bereans -- they demand effective authority over any ecclesia claiming to be "Berean". Brother Roberts would only exercise responsibility within his own ecclesia to influence it, and through his magazine and labors, to try to influence others as to the right position to take. But there was no worldwide dictate, not on Dowie, not on clean-flesh, not even on the responsibility matter. Birmingham amended their SOF and others who agreed followed. This is clearly not how Bereans operate. You've got a disconnect in Christadelphian history and Berean practice that you can't talk yourself out of. What you need to do is show how Berean practice is even remotely similar to John Thomas' or Robert Roberts' practices in the matters raised.

Actually, what bre. Thomas and Roberts did, is exactly what we do.  There is no such controlling organization as imagined.  There is no such thing as a dictate over the ecclesias, world wide, or otherwise.  These are scare tactics, intended to make us look imbalanced to those who might otherwise examine our position, after they recognize the doctrinal destruction which has taken place in Central. 

A Berean ecclesia takes a position on fellowship, notifies the brotherhood (usually through our magazine,) and only those ecclesias who respect what the ecclesia has done, can (or even will) remain in fellowship.  If the action is in harmony with our stated position, it will stand.  If not, it probably won't.  There is no world wide dictate, just an informing of action taken.  That action stands until some reason exists for it to be reconsidered.  So the actions of the Berean ecclesias is exactly what was really the case in the earliest days of the truth. 

We extend our influence as far as we can.  No doubt this is subject to communications.  But it is absurd to believe our influence cannot extend across our town, as in the case of so many Central ecclesias.  Bro. Roberts shows (and this is covered in detail in considering bro. Thomas' fellowship actions,) how bro. Thomas extended his influence across the ocean towards bro. Roberts in his work called "My Days and My Ways" under the title "Strained Relations with Dr. Thomas."  He received letters from bro. Thomas insisting that he withdraw from the Dowieites.  He later confirms that this was the case in the Christadelphian Magazine. 

It is claimed that there was no world wide dictate to withdraw from error.  Well, that is true.  But it was also true that brethren intending to remain in fellowship with bro. Thomas would have to withdraw from the Dowieites.  Writing  on this very subject in 1891, to a pamphleteer who argued that bro. Thomas' writings in 1851 and earlier should be the standard for how Christadelphians approach fellowship, bro. Roberts wrote:

Chdn. 1891, pg. 308  "Why should he have the doctor’s remarks of that date 'written in letters of gold on every Christadelphian periodical'; and the doctor’s later utterances concealed away out of sight in common printer’s ink? If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is 'our justly esteemed Doctor,' what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes?"

So of course, there is never a world wide dictate on what to do.  But, in the case of Dowieism, and again in the matter of the partial inspiration division, there was a world wide dictate to declare what you have done, so that ecclesias can know who to fellowship and who not to.  If you refused to declare, or declared on the wrong side; you were out of fellowship with bre. Thomas and Roberts.  Ecclesias are free to do what they want.  But only those ecclesias which plainly declare for the truth, can be fellowshipped.

Now, going back to the charge that they said one thing, yet acted differently:  I would think that some proof might be advanced, before making such an accusation!  How bazaar is it, to make a charge that they did not "practice what they preached," and not advance a single shred of evidence that this was the case?  If the disconnect between what we claim they did and what they actually did is obvious, why is it that our Nicodemite brethren cannot demonstrate to us that which they considers obvious?  This should be an easy thing, if it is so obvious.  Show us where bro. Roberts went and broke bread with errorists.  Show us were brethren, accepted in fellowship by bro. Roberts, went and broke bread with errorists.  Show us where sound brethren from ecclesias where errorists were tolerated were accepted into fellowship.  Even show us were sound brethren, from sound ecclesias, who had members that visited ecclesias where errorists were tolerated, were accepted.  Show us that they handled heresies by remaining in association on any level with the errorists.  Why hasn't that been done, if it is so obvious.

I know why no evidence has been brought forward for "proof" in this discussion.   Such evidence which "exists" is of such a pitiful nature, that no honest person could take it seriously. 

If the charge of saying one thing, but doing another was in any way true, wouldn't this have been yelled from the rooftops by their critics?  And what does that say about the character of the Christadelphian movement in those days, that such men could have been recognized as giants among the brotherhood?  The errorists of Central today, have learned that bringing charges of immorality, even unsubstantiated charges, is a far more effective tool in silencing an honest, sound brother, than trying to combat him with their error.  (This is well substantiated on Nicodemite web sites.)  Do we really believe that the errorists were any less disgusting then, than now?  If they could have discredited bro. Roberts on the moral ground of saying one thing, but doing another, they would have.

  *     *     *     *     *

It is said that what we need to do is show that our practice is identical to that of bre. Thomas and Roberts.  That is a fair statement.  We accept that challenge.  We have done that with their words in articles from their magazine, but we will do that again, in far more detail, showing their actions.  We were invited to take any division, and prove this.  We will choose the "Partial Inspiration" division of 1885.  We would love to take the example of the Dowieites, because bro. Thomas was still alive at that point, but there is not enough data.  Bro. Thomas ceased his magazine in 1861, the Dowieite division ran from 1862 though 1864, which is the year the Ambassador, edited by bro. Roberts began.  So all we really see is the aftermath.  The aftermath is quite convincing of itself, but not in the detail of the Partial Inspiration division.

As we go through this, I will focus on what I perceive to be the main point of disagreement that we have.  The main complaint does not appear to be the way we maintain our individual ecclesias, in excluding error from them, because Nicodemites practice the same thing in their ecclesias.  The Nicodemite's complaint seems to be that we will not fellowship brethren like him, because he is in fellowship with Central.  He believes he should not be held accountable for those in his fellowship, since he believes fellowship is between him and Christ, but not necessarily the brethren.  So in the following, I will focus specifically on those articles from the Christadelphian which exhibit the principle, that we are responsible for those ecclesias which either believe or tolerate error, which we remain in association with.

The history of the "Partial Inspiration" division is plainly recorded in the pages of the Christadelphian Magazine.  This is a division which took place in 1885.  In this division, a brother named Robert Ashcroft (formerly a preacher) took the position that not all the writings of the authors of the New Testament were the inspired word of God.  This set up a division which established a new fellowship, called the "Suffolk Street" Fellowship.  (It was also called "the Exchange Rooms brethren," "The New Street brethren," the "Masonic Hall brethren, and the "Jot and Tittle" brethren."  These names all reflect the meeting places of the men bro. Roberts withdrew from, in Birmingham, except for the last.  The last name came from their battle cry, that not every "jot and title" could be considered inspired.  The division between Birmingham and Suffolk Street remained in effect from the 1885-1886 division, until the Suffolk Street brethren were brought back into fellowship in 1956 on the basis of a document called "The Final Statement" in which the very wording bro. Roberts had rejected, was accepted by bro. John Carter, and Central, and then only on a majority vote.  The unsound minority who never even agreed with the poorly written "Final Statement" were brought into fellowship at that time.

The following might be called an anatomy of a division.  It will be plain to all, that bro. Roberts insisted that all who were to remain in fellowship with him in his meeting, and all who were to be in fellowship from other meetings, must all take identically the same position.  That position was that all must agree that the Holy Scriptures were the inspired Word of God, and that they would refuse to fellowship brethren who did not believe this, or who were willing to fellowship brethren who did not believe this.  And further, this requirement was to exist, not only in one's own ecclesia, but "elsewhere and anywhere" as bro. Roberts so states!

AN ANATOMY OF A DIVISION

In November of 1884, a magazine called the "Exegetist," edited by bro. Robert Ashcroft, carried an article stating that not all Scripture is the inspired word of God.  In December of 1884, this very serious problem is first mentioned in the Christadelphian Magazine.  It becomes the basis of the "Partial Inspiration" division.  It occurs this way:

December, 1884

Chdn. 1884, pg. 537

“CIRCUMSTANCES INTERFERE”

We had intended this month resuming Dr. Thomas’s article on the Abrahamic covenant and its mystery. Circumstances interfere with the fulfilment of this intention, and also with the appearance of Chapter III. of the Life of Christ, “The necessity for Christ, in God’s scheme of history.”

These circumstances have become known to our readers since our last issue. An issue has been raised, in a very unexpected manner, as to whether the Scriptures are wholly or only partially inspired—involving the further problem whether, if they are only partially inspired, they are of any real value to us at all as a guide to eternal life. The circumstances are painful and the issue exciting, and both are such as most of us would have excluded from the category of possibilities.

But God rules in the ecclesias as well as in the kingdoms of men, and in His providence, He has arrested the startled attention of the whole brotherhood to a subject, the full apprehension of which may be necessary for the development of the right type of saintship in an unbelieving age like ours.

However much we may regret the situation, we cannot get rid of it. It is to be feared that many will be hurt by it: it is certain that others will be purified and brought to a greater degree of confidence and consecration. But whatever the results, there is only one course for faithful men, and that is to maintain, at the hazard of all consequences, the absolutely divine authorship of the Bible throughout. On the next page, we commence a logical demonstration of this which extends over many pages.

Editor

*     *     *     *     *

The focus of the Christadelphian Magazine for December was an answering of the arguments raised by bro. Robert Ashcroft.  The articles created quite a lot of discord among the brethren.  Some wanted to withdraw from him instantly.  Still others saw no reason that the brotherhood should be exercised by these things at all.  The conflict between brethren will be plainly seen in the following pages of the Christadelphian Magazine. 

For the point of our discussion, we will focus on those things which deal with how the doctrine of fellowship was explained, and enforced throughout this division.  Here is the theory of fellowship, applied.  We will see the problem first hand, from the huge ecclesia in Temperance Hall, Birmingham; and how this spread out throughout the whole brotherhood, till the division was complete.

Especially, note how impossible it is to reconcile the Nicodemites views of fellowship to the discord the body experienced.  First we see bro. Roberts urging patience.  He appears to be aware that many brethren are not completely clear as to the danger these ideas pose.  But while urging patience, he is also completely clear as to what the end result will be for him.  He will not remain in fellowship with any assembly which tolerates the doctrine that the Bible is not completely inspired.

Why not?  Why not just leave the errorists alone?  After all, bro. Roberts is not in fellowship with such men.  The problem is not in Temperance Hall.  It is some other ecclesia's problem, anyway.  Temperance Hall had stated what they believed.  Shouldn't they just  invite fellowship on that alone.  Then, bro. Roberts is protected from the error.  Why trouble the brotherhood so? 

The first comments for 1885 appears here:

January, 1885

Chdn 1885 Pg 38-39    Birmingham Miscellanies

Whether we shall escape division altogether, remains to be seen. There is hope that we may, with patience. At all events, it will not be on the serious scale that seemed likely at one time. A brother proposed, at the monthly meeting of the managing brethren, that we should convene a special meeting of the ecclesia to avert division. The proposal did not receive a seconder. It was objected to by brother Roberts as the very course likely to bring division. Division could not be averted if the inspiration of the Scriptures were denied by any. All ought to have time to consider where they were. At present, they were suffering from aggrieved personal feelings which unfitted them for the calm consideration of the issue that had been raised. They ought to have time. The brother asked how long? Brother Roberts replied, “three or four months at least.” The brother asked, “What then?” Brother Roberts: “Speaking for myself, I shall refuse to remain associated with any assembly that tolerates the doctrine in their midst that any part of the Bible is not divine.” The brother said it ought not to be in the power of any one brother to divide the ecclesia. Brother Roberts replied it was not a question of power; it was a question of the individual prerogative of withdrawal. Every brother had this prerogative: it was a passive act. It was not cutting off others: it was stepping aside from evil. The brother: “We know what it means.” Another hoped if it came to division, it would not be done as it was done eleven years ago. He was not in that, but he had heard strange accounts. Brother Roberts said there were circumstances calling for action then that did not exist now. With patience, they might hope to avoid division altogether in the present case.

*     *     *     *     *

Curiously in the above, bro. Roberts explains "withdrawal" exactly as the Bereans believe it, and the brother critical of bro. Roberts says "we know what it means."  Its a shame our Nicodemite brethren do not grasp that withdrawal is a passive act, that each individual brother has the prerogative to act upon.  It is not judging, but simply our own prerogative stepping aside from a position we do not wish to be associated with.  It is not saying that those we step aside from are unfit for the kingdom.  It leaves that question to Christ.  I think if the Nicodemites truly grasped this, they would write with much less venom.

February 1885

The February  Christadelphian continues to focus on the Partial Inspiration question itself.  In January, much of the writing was by bro. Roberts.  This month, much of the contributions are letters from the brethren.  The arguments bro. Ashcroft developed in his magazine "The Exegetist," was now generating many responses.  Brethren gave solutions to the perceived inconsistencies in the Scriptures, which bro. Ashcroft had advanced.  Still others pointed out that archaeology and excavation had already answered "libraries" full of objections from previous eras.  That would be infinitely more true today.

Bro. Evans, apparently a friend of bro. Ashcroft,  met with bro. Ashcroft, and submitted the following to bro. Roberts as an explanation of bro. Ashcroft's beliefs, and suggesting a compromise.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 60   “Without entering into particulars, I think there is such a basis (and that with no sacrifice of principle on either side). As I understand, you don’t contend for the inspiration of translations of the Scriptures, but, if I mistake not, you believe that the autographs of the Old and New Testaments were produced under the Spirit of God . This is my belief, too, and whatever misunderstanding may have arisen between you, I have bro. Ashcroft’s authority to say that this is also his belief , and, moreover, that he is quite prepared, on this basis of belief, to co-operate with you, as heretofore, to carry on the great work you have both undertaken, and have, to my mind, so well accomplished. He is also quite prepared to take the apostle’s statement of the inspiration of the Scriptures in his second Epistle to Timothy 3:16 , as the expression of that basis. I translate it thus: ‘Every scripture is God-inspired and profitable,’ &c. He is also prepared to take the apostle’s statement without entering into the endless disputes as to what constitutes scripture —disputes that would require an inspired man to decide.

*     *     *     *     *

Of course, in view of bro. Ashcroft's article in the Exegetist, it would be impossible for any faithful brother to enter into an agreement where "no sacrifice of principle on either side was involved."  Bro. Ashcroft had clearly come out to say that the writing of the Scripture was not totally and divinely inspired.  And now bro. Roberts is offered a proposal which states that  man can not even define what Scripture is.  This proposal was to be of little use in solving the difficulty.  Bro. Roberts sent a new, and properly defined response to this.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 60-61  “Nothing could be more satisfactory to me than a resumption of fraternal relations with brother Ashcroft if that can be found possible. Their interruption has not been due to anything in the nature of a personal grievance on my side. It is due solely to the promulgation by bro. Ashcroft of views concerning the Scriptures which, in my judgment, are destructive of their divine character. If those views are abandoned by bro. Ashcroft, nothing will be easier than a return to that unity which you desire to see, and which every lover of righteousness and peace must desire to bring about. If the basis proffered in your letter has this meaning, my answer would be an instant compliance with the proposal of a personal interview to put an end to the existing difference. But I have a difficulty in understanding it so. You say it is offered ‘with no sacrifice of principle on either side.’ Does this mean that bro. Ashcroft adheres to the maxims laid down in the Exegetist , which attribute a human and potentially erring composition to the historic part of the Scriptures? If so, the basis of an approximation does not exist. You further say that he is prepared to take Paul’s statement of the inspiration of the Scriptures as the expression of truth in the case, ‘without entering’ upon the question of ‘what constitutes Scripture.’ Does this mean that part of the Bible is not ‘Scripture’ in the sense of Paul’s statement? If so, this would be to reaffirm the obnoxious principle in another shape.

“If bro. Ashcroft is prepared to admit that all Scripture is God-inspired, and that ‘all Scripture’ means the entire Old Testament as current among the Jews, and recognised by Christ, there will be an instant end to our trouble (provided also that the same recognition is extended to the apostolic writings). It is no question, and never has been a question, as to translations. I never met the human being that contended for the English version as a divinely made version. It is a question of the Hebrew and Greek autographs. Brother Ashcroft’s axioms apply to these, and hence the trouble.

*     *     *     *     *

Armed with the positions of bro. Ashcroft and bro. Roberts, brethren from ecclesias local to bro. Ashcroft try to intervene with him, to get him to renounce his position.  Bro. Ashcroft refuses to meet with them, showing that bro. Roberts had caught the intended meaning of the compromise, and bro. Ashcroft was not willing to compromise further.  The following note referring to page 61, is referring to the above letter, published in the Christadelphian on page 61.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 84                  THE RESULT REFERRED TO ON PAGE 61

One Liverpool and two Nottingham brethren had arranged to call on bro. Ashcroft to offer the propositions appearing on page 61 as a basis of re-union; but bro. Ashcroft hearing of it deferred them by telegram and postcard, and no further steps have been taken except a letter from bro. Roberts to bro. Ashcroft, stating that the disavowal of the Exegetist doctrine of an only partial inspiration of the Scriptures would remove the chief barrier. To this bro. Ashcroft has vouchsafed no answer. If the Exegetist doctrine is not disavowed, there can be no fellowship. Action will be forced on the friends of the truth.

*     *     *     *     *

The question of inspiration as affecting fellowship is progressing in the Birmingham ecclesia.  Bro. Roberts undertook strong efforts to convince the brothers and sisters what the truth of inspiration was, before asking them to take a fellowship stand on the matter.  But the point was coming where they would have to.  Bro. Roberts records among Birmingham's events:

Chdn. 1885, pg. 85  Birmingham Miscellanies 

"The ecclesia is on the point of being asked to define its attitude on the subject of inspiration. While some say, “What is all the stir about?” others say “What a dreadful thing to have the Bible called in question as the Word of God in our very midst.” Such an issue cannot be accommodated. There must be a stand on the part of believers. It is a significant fact that Renunciationists, infidels, and lukewarm and uncertain people of all sorts applaud the Exegetist doctrine. Some, no doubt, sincerely think it the right thing; it is not the first time honest men have been drawn into a false position. In the matter of fellowship, it is not a question of honesty (though true honesty is a very precious thing); it is a question of the truth of God and its foundations.

*     *     *     *     *

One of the first ecclesias to take a fellowship stand against the new teaching was Liverpool.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 88

INSPIRATION AT LIVERPOOL

The printer requiring a bit to fill this corner at the last moment, we record the fact that the Liverpool ecclesia, at a full and special meeting held on January 26th, unanimously adopted a resolution, declaring its belief in the inspiration of all parts of the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and its purpose to refuse fellowship to any who maintain that inspiration was limited to certain parts, and that the other parts are of a merely human authorship. The ecclesia, which at one moment was threatened with disruption from other causes (which have been rectified) is now one. Bro. Ashcroft is not a member of it.

*     *     *     *     *

The magazines for December 1884, and January and February of 1885 are full of articles on Inspiration, in all its various aspects.  Clearly bro. Roberts was focused on laying the doctrine before the brethren as clearly as possible.  And no doubt, his arguments were convincing the overwhelming majority of brethren.  But a new problem was arising.  Brethren, and even whole ecclesias, were affirming that they believed the entire Bible was inspired by God, but were unwilling to enforce this view in fellowship.  In March, bro. Roberts puts out an article on "Partial Inspiration" which begins to deal with the consequences of this doctrine in fellowship.  To this point, bro. Roberts had tried to focus the magazine on the doctrine itself, to allow everyone to become comfortable with what they themselves believed.  Now it became necessary to explain to the brotherhood what the consequences of their beliefs will mean.

It is here that we begin to see that the attitude of the Nicodemites was not at all shared by bro. Roberts and the early Christadelphians.  Ecclesias are free to make up their own minds, and act completely autonomously.  But that action will have a consequence.  If freedom to fellowship error is insisted upon, they will have that autonomy, but sound ecclesias will exercise their own autonomy not to fellowship them.

This is where we are today.  The Berean ecclesias will not fellowship ecclesias who insist on remaining in fellowship with error.  We will fellowship sound ecclesias, and those who restrain their fellowship only to such.  If you do this, come talk to us. 

March 1885

Chdn 1885 pg 120-121

THE QUESTION OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

By the Editor

We are not quite at the end yet, but land is in sight. We may have to steer among rocks, and get wet by breakers, before actually entering the harbour of peace; but there we shall get, if the Lord will.

It is impossible to compromise the issue. The ecclesia is the pillar and ground of the truth; and the inspired Scriptures of Moses and the prophets are the foundation of the ecclesia. To interfere with their inspired character is to interfere with the foundation, and to raise a question that cannot be settled except by the unqualified acceptance of the truth.

The doctrine of a partial inspiration has been introduced to account for supposed errors. Consequently a partly-inspired Bible means one that can only partly be relied upon. It practically means much more than this, for, as there is no indication in the Bible of any difference between inspired parts and uninspired parts, the acceptance of partial inspiration would mean that we should never know which was to be relied upon and which was not. One might object to one part, another to another, and none would have any certain foundation at all. It is a case of a little leaven leavening the whole lump . Such a theory cannot and will not be sanctioned by faithful men. The absolute inspiration of the Bible is the leverage of all exposition and exhortation; the rock of all hope and strength. We have no ark, no prophets; no Urim and Thummim: no voice of inspiration in our midst. God has given us a Book, and this, in our day, is the only point of contact with Him. Throw doubt on the reliability of any part of this, and the whole is gone as a foundation. It would be sacrilege on our part to sanction in our midst the breath of doubt. We are the only people that stand up for the supremacy of the Bible, as the binding and infallible promulgation of the divine will. Its foes are numerous enough, and various. At the blackest depth is the Bradlaugh school, then we have the Unitarians; next, Broad Church, with their Colenso Essayists, Reviewers, &c.; then the “charitable” Evangelicals, with their “dead-letter” doctrine, making the word of God of none effect. The new doctrine joins hand with this most baleful line at its upper end. It will not be tolerated by men who know where God has placed them in allowing the invitation to His Kingdom to come within their reach. We must not only maintain the truth: we must withdraw from the error. Fellowship makes us responsible for wrong principles, openly professed.

This is not the only reason. Give way, in fellowship, to the idea that the Bible is only partly inspired, and where should we be? At first, only one or two (say) would hold the idea, and would confine it to certain portions. If one or two, there could be no objection, by-and-bye, as new elements came in from the Bible-rejecting world, to suffer a similar position at the hands of ten, or twenty, or fifty. Entire inspiration would then degenerate to the position of a mere opinion, held by a minority; and when that minority dwindled or died out, partial and uncertain inspiration would become an openly-professed tenet; and what then? Under the pressure of the inconveniences and self-denials associated with the profession of the truth, the obligation of this and that duty and restriction would be first quietly dropped, and then resisted, as the weight of authority arising from inspiration ceased to be felt. At last, the question would be asked, Why this narrow basis of a defined faith at all? Why insist upon the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus as the basis of fellowship? Why stand apart from the pleasant, popular communions? Why not leave all such questions to individual conviction and individual rights? By the time this point was reached, the whole edifice of apostolic faith and practice, as recovered in this nineteenth century by unreserved submission to the authority of the scriptures, would be in ruins.

It is the beginning of things that has to be watched. Withdrawal from fellowship does not judge those we leave behind. It only washes our hands, and preserves the work of God so far as our action is concerned. We do not judge sceptics, nor Roman Catholics, nor Episcopalians, nor Dissenters of all hues, because we stand apart from them. We judge ourselves. We say we cannot be implicated in their unfaithfulness to divine obligations, and in the consequent peril to which they expose divine interests. We say the same now to this doctrine of partial inspiration. The holders of it may say they believe the things of the kingdom. Yes: a rose is fresh when just plucked from the stalk. You do not see the effects of the severance at first. Men who believe the things of the kingdom do so by reason of their contact with those who believe in the complete inspiration of the Bible. They will not long continue to do so, after their repudiation of this foundation. They will wither and decline from faith as the inevitable result of their principles in mature development.

*     *     *     *     *

With three months now having passed, it became necessary for the problem to be resolved in the meeting at Temperance Hall.  This ecclesia had about 500 members at the time.  The following sets out the propositions that Birmingham Temperance Hall came to consider.  The first resolution was the one supported by bro. Roberts.  The second proposition carried the majority by one vote, and was set to be voted on.  Then bro. Roberts explained what the second proposition meant, and how he would respond.

Chdn 1885 pg 123-125              The Subject at Birmingham

The subject has naturally engaged much attention in Birmingham during the last month. The following resolution was submitted to the managing brethren on February 2nd:—“That a Special Meeting of the Ecclesia be convened for Thursday, February 12th, to declare its position with reference to the question of the inspiration of the Bible, and that the following resolution be recommended for its adoption, namely:—‘That this Ecclesia believes that the Hebrew and Greek originals of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in all parts of them, were produced by inspiration of God in the several writers of them, in the different ages in which they were written: and, further, that this Ecclesia will hereafter refuse to fellowship, and now withdraws from all who maintain that inspiration was limited to certain parts only of these Scriptures, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship liable to err.’” This was met by a counter proposition to the following effect: “That as the inspiration of the Bible has not been denied by any of the brethren in Birmingham, it is unnecessary to ask them to declare their position, and that the discussion of the subject be allowed to subside, and fellowship be continued on the basis of the Bible true, &c., as appearing upon our bills.” This second proposition was carried by a majority of one: upon which, resort was had to the provision of the ecclesial rules, which allows a meeting to be called on the requisition of ten brethren. The reason of this was that the amendment would have plastered over an unsound place with untempered mortar. Although inspiration had not been denied in the sense applicable to the Bradlaugh party, it had been denied in the Exegetist sense: that is, the doctrine of that article had, in certain cases, been espoused and contended for,—that inspiration was only partial, and that there was a human and erring element in the composition of the Scriptures. To defend the ecclesia and the whole work of the truth, from this, it was necessary to ask the ecclesia to declare its belief and its intentions with regard to those denying it."

*     *     *     *     *

Since the compromise proposal won support in bro. Roberts meeting, bro. Roberts viewed division from that meeting as inevitable.  Note this, because it goes directly against the Nicodemites contentions.  No particular brother in Birmingham was accused of holding a false belief.  Bro. Roberts affirms elsewhere, that all the baptized members agreed to a complete inspiration of the Bible, prior to baptism.  The ecclesia had affirmed that they all believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures.  Yet now, bro. Roberts is viewing division with them, as inevitable.  It is not because they were themselves astray, or in error, though there were suspicions.  But the division was because they were willing to fellowship those who were clearly unsound, in other parts of Britain.  To avoid division, should the second proposal above pass in the ecclesial meeting, (the one I have highlighted in gray) bro. Roberts called another meeting, and offered another resolution.  This was recorded in the Christadelphian thus:

Chdn. 1885, pg 124  "The meeting was fixed for Feb. 12th. Meanwhile, it became apparent that many sincerely believing in the entire inspiration of the Scriptures would have a difficulty with the absolute language of the resolution as bearing on the insertion in the Scriptures of documents of human production, such as the letter of Claudius Lysias, the Roman captain of Jerusalem, to Governor Felix ( Acts 23:26–30 ): the letter of Sennacherib to Hezekiah ( Isaiah 37:10–14 ): the proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar ( Dan. 4 .) etc:—as bearing also on the testimony of the apostles to facts of which they were eye-witnesses, etc. Though the language of the resolution accurately covered such cases when understood, we thought it well that there should be no stumbling blocks in the way of the least educated, and therefore we gave notice that “with the view of simplifying the issue and removing barriers as much as possible from the way of every brother and sister who sincerely believes in the entire inspiration of the Scriptures, but who might feel some difficulty as to its application to details,” we should move the resolution in the following form: “That this ecclesia believes that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which now exist in all languages, were originally produced, in all parts of them, by inspiration of God, in this sense, namely, that the Holy Spirit moved and guided the writers either to use its own words conveying information of which they had no knowledge, or to record their own knowledge in words which it superintended, or to adopt and incorporate, from outside sources, whatever it might approve or require to be recorded for its own purposes—the writers being in no case left to their own unaided efforts, and the result being that their writing was free from error:—and, further, that this ecclesia will hereafter refuse to fellowship, and now withdraws from, all who maintain that inspiration was limited to the writing of certain parts only, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship liable to err.’”

*     *     *     *     *

This new resolution met strong resistance.  At the meeting where it was introduced, time ran out before even half the brethren who wished to speak could do so.  Since the new resolution could not be considered by the ecclesia before they voted on the amendment on the table, bro. Roberts put forth this circular to the brethren, making them aware of the consequences of passing this amendment.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 125   "The following sets forth the true meaning of the amendment as it appears in the eyes of those who cannot accept it:—‘That, although a doctrine has been introduced into our midst, and has found supporters amongst us, to the effect that the Bible is only a partly-inspired and partly-reliable book, this Ecclesia, which heretofore has held its entire inspiration as a sacred fundamental conviction, refuses to declare its views upon the subject, being content with such a general profession of faith in the Bible as will allow those to be current amongst us who believe that it is partly human and erring.’

“Holding this to be the true meaning of the amendment, the supporters of the resolution will feel bound, in case you should adopt it, to leave the assembly, and to meet by themselves on the basis of a pure word of God, uncorrupted by compromise.

“The issue before us, is

A WHOLLY-INSPIRED BIBLE

versus

A PARTLY INSPIRED AND FALLIBLE BIBLE.

*     *     *     *     *

Bro. Roberts resolution was a resolution with which all Bereans could agree.  The opposition resolution, was clearly one with which our Nicodemite brethren would agree.  There is no problem in Birmingham, therefore, they should not allow it to concern them.  Bro. Roberts makes the point that this is not good enough.  With the point clearly made by bro. Roberts that he, and many in the ecclesia would not fellowship the new ideas which had come in among them, the ecclesia considered and passed the following resolution:

Chdn. 1885 pg. 126  “That this ecclesia believes that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, translations of which now exist in all languages, were originally produced, in all parts of them, by inspiration of God, in this sense, namely, that the Holy Spirit moved and guided the writers either to use its own words conveying information of which they had no knowledge, or to record their own knowledge in words which it superintended; or to adopt and incorporate, from outside sources, whatever it might approve or require to be recorded for its own purposes—the writers being in no case left to their own unaided efforts, and the result being that their writing was free from error;—and, further, that this ecclesia will hereafter refuse to fellowship all who maintain that inspiration was limited to the writing of certain parts only, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship liable to err, but will take no action of withdrawal from any member of the ecclesia, until accusation is made against him in scriptural form, and he has been heard in his own defence.”

The adjustment of the difficulty was first reached and divulged at the Shrove Tuesday tea meeting, which came two days before the adjourned meeting. It is impossible to describe the joyful relief experienced on all hands. A black and mournful coming together was turned to joy and gladness. The trouble has been severe, as shown by sleepless nights and wet eyes in many houses. But it is over and will be profitable. Many testify it has been so in many ways—particularly in strengthening conviction in the inspiration of the Scriptures into a confidence that cannot be shaken.

*     *     *     *     *

This was a very sound resolution as passed.  The weak link in it was the statement that no action of withdrawal would be taken against any member until the Scriptural procedure was followed.  With an ecclesia numbering in the 500s, and with so many of those having expressed reservations to making "Partial Inspiration" a test of fellowship, this became an unworkable resolution.  But, it did appear at first to be a good first step, and the passing of this resolution in Birmingham had far reaching repercussions, as many ecclesias started to declare themselves on both the question of Partial Inspiration, and also on the question of fellowship.

Chdn 1885, pg 126

Other Places

Other places begin to speak. For Mumbles see intelligence.

Brother Malan, of Geneva (formerly of Birmingham), says “Though separated by land and water, I consider myself still a member of the Birmingham ecclesia: and I feel it my duty to declare, before my brethren, ‘that I believe with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my strength, and all my mind (purified by the power of the word of God), that the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which now exist in many languages, were originally produced, in all parts of them, by inspiration of God, &c.’ and will hereafter refuse to fellowship, and now withdraw from all who maintain that inspiration was limited to the writing of certain parts only, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship liable to err.” This has been my attitude from the very beginning, before the controversy—an attitude acquired by the study of the truth alone apart from any brother at all; and I was exceedingly glad to see the bold, uncompromising way you have acted, brother beloved. I feel confident, at the appearing and coming of the kingdom of our God and His Christ, many will have cause to rejoice for it. My love to the saints in the uncompromising (maintenance) of the Holy Scriptures.”

Cumnock speaks as follows:—“At a meeting of the ecclesia, held here on the 12th inst., the following resolution was adopted: ‘That we heartily believe that the original Holy Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments were in all parts of them inspired of God, and therefore free from merely human authorship. That we have no fellowship with any ecclesia or individual either on grounds of “formal fellowship” or otherwise who assert, defend, or in any wise support the theory that the original Holy Scriptures were partly inspired of God and partly of human authorship.’” — A. Macdougall .

Kilmarnock .—At a special meeting of the brethren and sisters forming the small ecclesia here, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, namely:—“That, believing with all our heart that the Scriptures are wholly inspired, and esteeming them our most precious treasure on earth, we will have no fellowship with those who hold that they are only partly inspired, by being admixed with a merely human element, or authorship; and, as it appears to us, from the evidence at disposal, that there are a number of professors who, instead of devoting humble and prayerful attention to the solution and reconcilement of seeming difficulties, have striven (sceptic-like) to rake up and present all supposed discrepancies and inaccuracies, with the view (seemingly) of embarrassing and placing obstacles in the way of those who have been earnestly defending the integrity of the holy writings at this critical juncture; and having defended, aided and abetted to the best of their ability, the new theory of partial inspiration, which has sprung up amongst us, we will not consider ourselves in fellowship with any ecclesia which tolerates such within its pale, on the ground of ‘formal fellowship’ or otherwise.”— T. Haining .

*     *     *     *     *

As we saw in the end of the February Magazine, Liverpool was the first ecclesia to declare for the inspiration of the Scriptures.  Now they found themselves in turmoil.   Note in the following how the turmoil was handled by bro. Roberts.  First, the ecclesia wanted to divide along lines of belief, but remain in fellowship.  This is the modern practice of the Nicodemites in Central.  Bro. Roberts says he argued privately against this idea.  He recommended to them a different mode of action, where by they withdraw fellowship from all who deny the entire inspiration of the Scriptures.

Chdn 1885 pg 135    January 26—Liverpool: Travelled Saturday evening.—Found affairs in Liverpool gendering to chaos. Lovers of peace disheartened by turbulence and suffering from unfounded charges of denial of Bible inspiration, had made up their mind to meet separately, though proposing to continue in fellowship with those separated from. This to be the last Sunday of collective assembly. Argued privately against the scripturalness and expediency of such a course: and at the breaking of bread endeavoured to manifest the glory of the invisible and future facts to which we stand related in the gospel, which could be no more affected by human frets and fumes than the stars could be affected by the smoke of a street chimney on fire. Counselled re-consideration of the step proposed. A special meeting convened for the next (Monday) evening would give the opportunity. —In the evening, lectured to a full audience on “the Lost Key— and its power to solve the impenetrable enigmas which the Bible presents to the understanding when approached with the orthodox hypothesis of truth.—Attended the special meeting on Monday evening, at which I had been asked to preside. Was very hopeless at the prospect and most agreeably disappointed in the result. The disturbed state, though due to personal irascibilities, was in some measure the result of the misapprehension caused by bro. Ashcroft’s use of bro. J. U. Robertson and bro. Garside’s names at the beginning of the inspiration controversy. Perceiving this, I recommended the adoption of a collective declaration on the subject that would remove all ground for misconception, and remove a disintegrating ingredient from the situation. A resolution was accordingly adopted, declaring belief in the entire inspiration of the Scriptures, and resolve to withdraw from all denying it. Other resolutions followed, having a local bearing only, but tending to peace—the adoption of which dispelled the unpleasant prospect of division, restoring peace and union. --RR

*     *     *     *     *

April, 1885

The Birkenhead ecclesia presented a resolution to the Christadelphian Magazine against the action taken by Birmingham, which cause bro. Roberts to respond to it.  The proposal by Birkenhead is recorded as this on page 166 of the 1885 Christadelphian.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 166  “That this Ecclesia feels it to be its solemn duty to the cause of Christ to denounce the attempt at disturbing the peace and unity of the Churches, as now agitated by the Editor of The Christadelphian , on ‘Theories of Inspiration’ (or any other Theory ), and hereby records its determination to resist interference with its ecclesial affairs, of any self-constituted authority: it also records its conviction that the day has arrived when a Conference of Delegates from the various ecclesias should meet and undertake the responsibilities of directing the interests of the truth, and so prevent, in its insipient stage, the possibility of a double fulfilment of Dan. 7:20–21 in these days, in our midst.”

*     *     *     *     *

Bro. Roberts responded to the above in a lengthy criticism of the proposition, its attack on him as a self-constituted authority, and its suggestion about conferences to resolve ecclesial matters.  His response runs from page 165 - 170.  Here are the highlights as it pertains to the doctrine of fellowship. 

THE QUESTION OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

By the Editor .

Some say, Why make this a question of fellowship? They have their answer when the nature of fellowship is discerned. Briefly defined, it is co-operative association on the basis of identical convictions in reference to the matter that is the subject of association. Men may and do associate on various foundations, but agreement as to the foundation is the essence of their association or fellowship. On anything outside this foundation, they may “agree to differ,” as the saying is; but as to the foundation, there must be unanimity, or there can be no association.

Now, as brethren of Christ, the ground of our association is most briefly defined in the apostolic phrase “ The Truth .” This comprehends many items or ingredients. There are such as are first and such as are middle and last, but all are essential to the completeness of the whole as a basis of association. Now, if there is one among them more fundamental than another, in an age like ours, when the voice of God is silent for a season, it is the question of the estimate in which we are to hold the Bible. Apart from the Bible, we have no access to any of the elements that go to make up the system of the truth. From the nature of things, therefore, the character of the Bible is the very first question that presents itself, whether in the individual investigations  lead to the acceptance of the truth, or in the settlement of those concurring views which constitute the basis of fellowship. (pg 165)

Bro Roberts lists his objections to the Birkenhead resolution:

1. It is not the Editor of the Christadelphian that has disturbed the ecclesias, but bro. Ashcroft, by denying the complete inspiration of the Scriptures. In the measures forced upon us by the promulgation of this theory to the four winds, we have been helpless, unless we had, for temporal reasons, consented to be faithless to what seemed to us the call of duty. We had every natural reason to refrain from these measures. They have cost us all that we feared, in the loss of friendship and support, and we have probably not yet seen the worst.

2. The resolution makes “theories of inspiration” a matter of indifference, When it is realised that the Bible’s preciousness depends upon its inspiration: i.e. , its reliability as the embodiment of the mind of God,—to treat this feature of it as a matter of indifference must appear to be trifling with the subject. The resolution tacitly says, “You may believe what you like as to the inspiration of the Bible.” Earnest men could not accept such a basis of fellowship. If the Bible is not absolutely reliable, we have no reason for separating ourselves from society and declining the entrances to its honours and emoluments. Read “theories of reliability” for “theories of inspiration,” and the true nature of the position taken by the resolution will be manifest.

3. It is very proper for an ecclesia to “resist interference with its ecclesial affairs.” The determination on this head, which the resolution expresses, is, however, somewhat ambiguous in its bearing. It is aimed at the Editor of the Christadelphian , of course; but it is hard to see how it applies, unless it refer to the conducting of the Christadelphian . The Editor of the Christadelphian has never interfered in the affairs of the Birkenhead ecclesia, or any other ecclesia. He has several times attended ecclesial meetings in various parts of the country, by request, to take part with them in the disentanglement of ecclesial difficulties: but this could not justly be characterised as “interference.” It was co-operation in a perfectly brotherly spirit, with brotherly results, and with the reverse of gratification to us in every case, except in so far as good was achieved. If it refer to the conducting of the Christadelphian , the complaint is still more destitute of reasonable ground. The Editor in all cases has only exercised the lawful prerogative of an editor. He has “edited” the contents of the magazine from the point of view of the objects at which it aims. This cannot be held to be an interference in any ecclesia’s affairs. Each ecclesia does its own untrammelled part; and the Editor of the Christadelphian does his. It will be an unspeakable relief when the need for either part has ceased in the manifestation of the personal superintendence of the appointed judge; but while the need continues, what reasonable man would object to its faithful exercise in the spirit of mutual respectful independence and consideration? A paper cannot be conducted by many hands. Under any arrangement, the ultimate management falls into a single pair. Editing by committee is a performance which must end in abortion where it is not a pretence.

4. The last point has two features, only one of which calls for serious notice: that is, the proposal that “a conference of delegates from the various ecclesias should meet and undertake the responsibility of directing the interests of the truth.” It is impossible to offer too strenuous an opposition to such a proposal. It is a proposal that will not be accepted by enlightened believers in Christ who discern the true mission of the truth in its present stage; the nature and difficulty of the situation in which its work has to be done in these latter days; and the tendencies involved in the unapostolic and ambitious machinery proposed. The principle of ecclesial independence has been clearly recognised and sacredly upheld among us hitherto as a principle vital to the objects of the truth in the development of brethren and sisters in the simple ways of faith, in preparation for the coming of Christ. The abandonment of this principle—the surrender of self-government into the hands of a “conference,”—would be a long further stride towards that apostacy from apostolic principles which many fear is already begun in our midst. To consent to such a machinery would be to create an abstraction which would work mischief in a variety of ways. It would divert the minds of the brethren from the simple regulation of their own affairs: and introduce an outside source of debate and appeal. The “conference” would be before their minds in all their dealings, giving scope to unruly spirits to gratify their love of contention in the complicating of affairs that ought to be simple. And, worse still, it would put into the hands of those who are at home in the carnal arts of factious organisation, and manipulating of votes, a machinery which would inevitably work for the corruption and destruction of the truth in its faith and practice. It would organise a tyranny over ecclesial and individual life. It, at the same time, would open out a sphere at present closed to ecclesiastical ambitions. “Presidents” and “secretaries” would acquire a factitious importance that would soon ripen into the pretensions of clericalism; and the simple ways of the truth, which afford scope only for pure-minded, self-denying service, would soon be overwhelmed and destroyed by the flesh-glorifying and unapostolic officialism which prevails with such fatal effects in all branches of the ecclesiastical world from which we have been delivered. Faithful men will refuse to be compromised in such a plausible device. It may find favour with such as either lack experience in the working of spiritual things, or who have a defective sympathy with truly spiritual objects. Men of another stamp will say with brother Sulley: “For me, no compromise with ‘conference’ plan; it means spiritual death.” It is all very well for brethren to meet as spiritual units, to hold intercourse on the basis of the truth alone, on the model of fraternal gatherings such as frequently take place: in this there is advantage and profit. Introduce the “delegate” feature, for the organic assumption of “responsibilities” that already (and in a healthy form) rest on every individual shoulder that bears the yoke of Christ, and you introduce a leaven of corruption that will slowly work destruction and death.

Bro Roberts concludes his discussion with a recounting of the ecclesia's history of dealing with error.  Note that his conclusions go directly to the differences between Berean and Central.  Bro. Roberts points out that sound brethren who are willing to fellowship error, are not themselves, fit for fellowship.  This is the Berean position towards our Nicodemite brethren.

Various have been the occasions for resisting the encroachments of errors. Well-meaning persons have had to be antagonised—and the loss of their friendship submitted to—rather than give place to principles destructive of the truth. The persons oftentimes did not hold the error themselves, but were willing to tolerate just a little of it in our fellowship. It was first the immortality of the soul: the rejection of this was not to be too stringently insisted on: even a man’s belief in eternal torments was not to be made a ground of disqualification in fellowship. Then it was a personal devil: there was really so much countenance to this in the Scriptures that it was going too far to insist on its rejection. Then it was the doctrine of the judgment; numbers thought it not essential, and every one should please himself whether he was to believe or not that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive . . . . good or bad. Then it was the nature of Christ; it was to be an open question whether Christ possessed our mortal flesh and blood or not: whether his sacrifice was substitution or the actual offering of the sin-nature. Then it was God-manifestation in Christ that was to be denied. Christ was either to be a mere man or no Christ-man at all, but God incarnate—as you please. And now it is the Scriptures of truth—they are to be inspired or not, just as you incline to take it. And you are to have a “conference of delegates” to make it more easy to get the leaven established. There is but one course for faithful men. They will not compromise the truth; and they will have nothing to do with schemes which are scarcely disguised attempts to establish the very thing so virtuously condemned by their promoters.

*     *     *     *     *

Miscellanies from that month immediately followed which have these comments as to the attitude the brethren were taking on the question.  Particularly note the comment from Birmingham.  The ecclesia passed its resolution, and was inviting fellowship on that basis.  Some remained in Birmingham, and since they did not vote for the resolution, they did not feel duty bound to support it.  This should have been no problem for the ecclesia, if the Nicodemite views are correct.  State your beliefs and invite fellowship on that alone.  If others take the emblems, not invited, this is no problem, as you are then not in fellowship with them, anyway.  But, as we shall see, it did create problems among early Christadelphians

Chdn 1885 pg 172  Aberdare .—Brother Pugh writes that the mind of the ecclesia here is that the Scriptures were produced in all parts of them by inspiration of God, and that they will refuse fellowship to all who maintain that inspiration was limited to certain parts only, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship, liable to err.

Birmingham .—There are some here who did not vote for the resolution adopted, and who, therefore, consider themselves at liberty to act in a way not in harmony with it. Their attitude will either change or become defined, in due time, with the result, one way or other, of bringing much-needed peace.

Huddersfield .—Too late for publication in this department last month, came the announcement that the ecclesia here has declared its recognition of the entirely inspired character of the Bible, and its resolution to refuse fellowship to all who maintain a fallible human character for parts of it.

Sowerby Bridge (near Halifax).—Bro. J. Briggs reports that the ecclesia here, on the 11th of February, unanimously passed a resolution that they would henceforth refuse to fellowship any who do not believe in the full inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

Swansea .—Bro. Randles says that at a special meeting on March 11th, the ecclesia here adopted a resolution declaring their belief in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in all parts of them; and their purpose hereafter, to refuse fellowship to all who maintain that they are only partly inspired.

*     *     *     *     *

Bro. Roberts' direct comments for April open on a very depressed note.  He sensed that the hostility to the divine position was growing worse.  The resolution in Birmingham had by now become a failure.  As recorded in the March magazine, some in Birmingham did not vote for the resolution, and therefore did not feel duty bound to abide by it.  These stepped up the pressure on bro. Roberts and the Birmingham meeting, by inviting bro. Ashcroft to speak, in Birmingham, but away from Temperance Hall, thus skirting ecclesial rules.

Chdn 1885, pg 181:  "There has been little of a gratifying nature during the last month,—apart, that is to say, from the perennial gratifications more or less always associated with the path of duty, and the recollections of the Lord and his work (past and coming) in the breaking of bread. Local circumstances and conditions are in the depressed state resulting from the ventilation of the doctrine of partial inspiration. We trust in God to emerge from the cloud by-and-bye,—whether by its gradual dispersal, or by the clearance analogous to that effected in the atmosphere by an electrical discharge, we wait to see. The elements cannot long remain as they are. It is impossible to walk together without agreement on the most vital of first principles.

*      *     *     *     *

Bro. Roberts records traveling to visit bro. Aschcroft at his home, but bro. Ashcroft refuses to see him.  Bro. Roberts begins to see the Partial Inspiration division as more a problem related to fellowship, than to the issue of partial inspiration.  In recording bro. Ashcrofts refusal to see him, he makes these observations.  Is it not clear that he could be answering the charges made against the Berean brethren, today?

Chdn 1885, pg 183-184  It will yet be found that this divergence on the question of inspiration is but the beginning of a general corruption of the way of truth. The symptoms of this are already manifest. One of them is the advocacy of laxity in the basis of fellowship. That is, the suggestion is finding favour that we ought not to require an entire recognition of the truth as a condition of admission among us, and that we ought not to withdraw from those who may dissent from some of its elementary constituents in detail. The brethren, it is approvingly remarked, “require a broader way.” It seems as if we may have to fight over again the battle of 20 years ago. It ought not to be difficult for men of ordinary discernment to see the truth of the matter. Why do we stand apart from the churches and chapels? Is it not because we recognise that the truth, mutually received, is the basis of association in Christ? If this is a right view (and who will doubt it that is acquainted with apostolic writings?) then it is inconsistent to connive at any denial of the truth in our midst. By Paul’s description, the ecclesia is “the pillar and ground of the truth”—that which gives it standing-ground and support in the midst of men. But if we connive at the denial of it in one item, the denial will spread to other items as time goes on, and we shall soon cease to possess the character that gives an ecclesia any scriptural value or life. The truth will soon be dead in our midst, and we shall lose all reason for standing apart from the religious organisations around us to which it would be so much more convenient to belong. It is easy to call by a bad name this insisting on the purity of the faith of Christ as the foundation. With this, men striving for the few remaining days to be faithful, must be prepared to put up. The bad names do not alter things, though they may hurt our feelings. Those who contend earnestly for a pure apostolic foundation do not “put men away from the table of the Lord.” They do not “excommunicate.” They are guilty of no Papal arrogance or assumption. They simply refuse to be implicated in an unsound position. They simply yield to the apostolic guidance which forbids them to receive any who bring not with them the doctrine of Christ; and which tells them that if they act otherwise, they make themselves responsible for the unscriptural principles involved in the case, whatever they may be. Now, in our day, the beginning of all “doctrine of Christ” is belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is the first proposition of the system of the truth as existing in this God-silent latter day; and to make light of this, as a question not affecting the faith, is to take a position that it is impossible for faithful men to accept. Fellowship is a standing together on a common foundation, and there can be no genuine fellowship without a genuine standing together.

May, 1885 

Bro. Roberts opens this edition with the hopeful thoughts that this would be his last discussion on the matter.  As it turns out, that wasn't to be.  Many ecclesias send correspondence to the effect that they will not fellowship partial inspiration or those who do.  But bro. Roberts opens his discussion with an appeal for all the ecclesias to declare where they stand.

Note that bro. Roberts is not interfering with ecclesias.  He is not using his position to impose things on others.  He just wants them to declare, so that he, and his ecclesia at Temperance Hall can only fellowship those who declare against partial inspiration.  It is necessary to declare "that other ecclesias may know what to do."  If the Nicodemites had correctly caught the practice of fellowship of this time, why would it matter?  If a brother is sound, you can fellowship him, regardless of the ecclesia he is from.  But this clearly was not the behavior of our early ecclesias.

Chdn 1885, pg 222-223         THE QUESTION OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

By the Editor .

We hope to say our last word directly. It may be that this is it: amen! If not, the will of the Lord be done. It is not a matter to be slurred over. It was complained of the wise men of Israel that every one, from the least to the greatest, was given to covetousness and dealt falsely: “for they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace” ( Jer. 8:10–11.)

It is not the part of dutiful men to wink at a doctrine that weakens the word of God, and ultimately destroys it. The brethren in sundry places have already declared their determination to be clear in this matter [to wit: Liverpool, Birmingham Mumbles, Cannock, Kil-marnock, London (Fulham), Aberdare, Devonport, Huddersfield, Peterboro’, Sowerby Bridge, Swansea]. Several other places have this month added themselves to the list as will be found further on (viz.: Nottingham, Lincoln, Keighley, Falmouth, High Wycombe, Elland, and Halifax—those seceding).

Some say, “Why should we declare ourselves on a subject on which we have never changed our minds?” The answer is, “that others may know where you are and may know what to do.” There is a need for it, and it is according to apostolic precedent. When heresy was abroad in John’s declining years, on the subject of the nature of Christ, he told the brethren to try every one claiming fellowship, and to “receive not” any who refused to confess that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh (1 Jno. 4:1–2 ; 2 Jno. 7–10 ). The ground of his recommendation was this: “Because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” This currency of false teaching created the necessity for brethren declaring themselves. It is so now. A false and destructive doctrine has been promulgated, and in many cases received with favour; and until brethren have declared themselves, other brethren can feel no confidence of movement towards them.

It is not only necessary: it is acceptable to a man whose zeal is on God’s side, to be called upon to show his colours. If this class feel it to be a kindness for the righteous to smite them ( Psa. 141:5 ); much more do they feel it to be a kindness to be invited to profess their faith, even at any time, but more especially when the dust of controversy has dimmed the air. Men of God, who humble themselves as little children, have no difficulty to get over on the score of dignity. This sort of difficulty stands only in the way of the children of the flesh, and these are not in their place in a community whose enterprise seeks only the honour of God in the exaltation of His word in a day of reproach and blasphemy.

If men believe the Bible to be wholly inspired, they gladly say so, and if they are in earnest, they naturally separate themselves from those who do not. If they believe so, and do not say so, at a time when it is denied, they are unfaithful to the trust God has reposed in them, in giving them a knowledge of His truth. Hesitancy is only quite intelligible on the supposition that they either sympathise with partial inspiration doctrines, or with those who hold them, on personal grounds. In either case, their position is inconsistent with the faithfulness that belongs to the sons of God, who know no man after the flesh, and whose apostolically prescribed rule of action is to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” in whatever shape.

Most of all to be reprobated is the position of those who say it is of no importance, one way or other, and that the controversy is an affair of personal difference between men. The first sentiment argues want of discernment: the second misconceives facts. If it is of no importance whether the Bible is thoroughly divine and reliable throughout, it is difficult to conceive what could come to be a question of importance among us. A man in earnest towards God, at the risk of any sacrifice towards man, could never harbour such a sentiment. Such a question, to such a man, naturally ranks itself in the first degree of importance. Personal difference has nothing to do with it, except in so far as personal feeling may be developed by divergence on the subject itself. This has no doubt been the case to some extent: but wise men will discriminate between cause and effect.

*     *     *     *     *

Keighley .—Brother Silverwood writes: “I am instructed to report to you that our ecclesia has passed a resolution agreeing with the one passed at Birmingham and reported on page 125 in the Christadelphian upon the inspiration question.”

Nottingham .—Bro. Kirkland reports: “The Nottingham ecclesia has thought it advisable to declare, which was done unanimously, ‘That we believe the scriptures, in all parts of them, were given by inspiration of God, and that we cannot offer fellowship to any who hold that there is in them an element of merely human authorship, liable to err.’”

Elland .—Brother Howe writes:—“I am directed to inform you that we have had a meeting of the ecclesia to-night, to consider the question of ‘Inspiration of the Scriptures,’ and that we have adopted the resolution moved by you, as contained in the Light-stand of Feb. 28th, 1885, page 71.”

Lincoln .—Bro. Elwick writes:—“I am pleased to report the decision of our ecclesia upon that all important subject—the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. We have agreed to the following resolution: ‘That the Ecclesia believes that the Holy Scriptures were originally produced in all parts of them by inspiration of God, and that in no case, were the writers left to their own unaided efforts: that the original writings were then free from error, rendered infallible by the superintending power of the Deity: that we henceforth refuse to fellowship any who do not accept this belief.’”

Falmouth .—Brother Warn writes: “All here are in true sympathy with you, and rejoice at the firm stand you have made for the truth. It is probably the last trial the brethren will have before Christ appears. It has, no doubt, happened to try their stability.”

High Wycombe .—Bro. Money writes: “I cannot fellowship with those who uphold a man in the pursuance of a wrong course. The verdict I have now to pronounce—after weighing the matter—is more decided and emphatic—that the course you have pursued as a whole in relation to this matter has been a right course; and, therefore, you have my heartiest sympathy in your arduous and painful position. Ah, how these things lead one to long for the divine scrutiny. Men misunderstand and misrepresent us; but, ah, the Judge of all the earth will set matters right presently, and signs indicate that this presently will soon be upon us.—P.S., I may say that bro. Hitchman is also in perfect accord with the sentiments expressed herein.”

Huddersfield .—Bro. Heywood writes: “Our resolution says, ‘And now withdraws from.’ We think this was a right thing to do; and I fear it will have to go through the ecclesias before our trouble is settled. Your omission of these words to meet the Birmingham brethren only lands you in further difficulties.” [For a time, perhaps: but in the long run, it will have been better to wait. Many are recovering themselves who might have had a difficulty in getting out of the position into which an instant separation would have placed them.— Ed .]

Halifax .—Bro. Skelton, by direction of the managing brethren, writes concerning bro. James Malcolm, of Innerkip’s, allusion to Halifax matters, and says: “It is quite a misapprehension to state that the brethren who have left the meeting (whether four or fifteen) left on the question of a wholly inspired Bible. . . The question of inspiration has never been submitted to the meeting for consideration. The reason of the brethren leaving was, their dissent from the action of the managing brethren with regard to the conditions on which the lecturing appointments of brethren Roberts and Ashcroft should be fulfilled—conditions decided upon with the object of keeping out of the meeting a disturbing element. The managing brethren take this opportunity to state on behalf of the meeting that their position in this matter is unchanged from what it has ever been. They believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and have no hesitation in accepting the definition of inspiration as embodied in the Birmingham resolution, appearing on page 125 of the March issue of the Christadelphian . The 20 brothers and sisters (not 25) who left our meeting to form the Sowerby Bridge ecclesia did so from Jan. 1st solely for their own convenience. (Distance from here three miles). In justice to us, we think this explanation should appear in your next issue.”

[As to which, we have to say that, personally, we know nothing of the matters in question, except in so far as they have been reported to us. The evidence goes to show a greater divergence than the foregoing letter would indicate. Burnt and countermanded Christadelphians would not indicate much sympathy with the battle on behalf of a wholly-inspired Bible; nor does the endeavour to gag its advocacy and to mix peace with corruption, show the zeal for God which God looks for at the hands of His children. Those who have gone to Sowerby Bridge have declared their minds, and their non-fellowship of the advocates of partial inspiration. Those represented by the foregoing letter have not done so. The other 15, who meet separately, have spoken for themselves, in a letter which came to hand about the same time as the foregoing. By the hand of brother Darlow, in an article headed, “ Why are you separated from the Regent Street Meeting?” they answer the question: The following are extracts:— “One reason why we cannot fellowship those at Regent Street is because we believe in the full Inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, and although they profess to believe the same, yet in their actions, and by the questions they ask, they practically declare they do not. One of their number was under an engagement to lecture at Huddersfield, and he wrote to say he could not occupy their platform and fulfil his engagement on account of the arbitrary resolution which they had passed, which resolution is, “That they believe in the full inspiration of the Old and New Testament Scriptures (and that they withdraw from all who do not).” Why cannot he occupy their platform if his belief is identical with theirs? It is evident there is a difference. Then they are in fellowship with brethren Ashcroft, Chamberlin, and others, who have propounded a partial inspiration of the Scriptures. Bro. Darlow continues: “We are not aware that these brethren have changed their views upon this question, therefore we cannot return to fellowship while they are invited to lecture, and are in association with the Regent Street meeting. To do so, we maintain, would be to give countenance, support, and fellowship propounders of a dangerous error, and would constitute us partakers of their evil deeds.” Other reasons are given, but these are enough at present. The letter adds, “We think that the report that appeared in the Æon for February 13th calls for correction. It says that ‘an attempt has been made here to divide the meeting on the inspiration question.’ No such attempt was made. The real object of the meeting was to call in question the authority and disapprove of the action of the managing body in prohibiting brother Roberts from speaking upon the inspiration question, without first consulting the whole meeting, while at the same time they were sending private letters to brother Ashcroft pressing him to come, although he had written them to say that ‘he had decided never to take a Christadelphian platform again.’ Neither is it true that the meeting numbered 150. The number of members at the Regent Street meeting has never exceeded 106, and at the time the report was published 22 or more had ceased to meet there, having formed a meeting at Sowerby Bridge, The report further says that ‘about four of brother Roberts’ most ardent supporters will leave us,’ when the real number is 19 or more, and others are only kept there by misrepresentations, enticing words, and fair speeches.”

*     *     *     *     *

Chdn 1885 pg 233  from Birmingham Miscellanies 

Where we are with regard to those who may secretly sympathise with a loose attitude in the question, time alone can reveal. It is not for any man to judge what is not avowed. One case was scripturally proceeded with by brethren knowing it; but when it came to the third stage, the brother accused declared his agreement with the resolution that had been adopted, and his confidence in the entire Scriptures as the unerring work of inspiration.

*     *     *     *     *

Chdn 1885 pg 234  Washington, D.C. —A copy is forwarded us (probably by bro. Boggs), of a resolution adopted by the ecclesia here, censuring “bro. Robert Roberts, editor of the Christadelphian ” for publishing “certain articles,” “whereby brethren R. Ashcroft, of Liverpool, England, and J. H. Chamberlin of Glasgow, Scotland, have been grossly misrepresented, and shamefully libelled,” and pledging the ecclesia to “withdraw co-operation from the editor of said paper, until he learns to treat Christ’s brethren in a decorous and brotherly manner.” Brethren R. Ashcroft and J. H. Chamberlin, it is added “have our entire confidence and sympathy.” [As to which we have to say that it is a perfectly legitimate exercise, on the part of the Washington ecclesia, of the right possessed by every man in Christ’s absence, of judging matters according to the light in which they appear to him, and of acting accordingly. The right which they exercise, they will not, of course, deny to us. We are sorry if our judgments of the matter do not agree. We take it that their action honestly represents the situation as it appears to them, but we cannot help believing that if they knew all, they would think differently. We do not blame them for acting according to their impressions of the case. They will admit as reasonable men, however, that we have had better opportunities of judging than they, and that it is just possible our view of the matter may be a right one. If it should happen to be so, and that we are truly working the work of the Lord, with however much imperfection, then their action in withdrawing co-operation from us, will not be to their satisfaction in the day of His coming. Should they have erred in judgment, the Lord may forgive them on that day, which we pray.— Editor .]

*     *     *     *     *

The Nottingham ecclesia informs bro. Ashcroft that they are withdrawing from him for his failure to follow Matt 18.  The ecclesia also votes not to fellowship anyone who supports in any way partial inspiration.  There is also a correspondence the following month, clarifying some things written in this correspondence.

Chdn 1885, pg 239  Nottingham  Brother Kirkland reports that bro. P. H. Horsman (of Nottingham), and sister Tourle (of London), have been united in marriage. Sister Tourle (now sister Horsman) will be numbered with the Nottingham ecclesia. He further reports the all but unanimous adoption of the resolution appearing below, after several special meetings, adjourned from time to time. The final meeting took place at the beginning of April. The matter to which it refers has been under consideration in Nottingham for several months, and bears more or less on all the brethren. “It will be necessary to explain,” says bro. Kirkland, “that for several years past brother Ashcroft has been intimately connected with the public proclamation of the truth in Nottingham, lecturing once every few weeks for the past two years. On Dec. 11th, within a week of his usual appointment we received a letter from him, in which he said:—‘The scandalous treatment, I have received through the Light-stand and the Christadelphian , makes is simply impossible for me to co-operate with the editors of these prints in any form of religious work. This decision, of course, will require you to arrange with someone else for the supply of your platform on Sunday week. The responsibility attached to it, is solely theirs whose shameful behaviour has made it necessary and unalterable.’ We saw at once that bro. Ashcroft was taking an unscriptural attitude towards brethren Roberts and Shuttleworth, and that, whatever might be the cause of offence, it was his duty to first try and gain them in the way of Christ commands in Matt. 18 . This was pointed out to bro. Ashcroft (in a personal visit) by the brother to whom the letter had been addressed, and subsequently, by two of our brethren, who pressed on him the importance of obeying the command. Their efforts were unsuccessful. (Bro. Ashcroft would neither go and see bro. Roberts nor would he consent to bro. Roberts coming to see him, which bro. Roberts had expressed his willingness to do.) Bro. Ashcroft’s letter was then laid before the managing brethren, who instructed the secretary to write to bro. A. as follows:—‘We, the managing brethren of the Nottingham ecclesia, having heard from brethren Sulley and Kirkland, the result of several interviews, are convinced you ought, in obedience to the command of Christ ( Matt. 18 .), to go and see bro. Roberts.’ The following was also sent to bro. Roberts:—‘The managing brethren of the Nottingham ecclesia, having heard the report of brethren Sulley and Kirkland, believe it would be in harmony with the mind of Christ for bro. Roberts to go and see bro. Ashcroft, although the latter has refused to see him.’ On Feb. 26th, bro. Roberts sent word that he had been to Liverpool to see bro. Ashcroft, but that bro. Ashcroft refused to see him.’ The matter was then laid before the whole ecclesia, which, after careful consideration, passed the following resolution, a copy of which has been sent to bro. Ashcroft:—‘Having heard read the letter addressed to Bro. Kirkland, in which Bro. Ashcroft refuses to lecture in connection with us while our platform is open to Bro. Roberts, and having heard and considered the report of brethren Kirkland and Sulley of the steps unsuccessfully taken by them to induce bro. Ashcroft to adopt the course prescribed by Christ, in Matthew 18:15 , 17 . we are convinced that bro. Ashcroft is in a state of disobedience towards that commandment, and that his attitude, especially in refusing to see bro. Roberts when visited by him at the request of the managing brethren, is contrary to the precepts of Christ. Believing this, we regard it as our duty, if brother Ashcroft persist in his present attitude, to dissociate ourselves from him, as Christ commands in such cases. In passing this resolution, the brethren desire to say that they express no opinion on anything which has been said or written which may be of an unscriptural nature, as the only point we now condemn is the refusal to seek reconciliation in the way Christ commands.’ At the same meeting, a resolution was adopted declaring belief in the entire inspiration of all parts of the Scriptures, and refusing fellowship to any who hold there is in their composition a human element liable to err.”

 

June 1885

Holding to his sentiment from last month that the matter is resolved, articles on the subject cease for a month, and the matter is handled by exhibiting the correspondence,

Chdn 1885,pg 285-286  Lichfield. —Brother Sykes says the few brethren and sisters of Christ in this place will only fellowship those who hold the Bible as the inspired word of God. He adds remarks which, had space allowed, we should have been glad to quote

Fulham .—Bro. Hutchinson reports that Bro. Pegg has been received back into fellowship. Our report on the subject of inspiration in the Christadelphian for March, is somewhat misleading. There has been no formal meeting (as the report implies) on the subject, the secretary only intending to report what appeared to him to be the mind of the brethren as gathered.

Normanton. —Writing again, bro. Dowkes says:—“At a meeting of the ecclesia, held here on April 23rd, the following proposition was adopted—‘That we believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were, in all parts of them, given by inspiration of God, and that we cannot offer fellowship to any who hold the doctrine of partial inspiration.’”

Nottingham. — Brother Kirkland writes:—“I have pleasure in reporting another addition to our number by the obedience of William Borer Sanders (49), who put on the sin-covering name in the appointed way on May 3rd. It is also my duty to report the withdrawal from us of bro. J. Pepper and bro. S. Richards.” Brother Kirkland, in a later communication, corrects an untrue report which has appeared of the meeting of which an account was given last month (namely, the meeting at which the Nottingham ecclesia adopted a resolution with reference to brother Ashcroft):—“I was at the meeting, and, although I did not count the number present, I am able to say it was an unusually large meeting of the ecclesia. I sat by the side of the chairman, in front of the brethren and sisters, therefore in a good position to judge of the number voting. The following was proposed as an amendment:—‘This ecclesia while expressing no opinion as to the merits or otherwise, of one brother against another in the dispute which we so much deplore, and disclaiming any feeling of partizanship is convinced that the attitude taken by bro. Ashcroft, as shown by his letters to us, and especially by his refusal to see bro. Roberts when visited by him at our request, is contrary to the precepts of Christ, and if persisted in, it necessitates the disassociation prescribed in the word.’ This amendment had previously been considered by the managing brethren, and objected to on the ground that the dispute the brethren knew of, was on the subject of ‘Inspiration,’ and that if they adopted the amendment, it would appear as if they had no opinion on that subject.—The two brethren who had framed it, said they had no such idea in their minds, and gave it up in favour of the resolution appearing in the May number Christadelphian . Notwithstanding this, at the meeting of the ecclesia, the amendment was taken up by a brother, and proposed. I am not aware of any reason why he took this course, but when it was put to the vote (which was taken by shew of hands) I believe four only voted for it. It was then put to the contrary, and a large number voted. The chairman declared it to be lost. The resolution was then put to the meeting. It appeared to me (as I sat) as if all present voted, but I suppose a few (very few) did not vote. The chairman, who was standing on his feet at the time, put ‘the contrary.’ Not a single hand being raised, he declared the resolution carried unanimously. However, one brother then said he did not agree with the resolution, and withdrew from the meeting. He has since returned, and says he objected to the resolution because he thought brother Ashcroft should have had more time given, but is now convinced bro. Ashcroft maintains a wrong attitude, and endorses the resolution. The above is a faithful and true report of the meeting. The Ecclesia stand firm to their resolution, believing their action is in harmony with the precepts of Christ.”

Sheffield. —We have made another addition by baptism on March 28th, in the person of Mrs. Martha Howe (65).—Sister Boler, wife of bro. Boler, fell asleep on March 18th, after a painful illness of five weeks’ duration. She was interred on the 23rd at the Sheffield General Cemetery, in the presence of a large number of brethren and sisters and friends. We had the use of the chapel connected with the cemetery, in which we held a short service—singing hymn 138, followed by prayer and the reading of several portions of Scripture referring to death and resurrection. We then repaired to the grave side, where a suitable address was given by bro. Skinner, after which we sang hymn 148, and brought the service to a close by prayer. It is a serious loss to bro. Boler and family, but the time is short. Christ will soon be here.—I have also to report that we have withdrawn from bro. Rose on account of his being in fellowship with Thomas Watton; and, also, from bro. Salter. These three break bread together.—Bro. and sister Maxfield have removed from New Wombwell to Sheffield, and meet with the brethren here. The ecclesia now numbers 61.

July 1885

The Post Card.  The July Christadelphian reveals that bro. Roberts realized that he was not going to be able to resolve this problem in the traditional manner.  With nearly 150 brethren in his ecclesia in opposition to him, he can't possibly exercise Matt. 18 in every case, without tremendous turmoil.  He calls meetings with leaders who oppose him, and who were giving support (all the while denying they are doing so) to the doctrine of partial inspiration.  Getting nowhere with the opposition, and unable to resolve this matter in the usual form, he sends out a postcard to all the members of Temperance Hall, requiring all who wish to remain in fellowship with him to sign it, making clear that those who can't sign it, must seek fellowship apart from him.

Bro. Roberts recognized that the situation had become unworkable.  It was impossible for two to walk together unless they are agreed. I often think of this, in regards to myself, when Central brethren tell me I should be in Central.  I would not last long.  Central could not have a Bible school, invite a Partial Atonement speaker like bro. John Martin, and have him speak, and not have me show up to confront him in the assembly.  If I'm in fellowship with them, and therefore responsible for the first principles they teach, I won't sit by quietly while Jezebel teaches her depths of Satan.  There is no doubt at this point in my life, I would not last long till I was disfellowshipped for disorderly conduct.  Bro. Roberts had already been severely criticized for interfering with a public talk, given by Edward Turney in 1873.  No doubt he didn't want to go through that again, yet it was inevitable that such would be the case, according to the trend in his ecclesia.

The end result of the Post Card is the division of a third of the ecclesia, at least 140 brethren.  But note what takes place here.  Bro. Roberts divides his ecclesia from 1/3 of its members, all of them sound on the subject of inspiration, over the teaching of two brethren, (Ashcroft and Chamberlain) not even in his meeting.  Isn't this exactly what the Nicodemites condemn us for? 

Chdn 1885  pg. 299-309  

THE END OF THE INSPIRATION CONTROVERSY IN BIRMINGHAM

We have reached the end of the inspiration controversy in Birmingham. How we have done so, and with what effects will best be gathered from the following extracts from documents:—

64, Belgrave Road, Birmingham, 20th May, 1885.

Dear Brother , —Come and have a cup of tea and a free talk, on Friday next, the 22nd inst., at 6–30, with the object of seeing if anything can be done to restore the unity and cordial feeling which have, to some extent, been impaired by the unhappy controversy into which we have been plunged by the introduction of the doctrine of partial inspiration. Our united repudiation of that doctrine ought to make it possible to get into a happier state. Let us see what we can do. If we talk matters over in a frank and sincere way, good may come of it: no harm can come, at all events. * * * Faithfully your brother,

Robert Roberts .

About thirty brethren were invited. The result of the meeting was far from satisfactory. While the Ashcroft-Chamberlin theory was nominally repudiated, there was a pleading for the recognition of errors, or the possibility of errors in the Bible (unimportant they were called) in a way that was inconsistent with the hearty recognition of its inspired character. There was also a manifest disposition to tolerate in our midst the theory nominally repudiated. There seemed no alternative but the course resolved upon next day. On the 23rd, the following letter was addressed, through the post, to every brother and sister in the ecclesia:—

Dear Brethren and Sisters , Greeting you in the love of God whose acquaintance we have made in the Holy Scriptures, given by His inspiration. May He extend to us His compassion in our affliction.

There exists a necessity for the re-adjustment of our ecclesial relations, Our present situation is not conducive to the union, love, and peace that belong to the house of Christ. We are not one as to a fundamental principle of our fellowship. A doctrine, promulgated by brother Ashcroft, and endorsed by brother Chamberlin (to the effect that the Scriptures are partly human and fallible in their composition), is held by a goodly number in our midst. Past writings among us show that it has been our principle to refuse immersion to any who brought this doctrine with them. It is therefore impossible it can be recognised in our basis of fellowship. I feel truly sorry for many who have embraced it: for I am certain had such a doctrine been introduced to their notice by any one not professedly a brother, they would not have listened to it for a moment.

The question is, what is to be done? Some months ago, we adopted a resolution intended to commit us to an acceptance of the true doctrine of inspiration: but the terms of the resolution (which were sincerely modified to secure unanimity and peace), have been so construed by those holding the partial inspiration doctrine as to express their views. Consequently it has failed in its object, and we are driven to reconsider our position in the interests of that growth in the comfort and knowledge of the truth, without which, an ecclesia exists in vain. No good purpose can be served by glossing over the matter and trying to make it appear that there is no difference. The actual and glaring character of the difference is shown by the way it is regarded among those who are not with us. Atheists rejoice at the new doctrine and call it “progress”: uncertain persons of all sorts have given it a hearty welcome. People who have once been with us and left us on various differences, have been ready with their congratulations; while amongst ourselves, enmity and strife have prevailed ever since its advent. Fellowship in such a situation is impossible. Fellowship is cordial and loving union, springing from oneness of mind in divine things. Here is disunion with reference to that which in modern times is the first of all first principles—viz., the character of the book on which we base all our hopes and principles of life.

We appended to our resolution an intimation that we would not withdraw from any one accused of holding partial inspiration without a formal individual procedure. But this pre-supposed a sincere resolve on all hands to stand by the doctrine intended to be defined in the first part of the resolution. And so far as I am concerned, the addition was accepted with the express reservation (openly announced at the time to those proposing it) that my hands should not be tied with regard to any process that might subsequently appear to be necessary to give effect to the resolution. It has become impossible to carry out the resolution by the process of individual applications. Those who ought to vote for its application are set against it in their minds. The attempt to rectify our position in this way would, therefore, only plunge us into a harassment most destructive to all the objects of the truth. Those who believe in a wholly inspired and infallible Bible are desirous of being extricated in a way that will be thorough and peaceful. Such a desire has been expressed to me: it can be done. The object of this circular is to indicate and open the way.

On the 22nd inst., I invited to a friendly tea-meeting the leading brethren among those who, at the beginning, disapproved of my attitude on this matter. My object was to promote the cordial state of communion that ought to exist among those professedly agreed on the subject, but which has been consciously lacking for many months past. The result was to make it manifest that the doctrine of partial inspiration is held and sympathised with as much as ever. I submitted to them that it was impossible to walk together in such a state of disagreement. I recommended their peaceful retirement. To this they strenuously object. We must therefore attain the same result in another peaceable way. There is no good to be served by any further contention. It is for those who cannot be implicated in the doctrine of partial inspiration to quietly step aside and re-organise themselves in an ecclesial capacity.

As a preliminary to this, it is necessary to find out who are of this mind. This cannot be done by individual canvass. It can be done by the process in which I hereby invite your concurrence. I enclose a post-card on which is printed a statement necessary to be made under the circumstances. I have written your name on the top of the card for the sake of connecting it with you. If you approve, all that will be necessary will be for you to drop the card into the nearest pillar. If you prefer to attach your initials, it would prevent any mistake from accidental posting.

To those who return this card through the post, I will send a ticket of admission to a special meeting to be convened for the consideration of the next step to be recommended. The result, in the end, will be to leave in the Temperance Hall (whatever their number), those who will hold no parley or compromise with the doctrine of a partly-inspired Bible.

I should gladly have followed anyone else’s lead in this matter; but, as all have been waiting and expecting, I have had no alternative but accept the onus of moving. Individually, I am resolved on this course, whatever the consequences may be; and I shall be very thankful for the company in it of every one who feels moved to be courageous for God’s sake in a day when our only point of conscious contact with Him is in the oracles of His truth, “committed” to Israel ages ago, and committed to the hands of every faithful brother and sister since.

I must submit as patiently as I can to the imputation of unworthy motives which is being freely indulged in by such as cannot read the situation accurately. God knows the heart. Even men of ordinary discernment ought to be able to see that my action is unfavourable to all the objects which some think I am pursuing. It is not a likely way of preserving what they unhappily call “vested interests” but of damaging them disastrously. The only “interest” I am seeking to promote is the interest that God has committed to the hand of every faithful servant. A situation exists which is paralysing spiritual endeavour. A doctrine is in our midst which has power to “eat as doth a canker.” With that doctrine, I, for one, can have no connection; and I ask the concurrence countentance, and co-operation, of every man and woman whose enlightenment enables them to form a like determination.

With love to all, and striving above all things to be, in an evil generation, a friend of God and a good steward of the unsearchable riches of Christ,

ROBERT ROBERTS.

The post-card was worded as follows:—“Brother Ashcroft, having publicly promulgated, and brother Chamberlin having publicly endorsed, a doctrine to the effect that the Bible is only partly-inspired, and that there is in it an element of merely human composition liable to err, I recognise the necessity for standing aside from all who refuse to repudiate this doctrine, and I will co-operate in any measures that may be adopted to enable us in Birmingham to do so in a peaceful manner.”

An unexpectedly large response, of the right sort, was made; but there were some letters also of a kind that suggested the writing of the following:—

137, Edmund Street, Birmingham, June 1, 1885.

Dear Brethren and Sisters ,— Greeting: God be with you. I have received several letters on the subject of our impending action in Birmingham. Some of them I have answered directly to the writers: the reception of others suggests to me the advisability of addressing a general letter to you all in the probability that others, who have not written, may share the views and sentiments expressed in the letters I have received.

Those letters condemn the proposed course as unscriptural, on the ground that accused persons ought first to be heard. This shows a misapprehension of what we are doing. We make no accusation against persons. We recognise a state of things existing in our community which no form of individual process can deliver us from.—This state of things appears in our eyes a corrupt state of things through the introduction and favourable reception by many, of a doctrine concerning the Bible, which in its latest formulation (by new statement and endorsement of previous utterances) asks us to believe:—

1.—That belief in a wholly-inspired Bible is “a remnant of theological superstition,” “the doctrine of Romanism,” “a credulous opinion,” “a pious sentiment inherited from orthodox sources,” and held in common with “Romanism and the Protestant sects generally” ( AElig;on for May 8, page 252, col. 1, line 34: p. 250, 2nd par., col. 1).

2.—That those who believe it are in a state of “orthodox innocence,” that is, innocence of true knowledge and discrimination (page 250, col. 1, line 12 from bottom).

3.—That is a doctrine that ought to be “reconsidered and reconstructed” (8 lines further up).

4.—That “there is a human element in the Bible, except where matters of revealed truth are concerned” (page 250, col. 1, par. 3), implying a distinction between things in the Bible that are revealed truth, and things that are not: and our ability to distinguish and decide between the one and the other.

5.—That although, in a sense, inspiration has had to do with it all, “inspiration ( securing infallibility ) has only been given where it claims to have been given” ( same page and col., par. 2, at end)—involving the conclusion that when, as regards the rest of the Bible, inspiration is admitted, by inspiration is meant an authorship that is not infallible.

6.—That consequently, though the Bible “ contains that which was God-breathed” (page 250, col. 2, line 5) large parts of it being histories for which infallible inspiration (!) by this contention is not claimed, are not infallible, and contain in fact “actual contradictions and erroneous statements of various kinds” ( Exegetist , page 4, col. 1, line 6; page 6, col. 1, line 48: Æon , Nov. 21, page 69, line 41; page 70, line 21.)

7.—That while all “Scripture” might be admitted to be inspired, it would take inspiration itself to decide what (in the Bible) constitutes Scripture. ( Bro. Ashcroft’s proposal, per Professor Evans, Christadelphian for Feb. 1885, page 60, line 25).

I do not think it necessary to show that these principles are destructive of the individual confidence essential to our profitable use of the Scriptures in their daily reading, and of the effectiveness with which we have hitherto wielded the sword of the spirit against various forms of modern error. ¹ I take it that you will recognise this, and further that you perceive and feel the dishonour which they cast upon God’s word, to which it is impossible we can reconcile ourselves. The question is how we are to proceed to get rid of them in our midst. In the present form of things, we are helplessly compromised by the presence of many in our midst who either favour those principles or sympathise with and co-operate with the measures of those who have promulgated them.

What we propose to do is to take a line of action that will make no mistake—a line of action that will do justice, first, to the word of God, and, secondly, to every faithful upholder of it. We do not propose to accuse anyone. We propose to rally to the right doctrine, and then to step aside from all who refuse to do this, or (which is the same thing) who refuse to repudiate the error and those who teach it. The community as a community has become corrupt. We propose to cease our connection with it on this account. We will go out in the name of allegiance to the Bible as God’s wholly-inspired and infallible word. This is a Scriptural line of action. To “come out from among them” is a matter of command when a community, as such, has become hopelessly corrupt. We have done it before when we came out of the sects which claim to be Christ’s people. It is the only course that can extricate us from the false position in which we have been placed by the reception of a false and destructive doctrine by so many in our midst. It will inflict hardship on no one who is prepared to be faithful to the oracles of God. It will only exclude those who hesitate, and the exclusion will be their own act.

Those who quote Matt. 18:15–16 must misread the situation or misunderstand the precept. It is no case of trespass by a brother against a brother. It is no case of individual accusation. It is the case of a principle to which as a community we have become unfaithful; and where individual loyalty can only be developed by wholesale action of the kind exemplified by Moses when he stood outside the congregation of the Lord’s own people , and said “who is on the Lord’s side?” The Levites rallied to him. Havoc was introduced into the camp, although it was the Lord’s camp.

Men faithful to God gladly rally to imperilled divine interests. If they were not allowed an opportunity of doing so, there would be ground for complaint of hardship. If those who hesitate are hurt, it is not the fault of those who take the right course. They are themselves responsible. Moses will certainly not be held responsible for those who did not come at his call, and perhaps perished in the camp. We have no man of the authority of Moses: but we have sacred obligations which become incorporate in ourselves in proportion as we perceive and accept them. Such an obligation is operative at the present time. Our whole foundation is being tampered with. Those who ought to defend that foundation are in sympathy with and apologising for and helping those who are tampering with it. No voting process can purge us from the spiritual leprosy that has crept in among us, and as for a “hearing,” we have been hearing one another for seven months. If our minds are not made up now, it is not likely that any further hearing will help us. In the judicial sense, it is no case for hearing, because it is not a case of accusation. It is a case of washing our hands in a way that gives every one the opportunity of taking part in it. We affirm a principle of truth and duty; all who are loyal to that principle will rally to it, and if they fail to do so, the result of their failure is their own. Constitutions of our own devising are of no validity when the foundation on which they are built is called in question with the concurrence of a large part of those who constitute our community, or at least, without courageous resistance on their part. The only course is to do as Moses did: to step out and say “Who is on the Lord’s side?”

I cannot agree with those who say we should only separate from those who teach error, and not from those who believe it (which I take it is practically the same thing as “refusing to repudiate”). The basis of all fellowship is identity of belief—not identity of teaching —though the latter would follow from the former. Some object to the flower, but not to the root. Let us take out the root of our present distress, and then the distress will end.

Some quote Paul’s words, “Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation.” The words are not applicable to a case like the present. I understand Paul to be speaking about weakness as to matters outside the faith on the part of some in the faith. The context will show that this is the case. But in our case, the weakness refers to the first principle of the faith: for the beginning of our faith is the divine inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Bible. Paul nowhere recommends us to receive those who are in doubt as to first principles. On the contrary, he inculcates jealousy and faithfulness as to these.

Now, we propose to step aside in the name of a wholly-inspired Bible. If some who are “ignorant or uncandid” do so with us (as some say they will), the Lord is their judge, and will not hold us responsible for what we do not know. If others who believe with us are not strong enough to stop with us, but who prefer to remain with those who corrupt the truth by uncertain doctrine, we cannot be responsible for them. They say “God speed” to that which they condemn, and by John’s rule they make themselves “partakers of the evil.” What they would have us do would be to stay with them in this evil-partaking association in the name of human “rules” which have become inoperative for the purposes of their adoption, and the attempt to apply which would be to plunge us into a fatal froth-ocean of agitation and excitement.

No; we want to follow peace with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. We are sure about the complete inspiration of the Bible. We don’t want, at this late hour, to be laying again the foundation of this most primitive of all first principles. We want, in love and holiness and peace, to be building ourselves up in the faith which they impart to us, and not to be consuming one another in the endless technical disputations which have been introduced among us.

I exceedingly regret having to take any course that may separate any who have heretofore been in fellowship with one another; but I am helpless. If there were any medium course that would secure the full advantage of a pure and decided ecclesialattitude, while preventing the apprehended isolation of some who are prepared for that attitude, but not to take it in this way, I should be glad to concur in it: but I see none. I cannot but be thankful at the number of those who, up to this date, have sent in their adhesion to the course proposed. I was fully prepared for only a small return of the post cards: whereas, those which have come in represent a majority of the whole ecclesia. There are doubtless others who will make up their minds in a favourable sense before our meeting on Friday week: including, perhaps, those to whose letters I thought this the most convenient form of answer.

Faithfully your brother,

ROBERT ROBERTS.

P.S.—I may say that I should probably have been at the Board School meeting last week (a meeting convened by the disapprovers) if I had not had a previous engagement that took me away on Tuesday morning to Spalding and Nottingham; also that I claim no “authority” beyond that which every man possesses to do the best in his power for God in his day and generation.

The Meeting for Action

This was held on Friday, June 12th. The following resolutions were adopted:—

1. That this meeting, consisting of (about 330) brethren and sisters, whose names have been read, and who have signified beforehand their unanimity with regard to the objects for which they are convened, hereby records and professes its conviction that the doctrine of the divine inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Scriptures in all parts of them (as originally written by prophets and apostles) is the first principle of that system of truth which forms the basis of our fellowship one with another in Christ; and that, consequently, we are unable to compromise that principle by continuing in association with those who either believe or tolerate the doctrine publicly promulgated by brother Ashcroft, and publicly endorsed and defended by brother Chamberlin, that the Bible is only partly inspired, and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err.

2. That, in execution of this determination, we hereby separate ourselves from the organisation heretofore subsisting in the Temperance Hall, on the ground that many in that organisation either hold the doctrine of partial and fallible inspiration, or think it right to remain in association and co-operation with those who do.

3. That a letter be written to those we leave behind, expressing our regret at parting with many among them, and inviting as many as are able to unite themselves with us on the basis expressed in our first resolution.

4. That the following be the letter addressed to them:—(See further on.)

5. That as the legal occupation of the Temperance Hall vests in us, through bro. Roberts, to whom the lease is granted, we cannot but resolve to remain in the Temperance Hall; but desiring to avoid all discourtesy, even in appearance, we offer to provide a meeting-place for those who come not with us for a period of four weeks, so as to give them time to deliberate and resolve upon their future procedure.

6. That being the greater number (both of the executive and general body) of those heretofore constituting the organisation known as the Birmingham Ecclesia, we hereby use the power residing in the majority, of dissolving the said organisation, and do hereby declare it to be, from and after this date, DISSOLVED.

7. That we recognise the right of those from whom we have separated, to an equitable share in the funds and effects of the late organisation now in our hands; and we, therefore, hereby resolve to make a liquidation of the same, and to offer them a pro rata dividend, calculated individually, or (if they prefer it) to hand it over in a sum total, according to the list of names which they may furnish us, constituting their assembly.

8. That we now and hereby re-incorporate ourselves as the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia.

9. That before we re-adopt our constitution and order, a committee (afterwards to be named) be appointed to consider the same in a leisurely way, with a view to the adoption of improvements (if any), which may have been suggested by the experience of the last twenty years.

10. That pending the adoption of such revised constitution, the following brethren be, and are hereby appointed, by the vote of this meeting, to act in the several necessary offices of service, viz.:—(Names follow).

11.—That the presiding and managing brethren be the Committee for the revision of the constitution, as suggested in Resolution IX.

The following was immediately transmitted through the post, to the disapprovers, as

A LETTER

To those who have not seen their way to separate with us from a position of compromise with the doctrine of partial and fallible inspiration.

Dear Brethren and Sisters —The circulars addressed to you through the post will have prepared you for the act which we have felt called upon to perform, and of which we now desire to acquaint you in the spirit of brotherly love. We have to-night adopted the following among other resolutions. (Here follow 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). With our reasons for the course of action authorised in these resolutions, you have been made acquainted. We need not trouble you with them again at any length. A doctrine was introduced among us some time ago, and received with favour from some, and non-resistance by others, which is calculated, in our judgment, to undermine confidence in the Bible as the word of God. That doctrine is (however disguised it may be in elegant periphrases and plausible disclaimers), that the Scriptures are not wholly reliable; that there is an element of error in them, due to the absence of Divine inspiration in the writing of parts of them, or to the presence of an inspiration that did not keep the writers from error. The doctrine that inspiration may err we regard as the most serious of all the views to which this controversy has given birth. We cannot help feeling that it comes perilously near to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Many of you say you do not hold this doctrine. At this, we are glad, but your determination to abide by those who do hold it, or uphold those who teach it, makes it impossible for us in our action to make any discrimination between you and them. It is a scriptural principle which commends itself to reason, that he that biddeth a man God-speed, in an evil course, makes himself responsible for that course (2 Jno. 11 ). The principle is illustrated all through those Scripture histories which some of you say are not inspired. God said to Israel He would be no more with them until they put away from their midst the offender against Divine appointment ( Josh. 7:12 ). He told them on another occasion, by Moses, that they would be consumed in the sin of Korah if they did not depart from them ( Num. 16:24–26 ). He expressed His approval of Phinehas for his voluntary zeal against the sinners in the camp ( Num. 25:10 , 12 ), and of Jehu, for laying a trap for the worshippers of Baal ( 2 Kings 10:18 , 30 ).

The principle received expression in apostolic times, in Christ’s condemnation of those churches that suffered wrong teaching in their midst ( Rev. 2:14 , 20 ), and His approbation of those who could not bear the evil, but exposed the pretences of false apostles ( Rev. 2:2 , 6 ), also in Paul’s command to purge out the old leaven ( 1 Cor. 5:6 , 7 ), to turn away from those having an empty form of godliness ( 2 Tim. 3:5 ) and in the Spirit’s summons to “Come out” of Babylon, lest being, by fellowship, partakers of her sins, we receive also of her plagues ( Rev. 18:4 ).

Now, in our judgment, it is not possible for men to commit a greater evil in our age than to corrupt and weaken the word of God by a doctrine that it is not wholly reliable. We do not wish to argue the question with you now: we merely wish to acquaint you with the reason of our present action which is most painful to us. We cannot make ourselves responsible for the dishonour to God’s word implied in the doctrine of partial and erring inspiration; nor for the consequences that will certainly spring from it in the workings of things among many. We do not feel at liberty to sanction in our midst any compromise of Paul’s statement that all the Holy Scriptures of Timothy’s acquaintance were given by inspiration of God. You may believe Paul’s statement equally with ourselves, but if you make yourselves one with those who nullify it by the doctrines they hold, you erect the same barrier between us and you that exists between us and them.

We do not say by this that you are not brethren, or that Christ will refuse you at His coming. We leave that. We do not judge you; we judge ourselves. We say we cannot be implicated in the position which you feel at liberty to hold towards the new doctrine that has been introduced. We desire to regard you with feelings of friendship and brotherly love; but so long as you retain connection with a false doctrine of so dangerous a character, you compel us to set aside, in the spirit of Paul’s recommendation, which while telling us to count you not as enemies, but to admonish you as brethren, at the same time directs us to have no company while things are on a footing that does not allow of it. We invite you to abandon your doubtful position and unite yourselves with us on the ground we have defined in the resolutions set forth. We do not press you. You must be guided by your own judgments. If you do not see eye to eye with us as to what is expedient to be done, you can but act according to your convictions; but for ourselves, we dare not hesitate longer to adopt a course which we feel is called for by faithfulness and purity and peace. We hope that reconsideration may, by-and-bye, enable many of you to see the matter in what appears to us a scriptural light. Meanwhile, we are compelled to forego your further companionship at the Temperance Hall. When you are prepared to take our attitude, as expressed in Resolution 1, it will be more than a pleasure to us to see you resume your place. With best wishes,

Signed on behalf of the meeting ,

J. J. POWELL.

J. E. WALKER.

R. ROBERTS.

Results

About 330 brethren and sisters have declared for a wholly-inspired Bible as a first principle in our basis of fellowship, not to be compromised by association with believers in a partial and fallible inspiration. These met together in their separate capacity, for the first time, in the Temperance Hall, on Sunday, June 14th. It was necessary to use tickets of admission to the floor for convenience of separation. About 140 of the others attended, and took their places in the gallery as “a silent protest” against the action of the others. That action is called “unconstitutional.” So it is: but it may be something better. There are higher acts than constitutional acts. Constitutionalities are secondary: essentialities come first, and sometimes must over-rule the other. What is the quality expressed by the word “constitutional?” That which is according to the constitution. And what is a constitution? The laws or rules agreed to for the pursuance of a common end. They are binding so long as the object of their existence is attainable by them; but when they become an obstacle to their object, they lose their force. There are times in the workings of every form of human society when it is legitimate to suspend constitutional forms. Constitutional forms grow out of vital conditions; and when vital conditions are interfered with, the constitutionalities collapse, whether in individual or corporate life. A man, for example, must have food and air. Interfere with these, and constitutional forms are nowhere. Society must be protected from violence; and in the presence of treason and insurrection, the constitutional forms that are serviceable for times of peace and order, disappear before martial law. A society of people are bound by their laws as long as the principles that underlie these laws are upheld. An ecclesia exists first for the truth of God (which is independent of all constitutions, and cannot be made the subject of legislation, but only of formulation for concurrent agreement); secondly, for the duty arising out of the truth; and thirdly, for its corporate operations as regulated by constitution (otherwise, concurrent assent). The foundation of the whole structure is the truth; and the first part of the truth, in our day, is that the Bible is the wholly-inspired and infallible word of God. The denial, or the toleration of the denial of this, is interference with a vital condition of ecclesial life, and calls for the disregard of human constitutionalities that may stand in the way of its resistance. This is the explanation and the justification of a mode of procedure which will be commended or condemned, according as the spectator sees God or man in the case. A zealous servant of God recognising the principle at stake will readily condone a mere question of mode in view of the vital interest secured. A man having hazy or faltering convictions of the inspiration of the Bible will, of course, lean the other way. The matter in question is not the accuracy of trifling Biblical details—whether genealogical or otherwise. It is the principle which has been laid down to account for supposed errors in these departments that has to be resisted to the utmost—principles which, when fully worked out—(and principles do work themselves out in communities, whether intended or not)—would reduce large parts of the scripture to mere Hebrew literature of questionable reliability; and, by re-action, all the rest as well.

*     *     *     *     *

The post card finally ended the controversy in the Birmingham, Temperance Hall meeting. A majority of brethren finally sided with bro. Roberts, and those who did not, were now out of fellowship.  Other ecclesias continued to weigh in on partial inspiration and on fellowship.

Chdn. 1885, pg. 328

Aberdare .—Brother Thomas L. Davies says: “I have the pleasure of reporting an addition to our small ecclesia. Eliza Llewelyn (38), formerly neutral, was, after a good confession, immersed into the sincovering name. She states that she heard Dr. Thomas lecture at the Mumbles, and has now rendered obedience. I have also to report that this ecclesia believes in a wholly-inspired and infallible Bible.”

Bournemouth. — ...We should be very glad of the assistance or company of any brother or sister who may be coming this way. Perhaps some, when reading this, may make it their business to come and give a helping hand, and thereby strengthen our hands, in the efforts we are putting forth, for the furtherance of the gospel.—But we expressly wish it to be understood that we have no sympathy with a belief in a partially-inspired Bible , and refuse to fellowship all who hold it.”

Evesham .—We have considered the question of inspiration of the Scriptures. We agree the whole work is of God. We read the portions daily, and as much of other books as we can. We hope to be accounted acceptable to the Lord at His coming.— George and Caroline Wagstaff .

Halifax. —“As there were no signs of a reconciliation with those meeting at Regent Street, it has become necessary for us to take a meeting-room wherein we might hold forth the ‘word of eternal life,’ as we are too numerous (21) to meet from house to house. We have been fortunate enough to meet with a suitable room, furnished with almost everything requisite, including a powerful harmonium. We opened our new room on Whit-Sunday, when Bro. F. R. Shuttleworth, of Birmingham, delivered two good lectures, on which occasion we were encouraged by the presence of a goodly number of brethren and sisters from Sowerby Bridge, Heckmondwyke, Elland, Huddersfield, and Bradford. The attendance of strangers was moderate.”

Newport (Mon.) —Brother Lander writes as one of those “who hug (yes hug, says he, excuse the term) the Bible to their hearts, and who are afraid to lose a bit of it, lest the enemy should shoot the breach, and wound us—it may be mortally.” He appends a declaration of the brethren at Newport concerning the Scriptures. “We, the undersigned do unanimously agree that the Scriptures, the whole of them , are God-inspired as Paul puts it, “ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” that is, that the Scriptures were produced in all parts of them by God’s direction, as Peter declares that ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,’ and we do not believe, nor can we entertain the idea, that there is a human element in them liable to err. We refuse fellowship to all who maintain that inspiration was limited to certain parts only, and that the other parts were the work of a merely human authorship liable to err.” He adds, “as yet we meet at one of the brethren’s house to break bread, but we are negotiating for a room; if we get it, we then shall begin active service for the Master if He tarries so long.”

Auburn ( N. Y .),—Brother Thomas Turner writes:—“The ecclesia here in Auburn, N. Y., consisting of ten members, wish to express themselves upon the subject of the ‘Inspiration of the Scriptures.’ We unanimously approve of the course pursued by brethren Shuttleworth and Roberts, and unreservedly accept the resolution passed by the Birmingham ecclesia.”

Continued in Part 2

-