August 1885

Kerrville, Texas, June 29th, 1885.

John Banta .

Efforts are being made to find a basis of re-approximation among those who are going asunder on the subject of inspiration. There may be a beneficial result in some cases. If the result were to be general, it would be a cause of gladness, but it is scarcely possible to hope for this. It is not merely a question of inspiration, but of the position we are to give that truth in our midst. Granted that the Bible is wholly inspired, are we to maintain that doctrine as a first principle? There are always these two aspects to every vital doctrine. A truth may be received by men who are prepared to wink at its denial in fellowship; and in such a case, a full basis of fellowship does not exist for faithful men; for the basis of our union in Christ is not only a concurrent reception of the truth, but a concurrent resolution to recognise and maintain that truth as the basis of our relation to him and one another. There is the truth, and our duty in relation to the truth; here are two things, and on both there must be agreement before there can be communion. It is not enough for a man to believe the truth if he remain in association with the church-and-chapel denial of the truth (for example). He must come out and “be separate.” He must “not receive” any man coming in the name of the truth who denies the truth. This is a very inconvenient, and to the natural mind, a very uncongenial course of action; but it is the course prescribed by apostolic law; and if we are to have anything to do with apostolic law, we must submit to it in its entirety. This was the battle that had to be fought twenty years ago on another question: the question of immortality. Granted that man was mortal were we to insist upon the recognition of that truth in our basis of fellowship? Some were disposed to be easy on the point: some were disposed to waive it altogether, and to be content with a “scriptural form of words,” and not to enquire too closely what they thought about the immortality of the soul.

If there is to be any re-union on the question of inspiration, there must be a common resolution to maintain the wholly-inspired character of the Bible as a first principle as well as a truth. It is here where our difficulty may lie. One newly-formed small community issues a manifesto proposing that the question should be considered “an open one.” “We do not,” say they, “hold it essential that we should be all of one mind in reference thereto . . and will allow full liberty of conscience.” This sounds very well in the popular ear, but it is by no means a scriptural attitude, and marks the difference between two sections that have come into variance. The one is prepared to leave as “an open question” that which the other regards as the most momentous truth upon earth in this age—the truth upon which all other truth hangs for them. If those who are exerting themselves in the interests of peace can produce unanimity here, their success will be complete and a cause of much thanksgiving; but if the “open question” way of looking at the matter is to be pressed, there is no hope. God prosper the efforts to a right result.

Heckmondwike. — We have also unanimously adopted the resolution upon which you have acted at Birmingham, respecting inspiration.”

. * * * * *

* * * * *

Bro. Roberts always refused to publish correspondence in the Christadelphian Magazine from those groups he was out of fellowship with. His refusal to publish some correspondence was called into question. It is important for us to understand this. Bro. Roberts did not publish matters he felt were wrong and effected fellowship. This is an important thing to remember as we view other brother's writings which appear in the Christadelphian Magazine. "Oh, but that is not bro. Roberts' writings" we are sometimes told. But from the following, we know that the things included are things bro. Roberts agreed with, especially when such things concerned inter ecclesial relations.

Yes, it is true that some brethren put meanings on words bro. Roberts didn't understand at the time, and never intended; and when the meaning was revealed, then there was disagreement on previously written articles. But the intent in all bro. Roberts writings was to put in his magazine "the truth," and not open it up for idle speculation. Bro. Roberts explains his policy for the brethren.

Chdn. 1885 pg. 466 "... Twenty-one years ago, on the recommendation of Dr. Thomas, I commenced the publication of a periodical devoted to the interests of the truth, at a time when the truth had scarcely any friends. Amongst other features, I gave prominence to that of systematic ecclesial intelligence from a conviction that the regular publication of such intelligence would tend to keep alive and give Scriptural form to the activities developed by the truth, promulgated by lectures, and otherwise. The thing worked as I expected, and it worked without any detriment so long as the professed friends of the truth were at peace one with another. But by and bye, here and there, dissensions occurred—sometimes on personal issues—sometimes on doctrinal differences. Out of these dissensions, withdrawals, and divisions arose. Here is the difficulty which has clouded and embittered the editorial conduct of the Christadelphian for years. One side would send a report of their action, apparently official and unchallengeable. The report would appear, and then next month, the other side would protest against it, and demand that their version of the matter should be accepted and published as the right one. Sometimes this would happen even before publication—both sides simultaneously claiming publicity as the party in the right. It was inevitable in such cases that some degree of investigation should take place. Had I been indifferent to the peace of the ecclesias, or insensible to the question of right or wrong, I would simply have given place equally to both sides, and allowed the Christadelphian to become an arena of public wrangle. Had I been merely bent on creating a reading constituency, I would have done this. But I had very indifferent views, whatever incensed friends may think to the contrary. I have tried to find out the right, determining to identify myself with the right only, in which, surely, I was within the province of each man’s individual prerogative. What earnest man would have acted in the same way? Having come to a conclusion as to where the right lay, I directed my principal aim to restoring peace—always. Failing this, I have closed the intelligence columns of the Christadelphian to those I considered in the wrong.

* * * *

Bro. Roberts answers yet another critical correspondent of his actions, explaining that they cannot fellowship the doctrine, or those who are willing to tolerate the doctrine. As the correspondent was from the New Street ecclesia, the letter was sent to the New Street Arranging board (who had previously sent a condemnation of Temperance Hall, for what they called "private efforts" to teach the Truth to their members.)

Chdn. 1885 pg. 514 "We merely wish to protect ourselves against the currency amongst us of a doctrine, which we regard as destructive of the foundation on which we stand. For such protection, the guarantee we ask has become necessary in the situation, created among the brethren throughout the world by the introduction and advocacy of the doctrine of partial inspiration. We shall consider that you afford us all the guarantee that is necessary, by your assenting to the declaration to which we ourselves have assented; and by you requiring every person in your midst to assent to it (the mode in which you ask that assent is immaterial, provided you agree to require it individually); the declaration in question, being as follows:—"We here by record and profess our 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 and now known as the Holy Bible) 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 . . . . . that the Bible is only partially inspired and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err."

* * * * *

The New Street brethren answered the above as follows:

Chdn. 1885, pg. 514-515

To the Brethren Meeting in the Temperance Hall, Birmingham.

Dear Brethren ,

The letter received from you, having been submitted to our ecclesia last evening (September 17), I have been instructed to reply as follows:—

“That this ecclesia having carefully considered the letter from the brethren meeting in the Temperance Hall, are unable to see in it any recognition or repentance of the unscriptural action taken by them on the 12th of June last, when, in private meeting assembled, they decided to cut us off from their fellowship, and the following Sunday physically shut us out from the table of the Lord (although a resolution was unanimously passed by the whole ecclesia in February last, ‘that no withdrawal should take place until the the scriptural course had been carried out’). We moreover observe that the article to which we are asked to subscribe is practically the same as that contained in the original post card, and to which more than one ground of objection was made at the time.

“We have already repeatedly declared that the foundation of our association is the conviction that the B ble is the word of God (see our enclosed official statement of June last), but in relation to the various theories of inspiration, we confess our inability to devise any better formula than ‘the form of sound words’ supplied by the Bible itself, such as the statement of Paul, that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.’

“We regard it as a departure from Apostolic simplicity to attempt to found the ecclesia of Christ upon any modern uninspired definition, which is unable to express itself in scriptural words, and we appeal to all who seek to uphold the apostolic doctrine and practice, to extend to us their hearty recognition and co-operation in our resistance of the endeavour which has been made to separate those who ought to be one. Signed on behalf of the ecclesia,

John James Bishop , Secretary.

Exchange Rooms, New Street,

Birmingham, September 18th, 1885.

* * * * *

As anyone familiar with these issues might expect, the pressure remained on bro. Roberts to reunite the Temperance Hall meeting in some way, with those he now called the New Street brethren. The uniting that is being called for is fundamental to our discussion. They are not calling for Temperance Hall to be reunited, but rather, that the two ecclesias might be recognized as sister ecclesias. Is this not the current Central procedure?

Appeasing these brethren, Temperance Hall sent the following proposition to them. The proposition requires the complete, individual acceptance of the doctrine of complete inspiration, and the refusal to fellowship with those who believe, or tolerate, partial inspiration. Note also that bro. Roberts has stated that the problem had been created by brethren "throughout the world" teaching partial inspiration.

Note how this impacts directly on the argument Here we have a separate ecclesia, the New Street ecclesia, made up entirely of sound brethren, asking to be recognized as a sister ecclesia, but being refused fellowship at Temperance Hall because they remain in association with two brethren across Britain. Here is bro. Roberts' answer.

Chdn. 1885 pg 520 Official Letter from Temperance Hall to the Separated Brethren of New Street Our object in this letter is to express our desire for mutual recognition and co-operation, if the conditions exist admitting of so desirable form of things. The conditions exist on some points we know; it is in your power to put an end to any doubt we may feel on the one that has divided us, relating to the character of the Bible, and the position our estimate of that character is to have in our basis of fellowship. If you are prepared to admit (and to ask every person in your fellowship to admit), the wholly inspired, and infallible character of the Bible, and to withdraw from every one refusing that recognition of its character, it will be our duty and satisfaction to work with you in fellowship as a sister ecclesia. The test we have applied to ourselves in this matter, we do not in any dictatorial spirit seek to apply to you. We merely wish to protect ourselves against the currency amongst us of a doctrine, which we regard as destructive of the foundation on which we stand. For such protection, the guarantee we ask has become necessary in the situation, created among the brethren throughout the world by the introduction and advocacy of the doctrine of partial inspiration. We shall consider that you afford us all the guarantee that is necessary, by your assenting to the declaration to which we ourselves have assented; and by you requiring every person in your midst to assent to it (the mode in which you ask that assent is immaterial, provided you agree to require it individually); the declaration in question, being as follows:— “We here by record and profess our 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 and now known as the Holy Bible) 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 . . . . . that the Bible is only partially inspired and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err.”

* * * * *

Correspondence continues to pour in validating the position bro. Roberts took on partial inspiration, and on fellowship. This correspondence, published by bro. Roberts is particularly relevant. Here is a member Liverpool, writing to other ecclesias what they must do. He is writing to the Christadelphian Magazine, calling for the whole brotherhood to declare where they stand with Temperance Hall or New Street. And note that he says, you can't be in fellowship with both.

Note here, bro. Robertsons' reference to the division. The lines of cleavage have become perfectly distinct. He demands of the brotherhood that they declare if they plan to remain in fellowship with Temperance Hall, or New Street. He tells them, we are bound to declare which side we are on, we can't hold ourselves in fellowship with both.

Now note here in regards to what our Nicodemite brother refers, in saying bro. Roberts never issued a world wide directive. The language has been carefully chosen, but it conceals the facts. Bro. Roberts did issue a world wide directive. He did not do so, as correctly asserted, on what each ecclesia must do. But he did issue a world wide directive that each ecclesia must tell what they have done. The following directive now plainly states that they must declare where they stand, and this will be referred to many times in the future correspondence. Some may excuse this as not written by bro. Roberts. But look to 1895, pg. 232 and you will see bro. Roberts making the identical argument.

Chdn. 1885 pg. 520

Correspondence from bro. Robertson of the Liverpool ecclesia: “ Two parties are now existing in Birmingham, one in Temperance Hall, and one in Exchange Assembly Rooms, and both claim the recognition and fellowship of the brethren throughout the world. They are mutually antagonistic, but from different reasons. The Temperance Hall ecclesia contends for purity of doctrine and fellowship, and on these grounds insists that when a question has been raised. touching these matters, that the answer should be straightforward and clear. It opens itself to the fullest examination by others and requires a similar condition in return. The New Street ecclesia seems to be moved by personal prejudices and antagonisms, and this is the more apparent since the appearance in the Æon of the letters of brother Hadley against brother Roberts, and which are characterised by what one of my correspondents, who frankly admits that he does not agree with all brother Roberts says and does, calls a ‘vicious spirit.’

“The position of affairs is one which now calls for action, and this should be taken in such a manner as will show which party the ecclesias severally approve, remembering that the cause of the whole difference in the beginning, was whether the Bible is wholly God’s book, or whether partly God’s and partly man’s, and this is the real point at issue, before the brethren, at the present time. We are bound to say which side we espouse, as we cannot accept both and hold ourselves in fellowship with both. The lines of cleavage have become perfectly distinct during the months that have elapsed since the question was introduced, and no one can remain any longer in doubt which answer to give to it now. For myself, I commend the position and attitude of the Temperance Hall brethren.”

* * * * *

The Glasgow ecclesia refuses to declare where they stand, and bro. Roberts refuses their correspondence, making the following comments. Note that failure to declare, in bro. Roberts' mind, meant you chose "New Street" and were out of fellowship with him.

Chdn. 1885 pg 522-523 "We can only regret, whatever the cause, that the brethren in Glasgow should so misread the duty belonging to every friend of God at such a time as this, as to refuse to say whether or not they consider the oracles of God entirely divine. We shall be surprised if there are not some, even in Glasgow, who cannot remain contented with such an equivocal attitude. It is not a question of the appearance of intelligence in the Christadelphian (which is truly a small matter, indeed), but of the continuance of fellowship with brethren in other parts who are resolved to have no connection with partial inspiration. Surely this is of "sufficient importance" to lead them to disclose their minds, even if zeal for the living God in an age of almost universal unbelief were not sufficient to move them. If the satisfaction of their brethren, and the continuance of unity and love and co-operation do not lead them to "consider it necessary to declare themselves," it is difficult to conceive of a situation that would constitute such a necessity. However hard they may try to believe that their "attitude towards the truth and the ecclesias throughout the world remains the same as in past years," they cannot alter the fact that their attitude is very different. Their attitude in past years was the attitude of an at all times frank and outspoken profession and defence of the faith in all its parts and particulars, even to the extent of admitting that the words of Scripture were "in their original form, the ipsissima verba of Deity." Now, it has become an attitude of reserve, and refusal to declare its mind on a topic of painful consequence which has agitated not "some ecclesias" but every company of believers throughout the world. For such an attitude at such a crisis, there must be a reason. The whole surroundings of the case suggest what it is: but it is not for others to indulge in surmise which might prove mistaken. It is, however, for every faithful upholder of the honour and name and truth of God to deny themselves the pleasure of fellowship where there is an uncertain sound in reference to the very first principle affecting the oracles of God.—Editor.].

* * * * *

Chdn. 1885, pg 522 Dudley.—Brother Hughes reports that the ecclesia here have resolved in future to refuse fellowship to any brother or sister from other ecclesias who fail to see the necessity for standing aside from those who refuse to repudiate the doctrine that the Bible is only partly inspired and contains an element of merely human authorship liable to err. Any brother or sister accepting resolution reported from Dudley in 1st September Christadelphian will be made welcome.

* * * * *

January, 1886

The problem is resolved, but the fallout continues into 1886, though greatly reduced. The ecclesias are continuing to work out their difficulties. But with the main problem reduced, the fellowship position of the brethren becomes more defined. Cardiff had declared on the side of complete inspiration, but some brethren are reported as separating from them over this issue.

Cardiff is an interesting case, for this is precisely the kind of ecclesia the Nicodemites say should be maintained in fellowship. They are sound, and have declared for the truth on the matter. They have affirmed that they will not fellowship partial inspiration in their ecclesia. Yet a few of their members still fellowship at other ecclesias, where partial inspiration is tolerated. Therefore, a few brethren separated from the majority in Cardiff, and it is the few that remains in fellowship with Birmingham, Temperance Hall. Pay particular attention to the ecclesia at Cardiff, as we go through the correspondence, for this feature never changes.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 38 Cardiff. —Brother Symonds reports the brethren here continue to hold aloft the Word of Life to the best of their ability. On the other hand, brother Thomas Davies has found it necessary to step aside until they define their attitude distinctly, both as to the doctrine and fellowship of partial inspiration. It is to be hoped the situation will clear.
* * * * *

Bro. Roberts refuses to publish Intelligence from Irvine:

Chdn. 1886 pg 41 "Irvine.—Brother Spence writes to deny that those who meet with him believe in fallible inspiration or in partial inspiration. He explains that the reason why brother Mitchell and the other brethren have gone away is, that those who remain cannot see their way to "wash their hands clean" (as he words it), of those who teach partial inspiration. This will seem a sufficient reason in the eyes of those who recognise that Christ holds an ecclesia responsible for false doctrine tolerated in their midst. Brother Mitchell and those with him had no other remedy."

* * * * *

Many write to bro,. Roberts, complaining about his actions and attitudes. He defends his action to them thus:

February, 1886

Chdn. 1886 pg 66. A. B. D.—It would be more satisfactory for you to say that you believe in partial inspiration, or that although not believing it yourself, you are prepared to fellowship those who do, than to say that you believe all that the Scriptures say on the subject, and that you object to be ruled by a theory. Who would propose to deny what the Scriptures say on the subject? and who would maintain a theory that was not the truth? Such a way of putting it is an evasion of the issue that has been raised. Nothing can be settled by this mode of treating it. Candidly declare that you mean to tolerate partial inspiration, and you will at the least earn the respect of those who differ from you. If you do not mean this, but mean what those mean who feel bound to object to the doctrine of partial inspiration in fellowship, there ought to be nothing to prevent you coming into harmony with them, and so end the strife.
Chdn. 1886, pg. 67

“The First Cause”

D.B.—See answer to J.C.H. It meets your case. The divisions are heart-breaking, but there is no help for them. They are forced on us. You think it is the other way. You can think this only by shutting your eyes to the first cause. If a man spoils the furniture in a house by throwing water about, to put out a fire kindled by a careless servant, who is to blame for the water—the man or the servant? The servant undoubtedly, though the man threw the water. Ahab complained to Elijah that he (Elijah) was a troubler of Israel in restraining the rain. Elijah denied the impeachment, and said it was Ahab that was to blame. How was this? Elijah was the restrainer of the rain, and yet put the blame on Ahab. Because Ahab was the first cause. Our current divisions have a first cause. Place them there, and you will be right. Proximately, they may be due to the action of those who cannot consent to the fellowship of the doctrine of partial inspiration; but who is to blame for their action? Is it not those who have introduced that doctrine, or who (the doctrine having been introduced) refuse to repudiate it or to disfellowship it? or who while in words disfellowshipping it, in actions do the contrary? The divisions are grievous, but they are inevitable; and the responsibility lies in those who are the first cause.

* * * * *

Bro. Roberts receives more critical letters, directly on the subject of fellowship and how it impacts this issue. This answer appears to be written against a complaint concerning his writings on fellowship, particularly the article called "The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship in the Truth." This is his answer:

Chdn. 1886 pg 69-70.

Fellowship

J. C. H.— We accept your friendly critique on the conduct of the Christadelphian in the spirit that prompts it. We cannot, however, accept all your positions. There either is or is not such a thing as Scriptural fellowship in our age. If there is not, we may as well abandon all attempts to apply Scriptural principles in our relations with men, and be content to drift on the unsettled waters of mere race-religionism—a Catholic among Catholics, a Protestant among Protestants, a Mahommedan among Mahommedans, a Hindu among Hindoos, &c. Presumably, you would not advocate this but would recognise that there must be at least an attempt to discern what the principles of revealed truth are, and to obtain a recognition of these as a basis of religious association. When you have conceded this, you will find yourself on the highroad to the Christadelphian position. There is no middle ground between that position and the absolute indifferentism of national ecclesiasticism. For what is the position? First, the recognition of apostolic truth as the material of individual conviction; and secondly, an acceptance of the duty coming along with it of limiting fellowship to those who accord a similar recognition. If this is a right position (and it has been proved in the article on fellowship to which you object), then it is no faithful man’s part to unite himself to those who may “differ from himself in his reading or interpretation of the Scriptures.” He is under apostolic obligation to withdraw where the truth, as he conceives it, is not received. You call this “setting up as judge and jury in the matter and acting as though we were the divinely accredited arbiters in the question as to the true meaning of some or all of the works of God.” This is a mis-description. The man in such a case judges and jurifies himself merely. He decides that his surroundings in a given case impose upon him a certain line of duty. In this he is a divinely appointed arbiter in so far as God requires him to discern and perform his duty. You look at the act as it bears on those from whom he withdraws. It is this that confuses your view. You speak of “ excluding ” from fellowship. This is not the question: it is “withdrawal.” There is a great difference. No enlightened man will claim jurisdiction over another. His jurisdiction is limited to himself: and here, surely, it is absolute. If the conditions of Scriptural association do not exist, he is bound to perceive the fact and act upon it, or else accept the character of neutral, of which the divine law provides no recognition. It is not a case of pulling up the tares, but of acting a part apostolically enjoined. The tares are still left, if tares they are. It belongs to God to pull them up. Nevertheless it belongs to men who may wish to be garnered with the wheat to meanwhile act a faithful part by the truth which God commits to every man who receives it, and when necessary to “withdraw from every brother who walks” inconsistently with apostolic principles. You suggest that this was the prerogative of apostolic authority only. Look into it and you will see it is apostolic advice and command to believers. We do not require apostolic authority to obey apostolic counsels. Apostolic counsels are as valid in the 19th century as in the first century; otherwise it would come to this, that the apostolic work was confined to the lives of the apostles, and that there can be no compliance with apostolic principles, (and therefore no salvation) in the nineteenth century! It doubtless would “require the gift of the Spirit,” as you say “to act with the authority of Christ” with regard to others, but a man does not require the gift of the Spirit to decide his own attitude towards men and things. What may be the right attitude, he has to find out; when found, he is bound to take it, or incur condemnation on the day of account. He requires no inspiration to see when the doctrines or the commandments of Christ are set aside: and when he sees this, Christ has commanded him what to do as regards continuing or not continuing his participation with the unfaithfulness. He leaves God to deal with the unfaithful; but while he does this, he is not absolved from the duty of exercising his own discernments, and “coming out from among them.” We have truly no right to excommunicate: but we have a right to take ourselves away , if circumstances call for it.

Chdn. 1886 pg. 86 Birmingham Miscellanies

The work of the truth is reviving. Three have obeyed the truth, besides those whose names appear this month in the ordinary Intelligence department under “Birmingham,” and others are interested.

One or two have left us for the Exchange Rooms. At least, so it is reported. We have no official intimation of the fact. There is no hope of re-union. It is vain for the Exchange brethren to profess belief in complete and infallible inspiration while remaining in fellowship with those who believe and teach partial and erring inspiration. And it is a mockery to make objection to an alleged unscriptural course of withdrawal, while taking no course, scriptural or unscriptural, to wash their hands of a God-dishonoring and Bible-destroying heresy. Let them purge their hands by any process they like: and there may be peace. But so long as there is complicity with the evil, and a contention for “licence of opinions” concerning the truth, re-union is impossible. The matter must wait the judgment seat.

Chdn. 1886, pg . 96 Worcester ( Mass .)—Brother Bemis reports the adoption, by the ecclesia, of a resolution (which was carried unanimously, November 15th, 1885) claiming complete and unerring inspiration for the whole of the original Scriptures, and refusing fellowship with all who have sympathy with the doctrine of partial inspiration.
Chdn. 1886, pg. 136 Ecclesial Notes by bro. Roberts
The division on inspiration has created a situation which perplexes some minds. The mist of this perplexity may vanish. The “other side,” as some speak of them declare they believe in inspiration as much as those who have left them. A sister, the other day, put the matter to a perplexed one in a form coming within the grasp of the simplest capacity—“The doctrine of partial inspiration has been brought in; and there are two parties: one will tolerate it, and the other will not. You must choose which you will belong to.” This is putting the issue in a nutshell. It requires but one addition: that those who tolerate partial inspiration, while protesting there is no such thing, and that they believe in a wholly-inspired Bible, are in association with those everywhere who, by speech, in print, and by profession proclaim their belief in an inspiration that results in a Bible partly divine and partly human and erring. Not only so, but there are those among them who, in conversation, speak of parts of the Bible with an irreverence that devout minds could not sanction without sin.

* * * * *

Bro. Roberts' final sentence in the following paragraph reminds me so much of our Central brethren's recent communications. Read the article "Understanding Self and the World We Live In: What are the Causes, Results and Cures for Cultural, Political and Religious Liberalism and Reactionary Conservativism?" and it is easy to see that not only is the doctrine of fellowship not understood, but they also can't help themselves from casting evil motives on those they neither know, nor can understand. We take comfort in observing bro. Roberts perseverance, knowing he had endured much more of this, than we have to.

Birmingham Miscellanies

Chdn. 1886, pg. 181-182 There are those who have asked for “proof” of the necessity for standing aloof from an assembly like the Exchange brethren, who protest their belief in a wholly-inspired Bible. Those who have the capacity to discern proof can certainly have it without going far or taking much trouble. First the Exchange brethren are where they are because they refused to signify their recognition of the necessity for standing aside from all who refused to repudiate the doctrine publicly promulgated by one brother, and publicly endorsed and defended by another—viz.: that the Bible was not infallible owing to inspiration having only produced so much of it as was beyond the power of man to discover for himself. This was the proposal submitted to them, which they declined to endorse. If they say, “We do recognise the necessity, only we object to your way of asking us to express it,” it is in their power to express it now in unequivocal terms and our separation is at an end, at which no one will rejoice more than we. Instead of this, they have stood aside from no one—not a single soul: on the contrary, they can publicly take tea with and listen to a discourse from the man who attributes error to the word of God; and receive in open embrace both at their table and on their platform men in sympathetic association with him and in open refusal to believe in the complete and unerring inspiration in all parts of the country. Is more proof wanted? Then, here it is: those are now with us, both in Birmingham and elsewhere, who were in doctrine with them at the beginning, and who will tell that they were believers in partial inspiration, but have changed their minds. Is more proof wanted? Read their published utterances and behold their hostile attitude toward those who are fighting for the Bible as the complete and unerring word of God, with whom by their professions they ought to be the best of friends. These are “proofs” open to the eyes of every one who have eyes that can see. If some cannot see, they ought not to add sin to misfortune by imputing evil to those who can.

* * * * *

Bro. Roberts adds this without explanation in Ecclesial Notes:

Chdn. 1886, pg. 183 An ecclesia professing to believe that the Bible is wholly the work of inspiration, but passes a resolution so loose in its terms as to admit believers in partial inspiration, has itself to blame, if, instead of excluding partial inspiration, the effect of its resolution is to exclude those who can make no compromise with the evil thing. A resolution of this character, instead of creating confidence, destroys it in spite of the utmost desire of faithful brethren to cultivate it.

* * * * *

In the following, bro. Roberts allows to go unchallenged bro. Edwards assertion that he regards the separated ecclesias as "mere Gentile Protestant Church". He does not allow the comments quoting the Exchange brethren, that bro. Roberts "lords over the ecclesias" to go unchallenged, but he does this previous one. Do our Nicodemite brethren regard the errorist ecclesias of Central (which they themselves recognizes exists) to be no different than the churches? And if so, why do they maintain any relationship to them whatsoever?

Chdn. 1886. pg. 191 Lanesville (King Wm. Co.).—Brother L. Edwards writes: “You may, perhaps, be surprised to learn that Sister Edwards and myself retired from the Lanesville “Church” about the first of January, and have since been quietly breaking bread at our home. Like yourself, I have been under great trial in what I have hitherto regarded as our Ecclesia , but am now reluctantly forced to regard as a mere Gentile Protestant “ Church .” It has been, for some time, a sad and perplexing problem to me which did not reach a full and satisfactory solution until I was present at a Call Meeting held on the 15th inst. to consider the questions profounded in the paper I herein enclose, and which will give you an idea of the trouble. Strange to say, but fraught with significance, the “Inspiration” wedge seemed to bring the hollow-hearted Christianity of the body into full view. I was prohibited from taking an active part in the proceedings, and for the most part, sat a silent observer. . . . A division, I think, is inevitable. There is some good material in the body, out of which an ecclesia may be formed, and, with the Lord’s help, I trust it will be done. “There must needs be heresies among you , that the approved may be made manifest.” The ecclesia , as well as the “ Churches .” To me, it seems the greatest conflict and trial to “keep under the body, lest, while we preach to others, we ourselves may be castaways.” The flesh is the great enemy of the spirit , and here is the heat of the battle. My impression is strong that the “Exchange brethren,” and others have taken the idea that brother Roberts wishes to ‘lord it over God’s heritage.’” (The idea is a pure invention. It has been created and fostered by men whose feelings unfit them to understand our course. Men who love the truth before themselves, have no such difficulty. We exercise no lordship but the lordship of argument, and would most gladly sink even this in the presence of a pure and capable championship of the truth. Whenever we have thought we have discovered this, we have given place-with what results, now appears. Ed. )—His attitude, for the last 25 years, makes him a target for their arrows of suspicion, else denying, as they do, that they believe in partial inspiration, it would be the easiest matter possible to take his position in this controversy. They should be no less jealous than he, of the purity and integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and would not suffer “The Word of God” to be touched by even the semblance of human authorship and error. This is the ground that I prefer to take, as the safest as well as the most invulnerable. I trust I shall never be in sympathy and fellowship with any one who may presume to challenge, in the very least degree , that Book which even all civilised nations regard as the Word of the Living God .

* * * * *

A RUN HITHER AND THITHER
Chdn. 1886, pg. 231 ...Returning the same evening to Huddersfield, lectured there again on Wednesday evening; and on Thursday, attended by request a meeting for the adjustment of misunderstandings which were keeping a dozen or more away from the meeting. A successful result arrived at. next day, went to Keighley, for a similar purpose—to confer, by request, with two separated (since re-united) sections of the ecclesia.—Returned same night:—at least had arranged so to do, but the train to Leeds was late, and the connecting train forward to Huddersfield was gone, so had to spend the night in a Leeds hotel, going forward to Huddersfield early in the morning. From Huddersfield, returned to Birmingham, whither Sister Roberts, at the claims of duty in Birmingham, had preceded me several days. April 3, started for Scotland. Left Birmingham 8.30: arrived Kilmarnock about 4 o’clock. An ecclesia of over 20 here, of some two years standing, though some of the members of it have been many years in the truth. They are of the devout, earnest, uncompromising type which Christ’s messages to the seven Churches in Asia show us is the acceptable type. This is one of the few places where the inspiration controversy has produced union instead of division.— ...On the following Tuesday, ran down to Irvine, and lectured to a good audience in the Town Hall. Here the brethren are unhappily divided. They may re-unite should it prove possible to agree on the absolutely divine character of the Bible, and the duty of insisting on this in fellowship...Remained till Thursday, and then took the train for Glasgow.—Lectured night of arrival in the Assembly Rooms, South side. Next night, met with the brethren at a soiree in the large room of a Temperance Hotel—a larger gathering than we could have anticipated in view of the extent to which compromise with partial inspiration prevails among the professors of the truth. The small company (between 20 and 30) that have taken a faithful stand on behalf of the absolute divinity of the Scriptures meet in the Masonic Hall, South side. They are growing in strength and comfort daily. They arranged the soiree for mutual cheer. After a substantial tea (at seven o’clock), the Editor in compliance with invitation gave a history of the unhappy inspiration controversy.
* * * * *

Chdn. 1886, pg. 239 Sydney. — Brother Logan reports: “The efforts of the brethren have been favoured with a considerable amount of success during the past year, although the lectures are not so well attended as we would wish, and as might reasonably be looked for in such a central position as the Temperance Hall. I have to report the obedience of seven since I wrote last: F. G. Mumby (26) Dec. 8th, 1884; Hannah Barton (57), March 7th, 1885; George Bamford (23), April 15th, 1885; Henrietta Riddell (35), April 16th, 1885; John Dillon (23), Jan. 3rd, 1886; John Larmour (69), Jan. 25th, 1886; John Williams (30), Jan. 28th, 1886. Sister Pilkington, from Blackburn, who has been in the hospital some weeks, has now recovered, and met with us last Sunday; also Brother Sly, from Gloucester, who has been two years in Glen Innis (Australia). Brother and Sister F. D. Gordon, who went with the Masonic Hall brethren, have returned to the Temperance Hall.”

* * * * *

Here bro. Roberts prints a request from a brother, that a list of the ecclesias who have affirmed bro. Roberts position on partial inspiration and fellowship, that they may know who they could fellowship. Of course bro. Roberts was already doing that, by printing some correspondence and refusing others.

Chdn. 1886 pg. 283 "Now with respect to the inspiration question, I wish you would publish a list of ecclesias down to present date, who have decided, by resolution, to stand on the basis of a wholly inspired Bible as a first principle. The publication of such a list would be very useful, and would be the means, I think, of several ecclesias that now hesitate of coming to a decision. We should then know who we could fellowship. Ecclesias too would see that there is not such a thing as a neutral position, which some are trying to assume, but would recognise the truth of the axiom ‘He who is not for us is against us,’ and declare themselves one way or the other."

* * * * *

Journey Jottings by bro. Roberts

Chdn. 1886, pg. 327-328...I took up the idea brother Andrew had developed from James 1 .—the necessity for trouble in the development of the spiritual man—referring naturally to recent experiences as having been calculated to put every one to the test on the score of spirituality. Spiritual men held close to the Word of the Spirit—the Bible—as the only point of contact with God in this age of the hiding of God’s face—the only form of God’s honour to which we could practically stand related. They could not submit in the least to the doctrine that it was partly the erring word of man. This was to blaspheme the Word of God. It was to say that God had imperfectly done His work. More, it was to say that the work of God was the work of man. Their resistance to this doctrine had plunged them into a sea of trouble; in a sense they were not sorry. They could respond to the exhortation of James, to “count it all joy when they fell into divers temptations (trials.)” The end of all trial was fast approaching. A glance at the signs of the times was made to enforce this last thought.—Afterwards, brethren Lake, A. T. Jannaway, and C. Meakin addressed the meeting, expressing their approbation of the attitude that had been taken in opposition to partial inspiration, and their dissent from the ideas which some entertained concerning the editor of the Christadelphian. (Some will call all this gossip. As they are not in a mood to exercise good judgment, I must simply endure their unkindly talk, knowing there will shortly be an end, and that good work will survive when the ferments of human bitterness will have subsided in the grave.)

* * * * *

One of the most interesting correspondence received by bro. Roberts relevant to this discussion, is this one from Cardiff. Remember Cardiff declared that they would only fellowship those who denied partial inspiration, but has had some withdraw, because a few members refused to stop fellowshipping in other ecclesias where partial inspiration was tolerated. Therefore, fellowship with Cardiff ceased. Bro. Roberts receives a protest which he won't print from bro. G. A. Birkenhead. It goes directly to the source of our discussion. The Newport brethren had stood aside from the majority at Cardiff. They sent in correspondence indicating that Cardiff fellowshipped with partial inspirationists. Bro. Birkenhead writes to say there are no partial inspirationists in Cardiff. Bro. Roberts still refuses his correspondence and notes that it doesn't matter that there are no partial inspirationists in Cardiff. The Cardiff brethren fellowship errorists in other ecclesias, and therefore, they cannot remain in fellowship with Birmingham, Temperance Hall.

Chdn. 1886, pg 329 Cardiff.—Bro. G. A. Birkenhead demurs to the statement appearing in the Newport intelligence last week to the effect that the Cardiff brethren "fellowship brethren who do not believe that the scriptures are wholly inspired." He says it is a grievous calumny. We cannot understand this unless it be that the demur applies to brethren actually in Cardiff, while the statement demurred to applies to brethren elsewhere and anywhere. In this case, the demur is misleading, because locality makes no difference to fellowship. There may not be any in Cardiff, but there may be a few elsewhere with whom they are in fellowship. It is all the same whether it is Cardiff, Birkenhead, Edinburgh, or London. If the Cardiff brethren are prepared to refuse fellowship to partial or erring inspiration, or to those anywhere who make themselves responsible for that evil doctrine by tolerating it in their fellowship, it is in their power to put an end to all misunderstanding by saying so in unequivocal terms. If this is not their mind, they should not speak of calumny in reference to those who only say the truth. If it is their mind, they should not appear to refuse to make it known by objecting to the statement of it as an "extreme resolution," and by holding fast to a form of words that would allow partial inspirationists to honestly unite in their position. We extremely regret the issue: but the issue exists, and it cannot be settled by reference to the worthiness of brethren on one side or other. We must shut our eyes to persons when the truth is in question. "Worthy men," so considered, are to be found among the sects. We cannot safely judge by such a rule, but we can judge if the truth is denied and tampered with.—Ed.

* * * * *

Bro. Roberts again defends his call for all ecclesias to declare where they stand, so that other ecclesias can know who they can and can't fellowship. This is not an option. It is a necessity. Failure to declare, as many ecclesias did, meant they were out of fellowship with Birmingham Temperance Hall.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 378 We know the difficulty of persons at a distance correctly judging local action.—Judging by a multigraphed series of five argumentative propositions enclosed in the letter, the difficulty concerns the necessity for defining their position. The propositions argue that it is superfluous. Surely, it is a sufficient answer to all arguments on this subject to say that it cannot be “superfluous” to do that which will restore peace and union. A superfluity that will banish discord cannot be a superfluity. It is not a superfluity. The introduction of the doctrine of partial inspiration has made it a necessity. This doctrine has tarnished many, with the result of sowing the seeds of spiritual decay hereafter. A section of the brotherhood will make no compromise with it. Its repudiation has become a necessity for the continuance of peace. In these circumstances, it seems as if earnest men ought to have no difficulty in throwing to the winds all objections to a course of action which might be superfluous in times of faithfulness and peace, but is far from being so at a time when the brotherhood have been tacitly invited to consent to crroupt doctrines about the Word of God.
* * * * *

Clause 35 of the Constitution (remember that the Common Constitution is a part of the Berean Basis our Nicodemite brother objects to) is sometimes advance to show that one ecclesia can fellowship a brother, and another ecclesia will not. This is, of course, the logical outworking of Clause 35, and it is a reasonable clause. This has been practiced by the Bereans in the past, but by the grace of God, we have no such difficulties right now. The point of the clause assumes that brethren are all agreed on the facts of the truth, but disagree on how those specific facts should be applied in a certain case. Bro. Roberts points this out in the following answer to a correspondent. The correspondent complains that it justifies the arguments of those who are opposing bro. Roberts, and supporting "Open Fellowship." Bro. Roberts points out the difference between sincere, truth defending brethren differing on how a specific instance should be handled, and brethren promulgating and defending error.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 422-423 An esteemed correspondent objects to the 35th clause of the new Birmingham constitution, as a concession of the principle of open fellowship contended for by some:—(the clause provides that where two ecclesias differ in judgment as to the facts of a case of withdrawal—one receiving a person that the other cannot receive, they shall not make it a cause of separation from one and another, where a proper course has been taken). A little consideration ought to alter our correpondent’s impression. “Open fellowship” claims the toleration of unscriptural doctrines and principles. The clause objected to does not do this at all. It assumes that scriptural doctrines and principles are received as the basis of fellowship by parties who have the misfortune to disagree as to the personal application of these principles in a given case. There ought to be provision for difference of judgment in such a case, otherwise an impracticable rule of fellowship would be set up. The basis of fellowship ought not to be extended beyond principles. The opinion we may hold of a given person ought never to be a basis of fellowship, so long as we are both agreed what the Scriptures require such a person to be.

For example, two ecclesias agree that honesty of dealing ought to characterise the disciples of Christ. But a case arises in which aggrieved parties allege that a certain brother is a swindler. We will suppose that their convictions are so strong and their influence so prevailing, that the brother is withdrawn from. The said brother believing himself to be an honest man does not accept the withdrawal, and applies to a neighbouring ecclesia for fellowship, giving them such an account of transactions as to make them inclined to think a mistake has been made. They do not receive him at first, but communicate with the first ecclesia and ask a joint re-investigation. The re-investigation takes place with the result of convincing them that the charges of swindling, &c., are mere constructive charges, and that the facts of the case are capable of another understanding. What is to be done? Are the two ecclesias to be estranged from one another because of their inability to agree as to the nature of business transacted between two men? No doubt such a disagreement is a misfortune, and an interference with the perfect harmony that ought to subsist among the Lord’s brethren, but there are times when we are compelled to put up with disagreements in the spirit of mutual forbearance, and if there ever is such a time it is when there is a difference of judgment as to personal transactions that are so easily liable to be misunderstood. Doubtless, such a situation—one ecclesia fellowshipping another which fellowships a brother which the first cannot receive—is theoretically out of square, but, in an age when there is so much out of square, we are obliged to submit to some absence of perfection in our arrangements, choosing the least evil, that we may in some tolerable manner make our journey through this howling wilderness, and not absolutely sit down in a dead halt. In the Lord’s absence, we have in many things to be like Carlyle’s mason, content with stones “square enough.” Absolutely square they cannot at present be made. While you are squaring them at one side, they get wobbly at the other.

Our correspondent asks, “Is it not by reason of ‘difference of judgment as to facts merely’ that you are separated from those at the Exchange?” Answer: Not altogether. There is a confessed difference of principle, which is the key to the different construction of facts and the different attitude observed. In their publications, they have openly repudiated “verbal” and “plenary” inspiration, and exhibited variations and discrepancies in justification of their view that the Holy Spirit did not dictate the entire writing, and in their personal communications they have declared they “cannot conscientiously say” that they believe everything in the Bible to be inspired; “they once thought so, but they have changed their minds.” They have supported the partial inspiration publications from the beginning, and the publishers of these have claimed them as of the same mind,—a claim confirmed by their own sayings, and by their own refusal to repudiate the doctrine introduced by these publications. Per contra, there is merely their declaration that “they believe in inspiration as much as brother Roberts,”—a declaration which naturally can have no weight in view of all the other ingredients of the situation, and especially because the declaration is only made when there is a desire to prevent the conscientious adherent from falling off. There is not in this case the unanimous and hearty endorsemen of scripture principles which Clause 35 pre-supposes, but the open and manifest compromise of these principles while verbally endeavouring to obtain the credit of accepting and upholding them. It is in reference to vital and fundamental principles of truth that the remark was made last month, that “the question of fellowship is as vital as the question of the truth itself:” and not in reference to the possibly mistaken personal applications of these principles by those receiving them in sincerity and truth.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 426 Mumbles. — Brother D. Clements writes that the anticipations of further increase expressed in the last report that appeared in the Christadelphian , have been realised. The following have complied with the first requirement of the truth, viz., immersion into the Lord’s name:— Thomas Rees, Edith Ellen Howells, Mary Bolsdon, and Sarah Jane Bolsdon. The latter case was one of some anxiety, inasmuch as she was suffering from an affection of the heart which the doctor considered so dangerous that he would not consent to her being immersed. Our sister had the courage to say, that if she died under the operation, it would be better than living in disobedience to the Lord’s requirement. “We accordingly warmed the water and earnestly besought the Lord to give the strength necessary to obey. We were thankful afterwards to find all was well. In fact, our sister is now much better in health than she has been for years, for which she joins us in gratitude to God. This makes the number of those banded together in defence of the Truth at Mumbles, 19. We may truly say, “in defence of the Truth,” for after all the loud talk at the other meeting, they have made themselves one with those meeting at the Exchange Rooms, Birmingham.”

* * * * *

In answers to correspondents we find this comment by bro. Roberts:

Chdn. 1866 pg. 572 B.H.—It has never been contended that brethren who compromise with partial inspiration have ceased to be brethren. But they are brethren in an attitude of offence against the truth, and as such, are ineligible for the fellowship of those who fear to be implicated in the sin for which the others make themselves responsible. Christ will judge; but it is meanwhile for those who desire his favour to hold aloof from questionable associations—in the doing of which, they do not “judge” offenders, but merely refuse to share the guilt of imputing error to the Word of God.

* * * * *

So how careful was bro. Roberts being as regards to the lines of fellowship? This correspondence from Neath answers that question. Brethren presented a resolution, which was accepted by a minority. Bro. Roberts publishes it, acknowledging that these are the brethren "in fellowship." The side now out of fellowship presents a perfectly satisfactory case, but bro. Roberts just notes it, not publishing their correspondence, because they are now out of fellowship, and have to work things out with their brethren in Neath.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 426 Neath. —Writing from Mumbles, brother Gregory says the recent action of the brethren here,—(in standing apart from all who will not take unequivocal ground on the subject of fellowshipping loose ideas on the inspiration of the Scriptures)—has been attributed to any and every cause except the right one. They take comfort in the reflection that He who knows the hearts and thoughts knows that to do otherwise than they have done was impossible in the circumstances. Their only regret is that the action was not taken earlier, when it would not have affected so many. To prevent mistake or misapprehension, the brethren desire it to be known that those now in fellowship are the following:— Brethren : David Jones, Peter Tucker, Jos. Tucker, Henry Dabbs, and W. Gregory. Sisters : Fanny Gregory, Miss Jones, Martha Bailey, and Mrs. Reed.

(We have also received a letter from brother Samuel Heard, in defence of those who refused to sanction the proposition submitted to them by brother Gregory. He asserts they believe in the entire inspiration of the Scriptures and will fellowship none who believe in partial inspiration, or who fellowship those who do. It is enough that we publish this allegation, regretting that they should in that case have made a difficulty about the proposition, which would have put all straight.— Editor .)
Chdn. 1886, pg. 474 Bourton on-the-Water. —On Sunday, September 5th, a proposition was carried unanimously refusing fellowship to those whose hands are contaminated with the unclean thing (partial inspiration).
Chdn. 1886, pg. 564-566 Bristol. —The truth has never had an encouraging history here, and the indications are that matters are not to mend. Some time ago, several went over to open infidelity. A step is now taken which paves the way in the same direction. Bro. Coles reports thus:—“We have been many months endeavouring to bring the ecclesia to a decision upon the inspiration question. First, we wrote to the editor of the Æon asking him if he still adhered to his endorsement of the views of the editor of the Exegetist upon the subject; to which he replied in the affirmative, expressing surprise that we should ask such a question. Then we wrote the secretary of the Exchange ecclesia, enquiring if they endorsed the articles in the Æon on the same subject; and if they would receive the editor at the Lord’s table if he presented himself. The reply to this letter—and one or two subsequent ones—was so ambiguous as not to satisfy brother Stainforth, myself, and two or three others. But the majority voted it “perfectly satisfactory:” upon which brother S. intimated that he should withdraw from the ecclesia unless a more satisfactory state of things ensued. Another meeting was called after that, and a resolution made and carried unanimously, to the effect that the divine inspiration of the Bible was recognised in all its parts; and that fellowship would be refused to anyone holding contrary views. Subsequently brother S., myself, and perhaps one or two others, were uneasy because some brethren were being received at the Lord’s table unquestioned as to their views. And lastly, it was agreed to invite the Exchange ecclesia to send some one to represent them to state their views and answer such interrogatories as might be put, so that we might finally decide whether we should fellowship them, as representing the partial inspiration theory, or otherwise. The result was a visit, yesterday week, from brother Bishop, who made a long statement of wrongs—real or imaginary—inflicted upon them as an ecclesia, and was closely questioned by brother Stainforth, who had prepared a voluminous list of extracts from the Æon and the Fraternal Visitor , sufficient as bro. B. said, to last a week in order to explain. After his departure, a meeting was held to finally decide the matter. While the matter was under consideration I called upon brother Stainforth, and was not a little surprised to find that after opposing the views contained in the Æon , as well as some of the articles in the Visitor , and condemning the editors of the latter for their sympathy and patronage with and of the editor of the former,—he had changed his mind, believing “brother Bishop to be right, and brother Roberts wrong” and, as chairman yesterday, he put the resolution to the meeting; so far as I can glean, the chief points of brother Bishop’s contention that have influenced brother Stainforth, are:—1st.—The discrepancy in the record of the inscription on the cross by the three Evangelists; 2nd.—The differing accounts as to the “voice at the transfiguration”; and 3rd.—The differings of the words spoken by Jesus and Paul with reference to the Lord’s supper, all which matters—and many others, such as Paul asking for his cloak, and not knowing how many he baptized—were gone into by brother Bishop. I wish it to be known that I took no part whatever in regard to the resolution adopted, beyond objecting to vote for it. Brother Bradley and myself were the two dissentients. I do not think there were any more.”

The resolution adopted has also been forwarded from another source in a communication not signed. It thanks brother Bishop for his satisfactory answers, and declares the conviction that the Exchange brethren are sound in the faith, and requests brother Roberts to discontinue a course of conduct that looks too much like lording it over God’s heritage, that peace and harmony may be restored. Brother Roberts would be delighted to have peace and harmony restored. The very idea of it makes him glad. But wishing to have a thing is one thing; getting it is another. Getting it is a thing of conditions. The Bristol brethren have a right in the Lord’s absence to come to any decision that may commend itself to their judgment, but they ought not to forbid a similar right to others. They do this by implication. They stigmatise a contention for a recognition of the unerring character of God’s word as a basis of fellowship, as a “lording it over God’s heritage,” or a looking like it. They have come to the conclusion that it is not unerring because of the so-called “discrepancies” and “differing accounts” submitted to their consideration. They have a right to come to this conclusion if they cannot see their way out of it, but let them not profess to be of the same mind with those who strenuously reject their conclusion as either a denial of inspiration or an insult to it, and logically in the long run, a displacing of the Bible from its position of supremacy. Let them openly say: “We believe the Bible to be only partly inspired because of the variations in the inscriptions on the cross, or if we don’t like to say that, we will say that we believe it to be all inspired, but we do not believe that inspiration keeps a writer from error.” They will then at least earn the respect of those who are sorrowfully obliged to disagree with them, but when they say “We believe the Bible to be wholly inspired, and that there are no errors in it; yet we cannot reconcile the discrepancies with the idea that inspiration really guarded the writers in all they wrote”—they needlessly embitter an unfortunate divergence of view by an endeavour in words to maintain two incompatible positions. It would be far more satisfactory to openly and frankly accept the issue than to deny that there is an issue, and all the time keep that issue open by their arguments. We regret it is not in our power to compromise the issue, and we can only try and submit with patience to the gratuitous and humiliating personal imputations arising out of a painful course of duty. The Lord will shortly give his verdict, and for this we wait with confidence—not doubting that many who are now antagonising the right way will submit gladly to his manifested mind, and become friendly where they are now hostile—if he permit. It will be a terrible time for the unbelieving world and all who dally with its blasphemous sophistries.— Editor ).

* * * * *

There are some interesting numbers in regard to the Christadelphian Magazine after the division. Some of our Central brethren reference our small numbers compared to their "huge" numbers as a testimony to how futile our position is in their eyes. Of course, it is not their eyes that we are anxious to be approved. But after 40 years of efforts by bre. Thomas and bro. Roberts, there are only 1500 subscriptions anticipated. The real truth has never been popular. Compromise has brought large numbers, and will bring larger ones in the future. Had bro. Roberts kept in the Dowieites (now added to Central) and those who desired to keep the nature of Christ and open question (now added to Central on all continents) and the Partial Inspirationists (now added to Central) and the Unamendeds (now added to Central in Britain) his subscription lists would have been huge! It would seem to me that todays Antipas class (Bereans, OldPaths/Wayfarers, Dawn, Lampstand) number now, what they did then. But there were only eight men and women that got on the ark! Bro. Roberts chose to despise the pleasures of sin for a season, and stand with the pitiful (in numbers) minority of brethren, anxious for the purity of the truth.

Chdn. 1886, pg. 572 The January Number .—Some have renewed subscription too late to obtain the January number. We printed 1,500 copies, thinking this would be likely to meet all demands in the circumstances created by the introduction of the doctrine of partial inspiration. But with the incoming of the new year, the subscription list went beyond that point (and is every day increasing).
B.H.—It has never been contended that brethren who compromise with partial inspiration have ceased to be brethren. But they are brethren in an attitude of offence against the truth, and as such, are ineligible for the fellowship of those who fear to be implicated in the sin for which the others make themselves responsible. Christ will judge; but it is meanwhile for those who desire his favour to hold aloof from questionable associations—in the doing of which, they do not “judge” offenders, but merely refuse to share the guilt of imputing error to the Word of God.
* * * * *

There is much wisdom in bro. Roberts' following answer to GFL. When men set themselves in a determined fashion, to follow a wrong course, the best course for us is to leave them alone. Everything else will come to harm, and that harm to us! We have been told of on going efforts to unite the Antipas back to Central, in which Central expects to be successful, by which we are saddened. The Dawn brethren have recently been weakened by a return to Central. Constant dealing with propositions of reunion, and unsound associations ultimately will result in reunion, and in every case, on an unsound basis. In almost all cases, it is best to take those brethren who have elected to compromise with the world, and echo the words of the Lord through Hosea about Israel: "Ephraim is joined to idols, leave him alone." With Ephraim, we fully concur. But this appeal is to Nicodemus. We have no use for Ephraim, and am quite sure he has no use for us.

G. F. L.—The tendency among such as are loose in their dealings with partial inspiration, to wink at the denial of the judgment, is to be expected. It cannot be dealt with to any advantage. It is a tendency outside the fellowship of the truth, and therefore has none of the power for mischief it would have within. Perhaps it is best to wait. When men set themselves determinedly in a wrong course, the best way of dealing with them is to “let them alone”—a course prescribed by Scripture and reason, and justified by universal experience. We cannot help them and may hurt ourselves by continuing the friction inseparable from the contact of wisdom and folly ( Prov. 29:9 .)

1887

After two strife filled years, articles and debates start to abate, and the information on Partial Inspiration is reported more matter of factly, being mostly limited to the Intelligence sections, where the movement of brethren between fellowships are recorded.

Chdn. 1887 pg. 41 Huddersfield. —Brother Heywood reports that brother John William Edwards has been united in marriage with sister Jane Howe, of Elland. Sister Howe (now sister Edwards) endorsed the resolution not to fellowship partial inspiration or any meeting not in fellowship with the Huddersfield Ecclesia and was received into fellowship. Miss. Ann Waker (28), formerly Church of England, having made a satisfactory confession of the faith, was to be immersed December 15th into the saving name of Christ Jesus our Lord.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 45 Walker-on-Tyne. —Intelligence from the brethren here was withheld during November and December, in consequence of the reported uncertainty of their position with regard to the doctrine and fellowship of partial inspiration. Correspondence has resulted in the following final communication:—“ Dear Brother Roberts , —After two special meetings of the serving brethren and one of the ecclesia, I am now in a position to reply to yours of the 17th ult., I may say the resolution we subjoin is the unanimous decision of the brethren and sisters forming the Walker-on-Tyne ecclesia, which it is hoped will meet with your approval and secure to us the unity of the Spirit, and fellowship of all true brethren and sisters of the Lord Jesus Christ. With respect to our standing in regard to the ecclesias at Newcastle and Gateshead, we take it as defined in the subjoined resolution.—Yours in hope, Jas. Harker.”

“That we believe the Bible is the Word of God, and, therefore, unerring in its character; that we offer the right-hand of fellowship to all brethren and sisters who are of the same mind; and further we deem it our duty to decline the fellowship of all who believe and teach the contrary”
Chdn. 1887, pg. 47 Centre Point (Tex).—The cause of Bible truth has had a checkered career in Texas. First the immortal emergence heresy sent us in twain, leaving the advocates of the truth somewhat in the minority numerically, but as the battle went on the ranks of the opposition party were thinned down, until we now outnumber them about 15 to one. Next came the unpardonable sin question which gave us trouble for a time, but it finally came to an end by all acknowledging the truth. Then came the heresy that Christ is not officiating as High Priest, and will not so officiate until he reigns as King. After a fierce contest this wind of doctrine was silenced also. Then arose another wind of doctrine, viz.: That none but baptised believers will be resurrected and brought to judgment. This has been a stubborn and boistrous gale, but it has now cahned down to a very weak breeze, which will not be tolerated longer than our next annual gathering. We have had some minor winds to blow for a while, such as the formula used at baptism, some claiming that unless the words “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” were used by the administrator of baptism, it was not a valid baptism. This like the others has nearly subsided. We have had some contention also over the question of marrying with the alien, but I believe all are now agreed that it is not right. We have always been one on the question of fellowship based on the pure truth as it is in Jesus, with very few exceptions, and a hearty compliance with the commandments and precepts of Christ, as a necessary prerequïsite to a pure fellowship. On the great questions which caused such widespread havoc in England and other places, viz., “Renunciationism” and “Partial Inspiration,” we have never been shaken; and by the help and favour of God we are determined to continue to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints” as long as we can use either tongue or pen. For well do we know that nothing short of the truth in its purity and unadulterated simplicity will save us from death, and equally well do we know that unless the truth is obeyed from the heart every day of our lives, we will fail of salvation. May God help us in our weakness is my fervent prayer through Christ.— John Banta
A TRUE CHRISTADELPHIAN ECCLESIA

Chdn. 1887, pg. 168 We republish the following series of scriptural definitions from a pamphlet letter just issued by Bro. J. T. Edwards, of Lanesville, Va., U.S.A. The definitions are not his but those of his father, bro. Lemuel Edwards, M.D., who wrote them for private submission to some leading members of the Lanesville Ecclesia at a certain stage of their troubled experience. They are quoted by the writer of the pamphlet letter in his account of that experience. Readers will probably be of opinion that they are worthy of reproduction in the pages of the Christadelphian :—

“ a true christadelphian ecclesia .”

5 th . “ Fellowship in Christ .”

The Christadelphian Ecclesia knows that “If we say we have fellowship with Christ and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth. “If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another.” “And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ.” 1. John 1 . She knows that righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness, no concord with Christ and Belial, no communion with light and darkness. ( 2 Cor. 6:14 .) She knows she walks in the light by keeping the commandments of Christ, who says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say.” “My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it.” Christ’s brethren do not fellowship liars, for “lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,” and no lie is of the Truth. They “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” therefore if a man calls another a liar, and still fellowships him, he is no Christadelphian. The tares and the wheat cannot grow together in Christ . They can, and do, in the world.

8 th . “ Her Work and Purity .”

The Christadelphian Ecclesia is engaged in the work of making ready a people prepared for the Lord, and having a glorious Hope based on great and precious promises, she will purify herself by “purging out the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and keep the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

Her work is not a work of ignorance, idleness and indifference, which says “Christ fellowshipped Judas,” “Let the tares and wheat grow together,” “Every one must give an account for himself,” “I have nothing to do with what another says or does,” “Let us have peace,” “You must not judge,” &c.

And this , the Ecclesia, or Body of Christ the pillar and ground of the Truth, and the Temple of God in which His Spirit dwells!!

9 th . “ Her Warfare .”

The Christadelphian Ecclesia knows she has a great conflict with foes within and without—the world, the flesh and the devil—the lusts of the flesh—the lust of the eye, and pride of life; and if she can be the victor in the warfare, through Christ who strengtheneth her, she will receive an eternity of blessed life for her reward, and this the gracious gift of God through Christ. She knows the gate is strait and the way narrow that leads to life, and though there be few who find it, she is not discouraged. She strives to the end with an honest, sincere, and pure motive, and what she lacks through the weakness of the flesh, her Redeemer, in whom she trusts, will supply by his all-prevailing righteousness to her unspeakable joy, and everlasting blessedness.”

Chdn. 1887, pg 185 Bristol. —Brother Coles, referring to the article last month, “The words of the apostolic writings in relation to inspiration,” says: “For my own part (and I can also speak for brother and sister Bradley) I am thoroughly convinced—or rather confirmed in my previous impressions—that your views are correct. Brother Stainforth claims that your views very nearly approximate to his own, seeing that you admit the duality of the process of inspiration (if it may be so termed) as between the Holy Spirit and the prophets and apostles themselves. But of course there is a wide difference between the words of the latter being under the control of the Spirit, and their being allowed to use words of mere human fallibility. I saw the letter which was sent you from brother Stainforth through brother Bishop, and one of the remarks that I made upon it was ‘Is it not charging the Deity with looseness (to say the least) to surmise that He did not control the words conveying the ideas, since you admit the inspiration of the ideas themselves.’ To this brother Stainforth replied: ‘It would, no doubt, be so if I were to say that He had allowed His ideas to be affected by the inaccuracies of the Bible, but I have endeavoured to show that while I recognise the existence of the inaccuracies, I deny that they affect the ideas.’ There is still a great gulf between the advocates of partial inspiration, and those who contend for the infallibility of the Word of God in its entirety. No other      course but ‘standing aside’ is at present open to those who contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

*     *     *     *     *
Chdn. 1887, pg. 240 Rochester (N.Y.) — Brother Tomlin reports the removal to England of brother and sister W. Wall, consequent on the death of brother Wall’s mother at Birmingham. Brother Tomlin says the Rochester ecclesia lose two very highly esteemed members, whom they cordially recommend to the fellowship of brethren and sisters of any ecclesia who refuse fellowship of partial inspiration, renunciationism, or any other “wind of doctrine” that has disturbed the unity of the one faith.
*     *     *     *     *

Correspondence from The Kidderminster Temperance Hall meeting, to the meeting they withdrew from in Kidderminster.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 283 Dear Brethren ,—Your letter was laid before the Brethren and Sisters last Sunday morning; and they . . requested me (much against my wish) to write you again and deny, emphatically, your assertion that we separated ourselves in an unscriptural manner. The facts are these: When the theory of “Partial Inspiration” was put forth, it was accepted and warmly defended, and we requested the Managing Brethren to convene a meeting to consider the matter, but they refused; and matters got worse. It was said openly, “Now, we can meet the Infidel.” “This is just what we want,” &c. There was only one course open for us, and that was to withdraw.

We are sorry you cannot see your way clear to declare for a wholly inspired Bible . . . There have been times in the history of the “Truth” when sharp and decisive action had to be taken ( Num. 16. 20 to 35 , and Num. 25, 1 to 9 ) and so in this matter of inspiration.

Your repudiation (of responsibility) amounts to nothing; the fact remains that the responsibility falls on you for two meetings being held in the town. We have done our duty, and more than our duty, in letting you know our intentions . .

To say that “such resolutions as we propose,” &c., “are contrary to the truth, and to the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . You fail to catch the spirit of Christ; there were times when he was angry ( John 2 , 15 , Mark 3 , 5 ), and opposed to error ( Matt. 24 , 4 , and he never sacrificed truth for the sake of peace, Yours truly. A. H. Braginton .

* * * * *

As an introduction to the Intelligence section bro. Roberts writes a powerful article on fellowship, which we included in "The Doctrine of Fellowship" and also have had included on this website for years, under the name "Distance and Fellowship." His paragraph was simply a comment on the intelligence he was receiving, but it is very powerful in focusing us on his beliefs about the correspondence he was receiving. Some brethren try to tell us that this is only talking about fellowshipping Mormons. Of course that is not true. Bro. Roberts uses the issue of Mormons, in order to draw the comparison to "those who will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures." Since all the ecclesias would not fellowship Mormons, or have any problem declaring such; why are ecclesias arguing that they shouldn't have to declare concerning the doctrine of partial inspiration? That is the question bro. Roberts asks.

In its context, this argument is even more powerful than when it stands alone, in a collection of works. Note that the partial inspirationists are likened to Mormons, or churches in the world. That is how complete he viewed his separation from these brethren.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 328-329 Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. They think they are not in fellowship with a meeting or ecclesia if they do not pay or receive a visit from it, and that they are only in fellowship with those actually in their midst. If this were correct, there would be no fellowship “one with another” in personal absence, whereas John declares this to have been the case with those from whom he was personally absent. Fellowship is that recognised mutual relation of harmony that only waits the opportunity of personal intercourse for its fullest enjoyment. This harmony exists or does not exist quite irrespective of the opportunity of its practical illustration. If, therefore, when an ecclesia is asked, “are you in fellowship with the Mormons?” it answers they cannot settle the question as to the Mormons as a body, but must wait for individual Mormons to apply for each individual case to be decided on its own merits, such an answer is an evasion of the question. What holds true concerning the Mormons, is true of the Church of England or of those who will not avow their faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures. An ecclesia that is not able to say whether they are in fellowship with such, but must wait for individual applications, is evidently in such a doubtful relation to the question as to prevent confidence on the part of men of straight purpose. Men do not require to come within so many yards of each other to know whether they are friends. Friendship of this circumscribed order would be a relapse to barbarism. And so a body of men professing to receive the truth in its uncompromised fulness and integrity, do not require to pay or receive visits from another body or members of it, (who are in a doubtful attitude) to say whether they are or are not in fellowship with it. A little reflection on this ought to clear honest men of all difficulty in defining their position—a process which had become necessary before the apostle John closed his eyes.

* * * * *

An interesting letter of Intelligence comes from Sis. Randles of Swansea. She had read some correspondence in the Christadelphian, and wrote to tell the editor that she is glad for the current state of things, but that the letter does not represent the truth of the past. There is much of this confusion in the Christadelphian. A brother is reported as a visitor from an ecclesia, only to have the local ecclesia write and say that the brother does not belong to them, but to the Partial Inspiration ecclesia in their community. If our Nicodemite brother's conclusions about fellowship was correct, all of this would be beside the point. But of course it isn't, which is why the brotherhood was very careful to keep each other informed, even if in some cases, after the fact.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 379 Aberdare. —Sister Randles. of Swansea (returned from a visit to this place) reports the death of sister Pugh, who died on the 27th June after months of acute pain, during which she could only sleep with the aid of narcotics. Brother and sister Randles attended to assist at the interment. Sister Pugh was conscious to the last, and on the morning of the day of her death, insisted on having her “portions” (the daily Bible readings) before breakfast.

Sister Randles also refers to the declaration of the Cwmaman brethren appearing last month in favour of a wholly-inspired infallible Bible, and their determination to make that truth a basis of fellowship. She says those with whom she is identified in Swansea were very glad to see such a declaration, but are perplexed with its concluding statement that the Cwmaman brethren have never acted contrary to that declaration. On Jubilee day, they took part at a tea meeting at Aberdare, at which were present members of meetings from Rhondda, Cardiff, Swansea, and Mumbles which are all in fellowship with the “Exchange brethren” mentioned in the Cwmaman declaration. Sister Randles says that the brethren at Cwmaman may be personally on the right side of the contention with regard to the Scriptures, but by fellowshipping those who receive the Exchange brethren into their midst whenever they come, they make themselves a link in the wrong chain, and cause difficulty with those who would like to be at one with all who take the position defined in their declaration. “We cannot,” she says, “fellowship at Aberdare those whom we refuse to fellowship in Swansea.”
Chdn. 1887, pg. 381 Huddersfield. —Brother Heywood reports a reduction of numbers through the leaving of brother L. E. and E. J. Edwards, also the sisters Edwards and Dora and Hetty Kendall. They now meet with those who tolerate partial inspiration. Brother Heywood says: “Although reduced in numbers, we have unity, love, and comfort in God’s Word and the work of the truth,"
Chdn. 1887, pg. 422-423 Ecclesial Notes. It is one of the lamentable features of the schism caused by partial inspiration that whereas many had escaped from the corruption that is in the world through this lust, many may now be found slinking back into their old habits, offending God and man by their unholiness, and aggravating their sin by speaking evil behind the backs of those whose only offence is their insistence on the right ways of God. It is for each man to save himself from a generation that is sunk in the stupefactions of every form of iniquity: and in this effort, we must needs throw off the incubus of professed friends of the truth, who would bring us into bondage again to the world.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 470

ECCLESIAL NOTES

A loose basis of fellowship is convenient, and easily becomes popular with inexperienced believers or obtuse believers of long standing. It is agreeable to human feeling, but it is out of harmony with the apostolic standard which demands “the whole counsel of God” and “the unity of the faith.” The loose basis admits of a large co-operation with men and a little more of the friendship of this world than is possible with those who accept the strangership-with-God which the truth always brings with it where it is earnestly and fully received. Of course, it is defended as a scriptural thing; no man would admit his way to be unscriptural; but it may be very unscriptural for all that. A man thinks he takes very scriptural ground when he says he is content with what Paul required:—“Jesus Christ and him crucified.” But his misuse of the words he quotes becomes manifest when he attempts to answer very obvious questions. Does he mean that he would not require a belief in Christ’s resurrection? Does he mean that he would ignore the question of whose son Christ is? Does he mean that he would leave out baptism and the condemnation that has come on all men through Adam? Does he really mean that he would require no more as a basis of fellowship in the truth than a belief that there was such a person as Christ and that he was crucified?

It would probably turn out that he meant no such thing. It would probably turn out that he would require all that is meant and involved in these terms. “Jesus Christ and him crucified” is a brief periphrasis of “the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ”; and was never intended as an indication of how little of the truth would do, but as a definition of the whole truth in contrast with the wisdom of the Greeks which Paul determinedly ignored in his intercourse with believers.

In every other attempt by the quotation of phrases, to excuse a loose and limited basis of fellowship, the same fallacy will be apparent. The truth is a complete thing. It is made up of coherent parts; and any consent to ignore any of the parts is unfaithfulness to the whole, and must inevitably lead, as it always has done, to first the gradual corruption and then the ultimate surrender of the whole. There is no safe, or logical or Scriptural position but that of requiring the whole truth in its integrity. To say it is a sufficient basis of fellowship if the mortality of man is admitted and the Kingdom of God allowed—whether a man know God or not, or understand His Son or not, or know of his Spirit or not, or receive the commandments or not, or believe in the priesthood of Christ or not, or in his appointment as judge for life or death at his coming or not, or in the nature of the devil he came to destroy or not, is to show either one of two things—either that there lacks capacity to grasp the commonest issues of divine truth or that there is a predominant susceptibility to human sentiments and friendships and conveniences. We have long since washed our hands of such unfaithfulness to the truth of God: and we will not now consent to those who say there never ought to have been such a hand-washing (though they took part in it). Dowieism was rewelcomed by Renunciationism when Renunciationists broke away from the restraints of the truth. And partial inspirationism is repeating the same evil course. Friends of the truth have need of the adamant face and brazen forehead enjoined on Ezekiel. It is an unpleasant necessity but must be accepted if the truth is not to slide back once more into the slough of world-wide corruption from which it has been fished up and washed in these latter-days.

Antagonism, if allied to ardour and acerbity, is liable to be unfair without intending it, perhaps. It indulges in those euphemistic and ambiguous allegations in which every faction, in whatever question, vents its heat against those who differ from it. The inexperienced or the undiscerning are liable to be led away by these ex parte dogmatisms. They do not enquire into the substance of the high sounding generality, which when brought to the test of precise definition, collapses like an air-blown bag under a juvenile blow.

What is the “popery” that some cry out about but inflexible insistance on the right—with courtesy where possible, but always with inflexibility? Would the out-criers do less than insist on the right? Do they give in to the wrong? Oh no! say they, but you are not the judge of the right. Who is? Is it you? Suppose they say, “no one,” what then? Is there no right? Oh yes, they may say; but it is for each man to judge for himself. Very good: “each man”? And we as well? Are we not to judge for ourselves? Must we accept their judgment? Must we make “popes” of them? Our friends are not reasonable with us. We judge for ourselves alone in all matters of faith and practice. We impose our judgment on no one. If we cannot agree with the critics, we are sorry. If others agree with us, we ask in vain for the hundreth time, why are we to be charged with this as a crime?

And then this “unrighteous action”—what was it? Merely throwing aside a human arrangement when it no longer answered the divine ends for which we all agreed to it. A ship is good when she is sound, but if she gets scuttled by pirate or mutinous crew, the sane passengers will not be very leisurely about getting into the boat. A house rented from the landlord will be occupied by a tenant so long as it is in a state that answers the objects of the tenancy: but if bad drainage that cannot be cured shew itself, or infectious disease adheres to the locality, or the structure begins to give way all over from the dry rot, the sane tenant will clear out without much formality.

Our paper constitution was powerless against the organised perfidy of two regularly published papers with a phalanx of secret sympathisers. There was nothing left but to put aside the paper constitution. It was a human expediency. There was nothing divine in it when it ceased to be useful. It was necessary to adopt measures that would make manifest to each other those who were sworn to maintain the oracles of divine truth against the secret unfaithfulness that had just become public and which was carrying all before it like a flood. Those who could not diagnose the situation were naturally taken by surprise, and putting a bit of this and a bit of that together in an irrelevant manner, they made an evil matter of it. Faithful men enquired and learned to read the matter correctly and were glad of an opportunity of showing themselves unambiguously on God’s side. The “unrighteous action” will be seen in a totally different character when things on earth come to be exhibited in a divine light, as they will shortly. What seems unrighteous action to men, may be, and often is, righteous action in the sight of God. God sees differently from men. Actions promted with a view to Him, have always in the world’s history appeared shocking in the eyes of those who cannot rise above the views, impressions and surroundings of the moment. Our appeal is to another day.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 473 Huddersfield. —The brethren and sisters Edwards deny that “they now meet with those who tolerate partial inspiration.” We publish the denial without making the Christadelphian in any way responsible for it. It is no doubt sincerely meant, but it is probably like many other cases in the country in which, through not recognising how wide-reaching a thing fellowship is, sincere disclaimers are on one side and facts on the other.

Chdn. 1887, pg. 521 Kilmarnock. — ...Brother Haining also reports that sister Jane Mullin, who was for some time in fellowship with the ecclesia here has left this place, and is now in association with those who practically maintain the theory of the partial inspiration of the Bible.”

Interesting letter exchange with bro. Thomas Williams. This of course, did not end well, due to bro. Williams refusal to take a responsible stand on Resurrectional Responsibility.