1889

Chdn. 1889 pg. 57  Birmingham Miscellanies  Sister Annie Harris, who has until recently been meeting with the brethren in the Masonic Hall, has returned to our fellowship.

BIRMINGHAM MISCELLANIES

Chdn. 1889, pg. 122  Sister Hannah Kendrick has returned to our fellowship from the Masonic Hall.

*     *     *     *     *

The following is yet another comment by bro. Roberts directly to the point.  How do you deal with the brother who is personally sound, but willing to fellowship those who are in error.  The Nicodemites answer is that we are not responsible, so we fellowship the sound brother regardless of who he associates with.  Note how that differs from the advice bro. Roberts gives, which is actually a quote from a letter written to a sister "years ago" which shows bro. Roberts views on this point have not changed.

DUNDEE

Chdn. 1890 pg 73  I am happy to inform you that sister George A. Terras, from Cupar, Fife, has come to reside here. She is anxious to cast in her lot with those who believe in a wholly-inspired Bible. Consequently she requests you to state, through the Christadelphian , that henceforth she ceases to Fellowship those who hold on to a doubtful position in this question. She herself repudiates the doctrine of partial inspiration, and believes the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were wholly inspired, as originally given.— Thomas Mitchell .

CUPAR FIFE

Chdn. 1890 pg 116  We, the undersigned brethren and sisters meeting in Cupar Fife, desire it to be made known through the Christadelphian that we repudiate the doctrine of partial inspiration, and believe that the Scriptures are the inspired and infallible Oracles of the Deity throughout, and do refuse fellowship to all that believe otherwise.— James Brown, John Young, Mrs. Isabella Walker, Maggie Walker .

*     *     *     *     *

Bro. Thomas Williams published an article in his magazine, which urged the incredible care and concern we must have for the ecclesia.  Bro. Roberts printed the article as it raises many important points that faithful brethren are anxious to observed.  But it also overstated certain points, points which eventually resulted in bro. Williams leaving the faithful path, himself.  One of those related to his handling of Paul's dealing with the ecclesia at Corinth.

Chdn. 1890, pg. 172-174

Remarks on the Foregoing

Every spiritually-minded brother and sister will cordially respond to the definition of the ecclesial institution as a divine tabernacle, pitched “in the midst of a waste howling wilderness of unenlightened humanity;” and all such will cry a hearty “Amen!” at the suggestion of “almost inexhaustible patience and carefulness” in our dealing with such an institution. Yet some care is needed in the deductions we draw from Paul’s attitude to the Corinthian ecclesia. Some have argued on that attitude in a way to nullify his express directions in other cases, which can never be intended by the writer of the foregoing remarks.

Paul had authority as an apostle which he could use with decisive effect in case of need. It was authority he had received “not for destruction but for edification” as he said: but still it was authority which he was prepared to use, “since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.” ( 11 Cor. 13:3 .) He could say “if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him.” ( 11 Thes. 3:14 .) We all know that men having authority in any matter to fall back upon, are naturally patient and gentle to a degree not so easy where there is nothing but argument and equal influence to set against the teaching of opposition. This has to be considered in judging of Paul’s tone and attitude towards an eeclesia in so corrupt a state as the Corinthians. But as to the right attidude towards such corruptions in the abstract, we must gather them where that is the subject in hand.

Paul recognised the original character of the Corinthian ecclesia as “God’s building,” and argued against the various corruptions and doctrine and practice that prevailed at the time of his writing. But he did not mean that these corruptions were to be disregarded in fellowship. On the contrary; in the case of fornication referred to, he said “ Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” ( 1 Cor. 5:13 .) He found fault with them at their indifference, and that they had not “rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from you ” (verse 2 .) His argument goes powerfully against retaining such: “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven .” (verse 6 .)

When he says “Judge nothing before the time” ( 1 Cor. 4:5 ), he is speaking of the brethren’s personal judgment of himself—a thing forbidden concerning all brethren, and a thing that cannot accurately be done. He is not speaking of ecclesial attitude to wrong doing. He does not mean that we are to shut our eyes to manifest disobedience or denial of the truth in our own midst. On the contrary, he makes the enquiry as if to something well understood and notorious:—“Do ye not judge them that are within?” ( 1 Cor. 5:12 ) that is, in the cognisance of manifest evil-doing, to the extent of refusing to eat with any man called a brother who is a fornicator, &c. (verse 11 ). So, though he argues with some who denied the resurrection, we are not to conclude that he regarded such a denial as compatible with a continuance of fellowship if persisted in. We must judge on this point by expressions directed expressly to the question of how error persisted in is to be dealt with. On this, he does not speak ambiguously. Even to the Corinthians, referring to an approaching third visit, he expresses the fear that he should be found such as they would not like. He only writes in the tenour of apparent toleration, “lest,” says he, “being present, I should use sharpness according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification and not to destruction” ( 2 Cor. 13:10 ). “Shall I,” enquires he, “come unto you with a rod, or in love and in the spirit of meekness? ( 1 Cor. 4:21 ). “Being absent now, I write to them which heretofore have sinned and to all other, that if I come again, I will not spare ” ( 2 Cor. 13:2 ).

In other epistles, the indications are quite explicit (and it cannot be that he contemplated our ignoring what he says in one epistle because of what he has said in another). To Timothy, he plainly says, “Withdraw thyself” ( 1 Tim. 6:5 ) from a class of professors whom he describes as “proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,” who “consent not to wholesome words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He also says: “Avoid profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (verse 20 ). He also advises him to shun certain “babblings” personated by Hymenæus and Philetus, “ who concerning the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already .” To Titus he says, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition, reject” ( 3:10 ). To the Romans: “Mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them ” ( 16:17 ). John speaks plainly to the same effect: “If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house” ( 2 Jno. 9–10 .) And the messages of Jesus to the seven Asian ecclesias are all more or less in the same strain.

It is all according to reason; for if we were at liberty to ignore departure from the faith and practice of the Gospel, it would certainly happen in the long run that both must vanish from our midst. Friendliness would indispose a man to be critical; decay would set in as the result of the indifference. Thus the ecclesia would prove the reverse of the pillar and ground of the truth. No community can ever hold together that winks at the denial of its own principles. It cannot be that the foregoing article is intended to advocate such a thing, or to inculcate anything opposed to something so obviously scriptural and reasonable as the maintenance of the faith and practice of the Gospel by the refusal of fellowship where they are denied.

What must be intended is the discountenance of individual secession from an ecclesia on insufficient grounds. Against this mistake, the argument is powerful, and will be upheld by every discriminating friend of the truth. We perpetrate a wrong against Christ if we separate ourselves from his brethren on the ground of some personal grievance against one or more in their midst. There is a right remedy for this; and if from any cause, we cannot apply it, let us forbear. In such things, we are to practice the “almost inexhaustible patience and care” spoken of, and even in matters of error, we must be quite sure the wrong is espoused, and give every one an opportunity of repudiating the wrong, before we resort to the extreme and irrevocable remedy of separation, by which we throw the issue entirely on the final judgment of Christ. There may be cases in which we have no alternative, but it is far better if we can settle differences before we meet Him.

Editor.

 

HUDDERSFIELD

Chdn. 1890 pg 196   We are glad to report the increase of our Ecclesia by the return of brother Walker Beevers, latterly in fellowship with the tolerationist meeting. We received this letter from him:—“March 9th.—Dear Brother Heywood,—I am wishful to be in fellowship with your Ecclesia, being fully convinced I have been in fellowship with those that countenance partial inspiration.—Yours in the one hope, Walker Beevers .” (Brother Heywood narrates circumstances proving the allegation contained in brother Beever’s letter.)—I am also pleased to report the immersion into Christ of Eusebia Cheetham , daughter of brother F. Cheetham, also of my daughter, Rose Heywood . There is much comfort in having our children walking with us in the wisdom of the Word.

Chdn. 1890, pg. 233  from Birmingham Miscellanies 

We hear that brother Joseph Dorricott, who has not met with us since the turmoil caused by the sugar collapse, has united himself with the jot and tittle objectors of the Masonic Hall. (By the way, we do not use this designation in any contemptuous sense. God forbid that we should show contempt to any man. But we must be correct in our descriptions. “Brethren” simply and purely would be misleading, because this implies faithfulness to the word of God; which cannot be affirmed of those who hesitate to say the Bible is wholly inspired and infallible. They object to be called partial inspirationists, but they do say inspiration does not extend to “every jot and tittle.” Consequently, they ought not to object to a designation which literally embodies their own contention. We wish we could please them without sacrificing truth and duty. The Lord will judge between us presently.)

Bro. Roberts makes an interesting comment about an event which took place in Birmingham, at a park, between the Christadelphians and the Partial Inspirationists..  It shows the seriousness of the division which had taken place five years previous.

Chdn. 1890, pg. 273  From Birmingham Miscellanies  "A large and interesting tea meeting on Whit-Monday was preceded by a rambling visit on the part of a few to Sutton Park, where they spent a season in scripture reading and conversation in the quiet seclusion of the “North dell.” While so engaged, a number of those separated from us on the question of inspiration assembled on the other side of the little valley and sang “Brethren let us walk together.” It was very pretty, but misplaced. If there had been music for the Scripture words “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” we might have responded. Any other response would have been unsuitable, so we remained silent. Union has to be spiritual before it can be social.—In the evening, an unusually excellent meeting took place in the Temperance Hall. Brother and Sister A. T. Jannaway were present from London. Brother Jannaway much edified the meeting in an address on “Holiness,” the topic chosen for the evening’s meditation.—Brother Shuttleworth made some excellent remarks on the eve of sailing for Canada, where he has since safely arrived, if we may judge from the shipping telegrams."

*     *     *     *     *

Bro. Roberts is again challenged to debate by bro. Hadley in the Visitor magazine and bro. Roberts declines.

Chdn. 1890, 274-275  Dear Brother Hadley ,—Thank you for the “proof” of your article, which I might not otherwise have seen, being too busy to read all the printed matter that comes through the Post.

Your remarks, I fear, leave matters exactly as they were. It is natural for you to object to a description conveying unfavourable implications; but verbal repudiation, however earnest, will not get rid of the sore. There is a method of getting rid of it, and it would be to me a great joy if that method were practicable for you and those with you. Get rid of the thing causing the description. The phrase, “jot and tittle” in this connection is not mine. It is your own (speaking of you all in a collective sense). It was used hundreds of times during the unhappy friction that ended in our separation, and was even formally employed in the recent correspondence; “not every jot and tittle? What about Paul’s cloak? What about this? What about that? Not every jot and tittle.” Such was the constant refrain. Have you changed in this? If so, there might be some hope of an end to the strife. If not it is idle to hope to gloss over the grievous issue. We cannot shut our eyes to the connection of the thing. The phrase, and the arguments buzzing around it were all used in defence of the view that had been introduced into our midst, that the Bible was only partly inspired, and that there was error in it; that its histories were not necessarily reliable, &c. We asked you to repudiate these views. You refused. You defended the men and the papers that advocated them. We had no alternative but to step aside from you. We did not cast you out. We have no power to do this. Whatever casting out has taken place has been your own act, due to your inability to unite in the position we were obliged to take. As soon as we are of one mind, nothing will be easier than to come together again, or at least to walk together as two bodies in fellowship. As soon as this unity is attained, I am prepared to submit to any personal censure as to the mode of separation employed. I am sure the censure will be very mild at the hands of those who are zealous for the word of God in this day of its extreme dishonour. But even if it is severe, I will make no difficulty on that head when you are prepared to allow the wholly inspired and infallible character of the Bible, not excepting even jots and tittles.

You deceive yourselves if you think it is a question of “human definitions” that is keeping us apart. It is meanings—not words, that are at issue. Our contention is that, by whatever mode, the whole Bible is the production of the Spirit of God in the men who wrote it, and therefore infallible in its jots and tittles. You do not agree with us as to this question of fact , and there is the trouble. If you did, our trouble would end: but as you do not, it would make it pleasanter on all sides if you would recognise the issue in its own honest character, and not maintain the issue and in the same breath contend there is no issue, as you do when you say, “We believe the Bible is wholly inspired, but not every jot and tittle.” This is like saying, “We believe the Bible is all-inspired, but not all inspired.”

Our resolutions have not been framed for the purpose of “shutting out” men at all, but for the purpose of shutting out the false and dangerous doctrines advocated by them. We were obliged to mention names for the sake of identifying the doctrines. Only those who sympathised with the doctrines could make any objection to this apostolic method:—“of who is Hymenæ is and Philetus.” It was no indifferent matter to us, however it might be with others, that there should be lurking among us a theory that undermines the authority of the written word of God, upon which alone, in this day of His hidden face, we stand.

It is not a question of Temperance Hall and Masonic Hall as to individual deserts. We judge no man. But in our spiritual relations we have to note the attitudes of men. We have to take men at their professions, provided their professions are not self-stultified. Whatever deficiencies there may be among the Temperance Hall brethren, they are prepared to affirm their belief in the wholly inspired and infallible character of the Bible, including all its jots and tittles. The Masonic Hall brethren are not prepared to do this. They say “not every jot and tittle,” and therefore “jot and tittle objectors” is their accurate description. To say that there are no particular jots and tittles that they object to, does not mend matters. On the contrary it makes matters worse; it makes all the jots and tittles uncertain. It makes the disease universal instead of limited.

You are comforted that some find you “not so bad as represented.” We have not spoken evil of you at all. We say you take such a position with regard to the Scriptures as to suggest doubt with regard to their divine character in all particulars. This is the plain issue, which no amount of elegant periphrasis can conceal. If imputing error to the Bible is no crime in the eyes of the common run of men, it is one of the worst of crimes in the eyes of all who seek to be the sons of God: unless it be exceeded by the doctrine that makes void the commandments of Christ.

Your proposal for platform controversy is very extraordinary. The cry is that you believe exactly as we do. If you do, why should you propose discussion? What is there to debate about? If you do not, why, after five years’ leisurely and deliberate consideration of the question; each man for himself; should we hope for any benefit from the heat of personal collision? Why subject the truth to the public shame, and its friends to the personal distress of a bootless wrangle among its professors? There is a time for everything. The time for debate is when good is to be done. There are men ready for strife and debate under all circumstances. We do not belong to them. We refuse to make sport for the Philistines.

Your request to have your relation defined is natural. It is not our fault if the definition must be unpleasing to you. You are allied with those who have cast a slur on the word of God by imputing error to it, and alleging its possible historical inaccuracy. Because of this, even if your own hands were quite clean of the transgression, an accursed thing is in your camp, which debars those who are striving to be the friends of God (much to their sorrow, though you may not believe it), from making alliance with you or wishing you God speed. If in this, we are wrong, we shall be reproved at the judgment seat; though we cannot help believing the Lord will be merciful to an over zeal (if it be such), having its root in regard for our obligations to him alone. If we are right, your position is one of great danger, and possible reprobation.

We should greatly desire that the embarrassment should end in your frank acceptance of the position which we regard as the only tenable one. Your answers to the following questions might end the strife.

1. Are you now prepared to repudiate the views of Bible authorship propounded and defended by brethren Ashcroft and Chamberlin over five years ago?

2. Do you believe that all parts of the Bible have been produced or compiled by the Holy Spirit in the writers,—the small matters as well as the great; and that the fact of such production or compilation secures infallibility in the expression of the meanings aimed at by the divine authorship?

3. Are you prepared to require the admission of this fact in all who claim or enjoy your fellowship?—Faithfully yours, Robert Roberts .

CARDIFF

Chdn. 1890 pg 316-317  On Sunday evening, the 13th July, after the lecture, a protest was made against my remark in Intelligence last month, “that they took the wrong side on the inspiration question;” the fact being, they say that they did not take sides at all, and that they have never been troubled by the question in their midst. For their own protection, however, against any brethren who might visit them, and who might be partial inspirationists, they agreed to the following resolution, which they read out before the breaking of bread whenever any strange brethren visit them: “We believe the Bible to be a true representation of the original Scriptures as given by the inspiration of God; and we desire the fellowship of those only who agree with this definition.” They say further, that the reason no intelligence has appeared in the Christadelphian from them has been, not because they were in sympathy with “the other side,” but because the editor refused to insert any until they had adopted the Birmingham declaration; and after a time—not liking to be left altogether out in the cold—they sent their intelligence to the Visitor .— E. Grimes .

(Our correspondent is mis-informed. It is not a question of “the Birmingham declaration”—on which we have never insisted. It is a question of the doctrine avowed in that declaration. There are various ways of expressing this. So that it is expressed, it does not matter about the form. The definition above quoted does not express it. It is worded in a way that steers clear of it. There is not a partial inspirationist the world o’er who would not say amen to it. To call it “a protection against partial inspiration” is therefore a delusion. “The Scriptures as given by the inspiration of God,” leaves it an open question what this was—whether it was a complete inspiration or a partial inspiration, and whether the inspiration in the case was an inspiration that could err, or one that we could trust to as infallible. Unitarians and others who believe that man is inspired as well as the Bible, could easily adopt such a definition, which makes everything of the question of whether our English Bible is a true translation, and nothing of whether the Word of God as originally delivered in Hebrew and Greek was a divine and infallible thing or not. When men refuse to let their meanings be known, a form of words is of no use. Look at the effect in the present case. Ambiguous words keep off the friends of the Bible. If their meaning is right, why not let it be know? “Because they don’t want to take sides.” If this is the object, their plan is a failure; for taking no side, they have in fact taken sides against those who are on the side of the Bible without ambiguity. Besides, what man will not, in the presence of Christ at his coming, be ashamed at not “taking sides” with His dishonoured word. Let the Cardiff trumpet give a certain sound, and the true soldiers else where will know what to do.— Editor .

HUDDERSFIELD

Chdn. 1890 pg 317  Brother Heywood reports the obedience of Mrs. Shaw (40), of Lindley, who, after a careful search into the truth, confessed the same, and was immersed on Wednesday last, making the present number of brethren and sisters 34. Others are interested, and seeking the kingdom of God. (Brother Heywood calls attention to the fact that brother Morton, whose visit to the Middlesbrough ecclesia was noticed last month, is not in fellowship with those who have made a stand against partial inspiration.)

CARDIFF

Chdn. 1890, pg. 356

On Sunday, August 10th, after the lecture, a meeting of the ecclesia was called (at which not more than half the members attended) to consider and decide upon an amended declaration as a basis of fellowship, which had been proposed by myself. In this declaration, the Scriptures, as originally given by God, were recognised as wholly inspired and infallible in all their parts, and our Bible accepted as a fair representation of these Scriptures, and a requirement made that assent to the above be given by all seeking their fellowship. The presiding brother announced that the managing brethren recommended that no change be made in the existing resolution. It was proposed by brother Collins, and seconded by brother Searles (their secretary), that my resolution be adopted. An amendment was proposed and seconded that no change be made. This amendment was adopted, with three dissentients, after a desultory discussion, in which it came out that the managing brethren were perfectly contented with the existing state of things, and considered a change now would be a reflection upon the past, and that a great objection was felt to the introduction of the word “infallible,” because it “emanated from Birmingham, and was not a Bible term.” And so we have the melancholy spectacle of brethren professing privately their belief in a wholly inspired and infallible Bible, stultifying themselves as an ecclesia, and proving conclusively thereby that their professed belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures is at least not very deep-seated. We shall now endeavour (God willing) to establish an ecclesia in Cardiff upon a proper basis. For the last two months I have antagonised the Mormons (who have a considerable following here), and the noisy, frothy members of the Y.M.C.A., and proclaimed the Truth every Sunday evening (when the weather permitted) in a large open space in Canton Street, to big crowds who had never heard it before, and much interest has been excited and opposition provoked by the clear, plain statements of the Bible. May Yahweh grant that the seed sown bring forth fruit to His honour and glory, and that the Son of His love be quickly revealed, taking vengeance on His enemies, and rewarding His servants the prophets and them that fear his Name.— E. Grimes .

*     *     *     *     *

MIDDLESBROUGH

Chdn. 1890, pg. 358  Brother Robinson reports that circumstances here have compelled the brethren to adopt a resolution withdrawing from all who practice a loose fellowship with regard to the inspiration of the Scriptures. For a long time they were free of the trouble, but recently some claiming fellowship have taken the position of saying they belong to neither inspiration nor partial inspiration. Brother Robinson says they cannot consent to this. “Those who are not for us are against us.” For more information he refers to Christadelphian for December, 1884.

TREORKY (RHONNDA)

Chdn. 1890, pg. 399  Brother W. Lander is not responsible for the lateness of the subjoined intelligence. It was sent in time for publication in the last number of the Christadelphian , but certain enquiries had to be made before the way seemed editorially clear for the insertion of the communication from Morriston. Such delays and enquiries are exceedingly distasteful to the editor, he can assure all concerned; but they are unavoidable where any doubt arises as to the basis of action. It is a relief and a joy to discover there was no ground for them in this case. An impression having arisen that the Morriston ecclesia was not on a footing to allow of hearty fellowship on the part of those who are resolved to maintain the wholly-inspired character of the Bible, one of the brethren in the Rhonnda Valley wrote to the said ecclesia, and received the following answer (dated July 1st, 1890):—“We received your letter of 12th June last, enclosing a printed copy of the Temperance Hall Ecclesia, Birmingham, Statement of Faith, dated 1886, in due course; and in order to satisfy your brethren on the question asked in your letter, as to whether we, as an ecclesia, or any brother or brethren amongst us, hold views different to the above Statement of Faith, a meeting of our brethren was convened, and the statement was read carefully through, and we are now able to inform your brethren that we found nothing in it but what we could readily endorse, and for your guidance in the future we wish to add that the following resolution was put to our meeting and carried unanimously, viz.:—‘That inasmuch as that the Statement of Faith of the Temperance Hall Ecclesia, Birmingham, dated 1886, is a correct and concise statement of the things believed in and taught by us, that we now adopt the same in its entirety, as the Statement of Faith of the Morriston Ecclesia. And that in the future it be clearly understood by the Rhonnda brethren, and all other ecclesias, that in the case of any brother, or brethren, visiting us on the occasion of the breaking of bread, that our officials, if they deem it necessary, are authorised to examine such carefully, and to be satisfied as to their standing in the truth, and especially as regards their belief in a wholly-inspired Bible.’ And now, while believing that our standing in the truth is identical with those meeting with you at present, we hope in concluding that you will, when an occasion arises, take the necessary steps to dispel from the minds of all the true brethren of Christ any erroneous views which they may entertain concerning our brethren.—We remain, dear brother, yours fraternally, for the Morriston Christadelphian Ecclesia, John T. Jones , Secretary.

In answer to further enquiry, the following answer was received by brother Lander:—“Yours of 22nd inst. came duly to hand, and, in reply, I have to say that we cannot have anything to do with the Drill Hall brethren, Swansea, or the Masonic Hall brethren, Birmingham, as long as they take the stand they do.”

Brother Lander adds the following items:—

Since the opening of the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Tunnel, the brethren and sisters wishing to visit this district can now go direct to Aberavon, Port Talbot, and Swansea.

Brother Philip Phillips and sister, wife and family has arrived here safely, and are now residing at Tynewydd, near Treherbert. The brethren of Scammonville (United States) ecclesia will be glad to hear of their safe arrival here. They will be a welcome addition to the few in the one faith residing in Rhondda Valley, Brother Peter Graham, of the above ecclesia, came on a visit to this country with brother Phillips. We enjoyed his short stay with us. He exhorted us at the breaking of bread on Sunday, 6th of July, which we all enjoyed. After visiting bonnie Scotland and musical Wales, brother Graham has started for his home, where we hope he may safely arrive.

[Bro. Philip Phillips is my Great-grandfather, who came from the Rhondda Valley, lived in Chicago, Kansas, and then went back to the Rhondda Valley.  He ultimately returned to Canton Ohio.] 

Chdn. 1890, pg. 440

B. W.—“Progress” is a nice watchword, but it is possible to mistake retrogression for progression. This mistake is being made by all who regard partial inspiration and the loosing of the bonds and conditions of fellowship as evidence of progress. We are not ashamed to profess our identity with the standfast party. Why should we move away from what we are certain about? And do you think, if we were not certain, that we should stand aloof from popular circles into which we have many times been invited? Do you say we cannot be certain? Then we differ. There is an ever-learning and never attaining class—ever-debating and never settling—at home in endless froth-plungings like dogs in a puddle. They were extant in Paul’s day; they have not ceased since; they are active now. If you cannot recognise them, we do not quarrel with you; but we cannot deny our own senses. We must perforce exercise the prerogative of discrimination, and, knowing the right road in the dark, take it.

*     *     *     *     *

Chdn. 1891

Reunion efforts take a front and center role in 1891, now six years since the start of the controversy.  A lengthy discussion comes from the intelligence from Bristol, which demonstrates what the division really was, and how thorough it was.  There are many things that go directly against the arguments of the Nicodemites as to the history of the truth here, but note especially that the brethren joining the Temperance Hall group, had to disassociate from the Masonic Hall group (originally called New Street) as a condition of fellowship even though they had testified that the Masonic Hall group had no one in it who believes partial inspiration.

BRISTOL

Chdn. 1891, pg. 28

Brother Bradley reports at some length the particulars of a re-union effected with the ecclesia meeting at Oddfellows’ Hall, in Rupert Street, from whom separation was made four years since in connection with the inspiration controversy. Brother Bradley speaks of it as “the cheering and encouraging turn that Christadelphian life has taken in Bristol.” The following are the principal features of the report:—“The two ecclesias have held five meetings together, at which the position of each has been fully and clearly stated and understood. The Oddfellows’ Hall ecclesia were almost unanimous in their belief of a wholly-inspired Bible, and the few objections made as to Paul’s cloak, Paul’s independent advice to brethren upon marrying, and a few other similar cases were fully argued and satisfactorily explained by the brethren of both ecclesias. Recognising the ‘divers manners’ in which it has pleased God to speak through the prophets and Jesus Christ, we had no difficulty in speedily disposing of an imagination which the brethren had innocently regarded as a fact, namely, that we believed the Scriptures to be inspired only in one particular way, by what is called verbal dictation. The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is not a question of one way, but of divers manners or ways. The Holy Spirit exercises a guiding or controlling influence which excludes errror. The perfection of the whole being impossible without the perfection of its parts, reasonably excludes even the barest probability of any kind of discrepancy finding its way into the original writings.—At our first meeting, the great obstruction to a settlement was a strong impression that it was unscriptural for brethren to consent to human resolutions. The necessity for them was amply proved by showing the value of ecclesial rules for maintaining discipline, and the command to rebuke being of equal force to the one to comfort, made human resolutions the only scriptural course to take (in the absence of direct divine interference), being indispensable in emergencies where ecclesias become divided upon principles of faith. Another obstruction was in the form of a protest against discussing the merits of the original writings, it being urged that the present version was all that concerned us, and contained all the nourishment, stimulant, and comfort needful for our present existence. This matter was handled very ably by their own brethren, in demonstrating the impossibility of faith in a copy without faith in the original: copies being subject to the errors of transmission, &c. If there were errors in the original, our present version would be worthless, excepting to fanatics, who placed no value upon God’s gift of intelligence to man, and the acquisition of knowledge as being the first requisite predicated for obtaining eternal life. At our fourth meeting, it was anticipated that an understanding of agreement or disagreement would be attained, as it was considered that all points involved in a re-union had been exhaustively discussed. But an objection was then raised which, in its nature, was undoubtedly the one to test the hollowness or the substantiality of the grounds we had for justifying our withdrawal from them. The following is a copy of the resolution offered for adoption as the condition of re-union:—‘That the doctrine of the divine inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Scriptures in all parts of them (as originally written by prophets and apostles) is the first principle of that system of truth which forms the basis of our fellowship one with another in Christ, and that consequently we are unable to compromise that principle by continuing in association with those who do not believe it, or by fellowshipping those, who either directly or indirectly tolerate any teaching opposed to that doctrine.’ One of the brethren could not see his way clear to accept the resolution, as he had not knowingly fellowshipped any who taught the doctrine of partial inspiration, and he did not believe the doctrine was taught by any who were fellowshipping with the Masonic Hall ecclesia in Birmingham. If this were correct, the resolution would be superfluous, and our own inconsistency would be challenged and proved. We had no evidence with us in black and white to vindicate our position, and the meeting was adjourned for a week to allow time for producing proofs. At our fifth meeting, the position we took was sustained to the entire satisfaction of the brethren present, who constituted a majority of both ecclesias. . . . Duty is our watchword, love is our ambition, and in the flowery or thorny path of human sentiment, the children of God must unhesitatingly assert the supremacy of obedience to Christ’s commandments. To support or countenance false doctrine or wrong doing in our brethren is to share their responsibility by being partakers of their sins. This vexing objection to re-union was surrendered at the dictation of moral courage, and in a full realization of the warning:—“Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Rebuke and warning are the duties imposed upon a true rendering of the spirit as well as the letter of brotherly love, and demand that we withdraw ourselves from those brethren, who while they are believers in a wholly inspired Bible, yet by their actions support a doctrine which desires or stultifies the truth of their belief.—The formal arrangements for reunion were completed yesterday; the ecclesia meeting in Rupert Street resolving to withdraw from all brethren associating in fellowship with the Masonic Hall ecclesia and extending an invitation to us to unite with them upon a basis of faith which recognises the above resolution as the first doctrine of truth. We had the company of brother Lowe at our meeting in the evening, after which we resolved to dissolve our ecclesia meeting in Bishopston, and to constitute ourselves with them into one ecclesia on the following Sunday morning, January 18th. Our conferences for re-union has served a good purpose in bringing us into closer contact one with another, in removing prejudices which a strong party feeling of separation has fed, and in giving each one of us an impetus to a more earnest appreciation of the necessity of unity and organization in the practise of those things we mutually profess, and of an intenser devotion to those divine principles of which all scripture teaching is but an elaboration.”

Brother Lowe, on behalf of the Oddfellows Hall ecclesia, transmits the following resolution adopted by them:—“That we establish ourselves as an ecclesia of Christadelphians, holding the belief of Scripture-teaching as expressed in the Birmingham Statement of Faith, and that we accept the doctrine of the divine inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Scriptures in all parts of them (as written originally by prophets and apostles) as the first principle of the 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 do not believe it, or by fellowshipping those who either directly , or indirectly tolerate any teaching opposed to that doctrine.”

A second resolution notifies the Masonic Hall body (Birmingham) of cessation of fellowship with them, and invites the fellowship of brethren everywhere who hold the same faith, and are prepared to take the same position in relation to the Scriptures. The brethren and sisters who constitute the united ecclesia (henceforward to meet in the Oddfellows’ Hall) are the following:—Brother E. and sister E. Lowe, brother W. and sister A. Palmer, brother F. A. Collins, brother and sister May, of Portishead; brother I. White, brother A. R. and sister S. C. Reed, brother W. Mills, brother W. and sister J. Allen, brother C. Beake, brother C. Wintle, brother G. Sutton, sister C. Gough, brother J. and sister E. Hollier, sister A. E. Hollier, sister F. Chandler, sister S. A. Cross, brother B. and sister A. E. Bradley, sister H. A. Bradley.

Prior to the fusion of the two ecclesias, brother G. Cornish and brother Stainforth, heretofore in fellowship with Oddfellows’ Hall, were requested to withdraw, on account of the doctrines introduced by them, and advocated in a pamphlet now in circulation. They did so, and took a number with them. Brother Bamford, of Oldham, thus refers to these doctrines:—

“I received to-day from brother Patchett, of Bristol, a copy of a 24 paged pamphlet by brother G. Cornish, jun., setting forth a number of vital errors in a most confident way, namely, ‘Christ, a substitute, died a vicarious death; Adam’s condemnation does not pass to his children; baptism not essential, but only good living; salvation for the good (?) of all ages and for infants, large resurrection, &c., &c.’ I cannot think such doctrines will receive a following among those who are enlightened.”

*     *     *     *     *

NEWPORT (MON.)

Chdn. 1891, pg. 28  Brother Grimes has come to reside in Newport. We shall find him a useful workfellow, you know. We are corresponding with the Cardiff ecclesia, with the view to fellowship. I pray God that the result may be satisfactory.

THE CHRISTADELPHIAN

(He is not ashamed to call them brethren.— Heb. 2:11 .)

February, 1891 pg. 67-68

A correspondent sends us an article cut from the Christian Commonwealth of January 15th, with mark at a reference to the Christadelphians. The article is entitled, “Why Men Divide.” It does not expound the subject undertaken. It dogmatises in shallow style, in flowing facile sentences, on a matter requiring deeper penetration than the article-writer evidently possesses. By “men” he means “followers of Christ,” and he thinks they divide because they do not see the advantage of union. At all events, that is what he says. It is a self-evident mistake. No man need go further than his own experience for its confutation. The Christadelphians do not stand off from the general body owning the Christian name from any idea that division is better than union. Speaking for ourselves, we mournfully submit to it as a necessity. Union with the great through would be a present advantage in every sense and way. But it is not a possibility with any man having discernment of what the Spirit teaches and faithfulness to what it requires. There is such a thing as “the truth” whether the common run of men know it or not. There is such a thing is “coming out from among” and “having no fellowship with” the indifference and error and evil that prevail, however many may have become insensible to the obligation. It is the recognition of these that lead to division, and not any insensibility to the advantage of union. The many are indifferent: a few are faithful. Hence the fermentation. It was Christ’s understanding of men and his foresight of the working of things among them, that led him to say, “From henceforth there shall be division.” The result is inevitable in an evil world, so long as there is any faithfulness left.

The article writer, arguing in favour of union, says, “. . Christadelphians attracted considerable attention while they were united in their pertinacity: but as soon as they were numerous enough to seem worth counting, schism began, and since that process set in, nothing they have said or done has excited even languid interest.” There is more than one false implication in this sentence.

1. It insinuates that withdrawal from errorists is an evil thing. —This is a fashionable sentiment, but it is not in accord with the mind of Christ, as expressed through the apostles. Love and union are beautiful. They are the most exquisite manifestations of intelligent life possible upon earth, and the earth will yet see their universal triumph when the purpose of God is finished. But meanwhile, there are other duties. The loving John, quoted by the writer, says concerning those who “bring not the doctrine of Christ,” that the faithful are to “Receive them not into their house,” and Jesus, in his message through this same John, commends one ecclesia for acting on this discrimination, and condemns another for not acting on it. To Ephesus he says, “Thou canst not bear them that are evil, but have tried them that say they are apostles, and hast found them liars” ( Rev. 2:2 ). To Thyatira he says, “Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess to teach and seduce my servants, &c.” Schism is the result of acting out these principles, and is a good thing if intelligently and faithfully done. It is a painful and apparently unfriendly process: but there is no choice with those who would be friendly to GOD first. It is one of the bitternesses of the situation that men holding fast by the faith originally delivered should be taunted with the eccentricities of men who were in native darkness a while back, and who, after being honoured by introduction to the light, only used their position to obscure it with their superficialities and worldly affinities.

2. It implies that apart from the divisions which the fermentations of error have produced among us, the truth attracted public notice, and that its success is to be measured by the fact and extent of this notice. On both points, we join issue. The truth never has received a public hearing. It has been an obscure and weak thing from the beginning. From its nature it cannot become popular, because it runs counter to human feeling in so many practical ways not seen at first. Its true friends know this, and they are not working to obtain public success or even public notice. They are simply carrying out orders. Christ calls for the exhibition of the light, and they exhibit it. Their operations in this respect are necessarily misunderstood by the public which judges from its own motives, and cannot judge in any other way. The Christadelphians cannot fail, because they are not aiming at what is humanly considered—“success.” They are simply engaged in doing their duty in the faith of a stupendous world-stunning success which is impending, and which depends on no human effort. Christ will shortly show himself on the earth, and put his hand to the work in a way that will startle so-called “Christian” mankind. True Christadelphians plod away with this in view. For this reason, they cannot be quenched by scorn or crushed by failures of any kind. The very last thing they desire is the attention and patronage of the “public,” which looms so large in all ordinary enterprises. Nothing is so dangerous to the truth as “respectability,” because the truth is a matter of God’s importance, while respectability is an affair of man’s importance. The two cannot work well together.

3. It infers that the truth is less effective now than it has been in unspecified previous times. This is contrary to fact. It is of course a matter difficult to bring to a definite test, but so far as tests can be applied, the result is not in favour of the writer’s suggestion. If some have seceded from us, many have come to us, and the process is steadily going on from month to month without any diminution in the rate of increase. The popular maxim “There are as good fish in the sea as were ever caught,” applies to the sea of human life as well as to the ocean.

The well-known maxim is also applicable, “No man is essential.” The truth is a thing of peerless excellence and power: and if some throw it up, their place is soon taken by others who have eyes and hearts; while others again, with intellect enlightened and a-fire, “hold on to the end” with a grip of iron. This process is quietly going on all the world over, while the Athenian newspaper gossips have dismissed “even the languid interest” which the misunderstood operations of the truth at first inspired in their somnolent bosoms. The work is in fact better at the end than at the beginning: for, with some exceptions both ways, the later crop of believers is of a higher moral and intellectual type than those who assented to the truth in the days of its first emergence from the dust.

Much, of course, depends upon the individual point of view as to how these things appear: but the facts, taken broadly, justify these rejoinders to the smooth-tongued article in question, which can only weigh with those who are captivated by appearances.

Chdn. 1891, pg. 149

The Christadelphian

(He is not ashamed to call them brethren.— Heb. 2:11 .)

April, 1891

God has been pleased to subject those who desire to conform to His word to what sometimes amounts to painful embarrassment, by having required of them things that at first sight are incompatible with one another. They are to do good to all men, and yet to be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. They are to be “in the world” and yet to “come out from among them and be separate.” They are to love their enemies and yet to love not the world. They are to be patient with the erring and yet to abhor that which is evil, and not to bear with men that are evil. They are to think no evil and yet to try professors. They are to submit to wrong and yet to refuse even to eat with men called brethren who espouse wrong doing, or error. They are to show hospitality and yet to receive not into their houses those who bring not the doctrine of Christ.

There is, doubtless, an object in prescribing these apparently conflicting duties. It sets up contrary mental currents that at last bring about a fine equilibrium of character which would not be attainable if duty lay all in one direction. But often the effort to conform brings distress, and it is impossible not to feel pity for men sacrificing one duty in their endeavour to conform to another.

These thoughts are suggested by an effort in Lincoln, which may be well meant enough in some directions, but which cannot receive favour from a complete enlightenment. It is an effort that tacitly invites us to repudiate the policy of insisting upon a wholly-inspired and infallible Bible as the basis of fellowship, by adopting a “basis of fellowship” that omits it. This document is most plausible in its wording, as all efforts in a wrong direction are; but in its meanings and implications, it is far worse than its promulgators probably intend or have any idea of.

It formulates an impossible rule of withdrawal, which turns the ecclesia into a judgment seat of the Papistical order. The apostolic rule is to “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly,” and from those who teach heresy, without reference to the question of what the Lord may finally think of them. And this rule is defensive in its bearing, not offensive. It means that we are not to be partakers of other men’s sins. John lays down the axiom that He that receives the holder of wrong doctrine or practices partakes of their evil deeds.

In withdrawing, we wash our own hands. We leave to God those whom we withdraw from. We are not authorised to judge or condemn them. But this document lays it down that we must not withdraw, unless we are prepared to maintain that the cause of withdrawal will make salvation impossible. This would erect an ecclesia into a spiritual judicature, deciding questions which the Lord has reserved for himself.

The document proposes “union with all who have not forfeited their right to the fully assured salvation.” How can such rule be carried out? How can we know who have and who have not forfeited the said right? It is calling upon us to pronounce on a matter beyond our jurisdiction, and that has been placed beyond it by the express command to “judge not,” “condemn not.”

The time for withdrawal is when men drift into unscriptural attitudes of faith or practice. These we note and separate ourselves from, without reference to the question of whether the offenders can be saved, which we cannot decide. And the withdrawal is not putting them out but going out ourselves , as the term implies. We simply go away, saying we cannot be responsible. The attitude prescribed by this “basis” would place the ecclesia in a chair of authority, with power of excommunication, arrogating the right to “cut off” or say the excommunicated cannot be saved.

Faithful men are more truly modest, while more uncompromising towards departure from the faith than the sentiments that inspire this basis. Faithful men say, “we have no power to cut off: Christ will do that. But we have power to withdraw; and this we will do with however much reluctance and pain, when the Word of God and its obligations are tampered with by whomsoever.” We will exercise this liberty unhampered by any assumptions as to the position of those who have technically “responded to the Gospel call.” The basis declares that all such are “in union and fellowship with the Father.” This is not true. There were many in the apostolic age who had “obeyed the Gospel call,” whom the Apostles repudiated as “enemies of the cross of Christ” ( Phil. 3:18 )—spots in their feasts of charity ( Jude 12 ); who claimed to be Jews but were not, but lied ( Rev. 3:9 ).

It is a fundamental principle as to the operations of the gospel, that “many are called but few are chosen,” and that “all are not Israel that are of Israel.” This is a principle which we cannot apply, and which we are not called upon to apply. We do not know who will be chosen of those who have been called. We have nothing to do with saying who will and who will not be saved, as regards profession of the truth. The thing we have to do is to take care of our own standing in relation to the prevailing corruptions. We refuse to be implicated in these, while entertaining the very best wishes concerning all men. We mingle with Bible charity the most decisive resolution not to be compromised by any class of men, whether they have gone through “the waters of baptism” or no.

Unless we observed this apostolically prescribed scrupulosity, the truth would soon be suffocated and disappear. Men who decline it are the enemies of the truth without intending it perhaps—all which will appear in a very plain light when the expediencies of the passing mortal hour are at an end in the manifested presence of the author of the seven messages to the ecclesias.

 

NEWPORT (MON)

Chdn. 1891, pg. 277  Brother Lander, in a letter omitted from last month’s publication, reports that brother Curnock is gone to Philadelphia, also that on May 13th, William Bryant (24), formerly Baptist, and of Abersychan, after showing evidence that he believed the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ was immersed. This is fruit of brother Lewison, of Abersychan, who, no doubt, will be highly pleased to have a fellow-worker. Inter alia , I should think that brother Shuttleworth will have no difficulty in finding sufficient subscribers to his proposed “Lightstand Bible,” which will be a marvellous production, no doubt.

Writing again (June 14th) brother Lander refers to the reply which brother Grimes has written to the pamphlet issued against the truth entitled “A word of Warning.” He also states that the brethren have issued posters announcing a series of lectures in reply to the same. He also reports an ineffectual attempt to come to an understanding with certain in Cardiff, with the view to fellowship. They accepted the Cardiff constitution, and even avowed their belief that the Bible is inspired every jot and tittle, but they refused to discontinue the fellowship of those who cannot, or will not, make the same avowal, consequently the Newport brethren were compelled to cease communication and to allow things to remain as they are.

There was apparently a significant pamphlets circulated among the brethren in 1891 denouncing the fellowship position of bro. Roberts and those who stood related to Temperance Hall.  It was called "The Open Door," and appeals to the early writings of bro. Thomas.  It is answered in two parts by bro. Roberts.   A few months later, it is split apart, sentence by sentence and answered in January of 1892 by bro. F. G. Jannaway.  Remember this is now six years after the division.  It shows how the truth is under continual attacks by those who would carry it away, and how relentless we have to be in our defense of it.

Chdn. 1891, pg. 305-308

“The Open Door.”

A fine thing is an open door for proclaiming the truth, but not for the toleration and nursing in fellowship of ideas subversive of it. If the way is narrow in this respect, we can truly say it is not of our inventing or choosing or liking. It would be to our taste and advantage in every way to yoke with everyone in the free and easy spirit that is more and more finding favour in the world, as it draws near to the time when the Scriptures proclaim it ripe for destruction. But we dare not. The roaring thunders of judgment that will be set loose at the reappearing of Christ will sweep away the wide and snugly established and respectable refuges of lies that overspread our country; and with them, please God, we will not be found. All pleas for open doors are treacherous to the narrow way,—however well meant.

We do not doubt the sentimental sincerity of the writer of this pamphlet; but he evidently lacks the penetration required in foggy times like these. We require that state of the faculties described by Paul as “senses exercised by reason of use to discern both good and evil.” His defectiveness in this respect is shown by his taking sides with the evil with much pious protestation in favour of the good. We are sorry to differ with him in toto . In fact, nothing has ever been such an affliction as the necessity for action in this inspiration controversy; but there was no choice; and sorrow, however deep, does not alter facts.

Our friend characterises that action as “an effort to entirely change the basis of fellowship.” This is a complete misdescription. It was an effort to resist change—not to bring about change. The change proposed was that whereas the Bible had been regarded among us as the infallible word of God, we should henceforth be at liberty to regard it as only a partly-inspired and possibly erring thing. This proposal was not made in those words, but in a much more insidious manner—by the promulgation and toleration of doctrines that had been introduced to that effect. To exclude this leaven of corruption, the brethren were called upon to recognise the foundation upon which we had stood from the beginning. If some did not know we stood on that foundation, the misconception was theirs and had to be dispelled. We cannot believe the misconception existed unless we suppose an amount of obtuseness which no one would care to own to. If the Bible were not the infallible word of God, where was the sense of making the teaching of the Bible a reason for our faith? The man who calls the assertion of the divine character of the Bible “the addition of a crotchet to the scriptural basis of fellowship” only shows either that he does not understand the situation he is criticising, or that he is in sympathy with the view that calls that character in question. No wonder, therefore, that he speaks of the formal assertion of that character as “an unscriptural resolution.”

Our friend requires his history as well as his doctrine correcting a little. It is not true that the editor of the Christadelphian took steps to “eject by sheer force” those who would not consent to the dutiful attitude in the case. The attempt was rather on the part of some of the latter to force themselves “by sheer force” on a fellowship for which they had become unfitted. What happened was this (as our friend tacitly invites correction, we state the facts):—

The issue having been created on this most vital subject, I convened a friendly private meeting of those who took part with the introducer of the false doctrine, in the hope of possibly inducing them to adopt such a statement of their position as would admit of a continuance of harmony. Perceiving we were hopelessly at variance, I then asked them peaceably to retire. This they refused to do; upon which I said if they did not voluntarily retire, they would compel me to take measures to effect a separation, as I could not accept responsibility for the doctrines that were being advocated. They said they would leave the responsibility of that with me, and the meeting ended. I had no alternative but accept the responsibility. What I did was to issue a circular addressed to each brother and sister individually, explaining the position, and asking each one who saw matters as I saw them to indicate the fact by returning a declaration to that effect. The result showed a majority of our number in the right mind. I then convened a meeting of that majority.

Our object was peace. There had been debate and wrangle enough. There was no object but an evil one to be served by any more of it. I therefore did not ask those who were of an opposing mind. At this majority meeting, we used our power as such to dissolve our association, and to re-incorporate ourselves upon a basis that unambiguously affirmed the wholly divine character of the Bible. We then sent an invitation to the dissentients inviting their adhesion to our position, and intimating that unless they saw fit to adopt it, we should not expect the continuation of their fellowship. But not meaning anything personally discourteous, we engaged a room for them, until they should see fit to make arrangements of their own: and we also offered to divide our effects with them pro rata .

The “six stalwart brethren” who have struck our friend so painfully were used for no aggressive purpose whatever. The picture of ejection is a picture of the imagination. Our dissenting brethren were all admitted to the hall on presenting themselves. The stalwarts were only used as a barrier against access to a particular part of the room, and this because of those who were disposed to force themselves upon us, and so make our separation abortive. Had there been no barrier, this would certainly have happened. The incident has been magnified and distorted to our reproach. This was to be expected. The incident itself we could not escape, except by a course that would have been to the detriment of the truth afterwards: and it is expected of us that we be wise as serpents, while harmless as the dove.

What has been called “these high-handed proceedings” may be differently described by Him who commended brethren in the seven messages for things that would be condemned far and wide in the nineteenth century. That they should be condemned by those who necessitated them is most natural: that they will be condemned by Him in whose service they were adopted, we do not believe. The day will shortly declare. We would advise our critics to wait lest they be found condemning what God will commend. It will not be the first time He has praised energetic measures in His service ( 2 Kings 10:30 : see verses 20–25 ). Our critics deny that the acts in question were acts in His service. Well, in this they deny the truth, as a little common-sense ought to show them. What other object could we have in such proceedings? Was it the way to preserve friends? Was it the way to create influence? Was it the way to promote temporal aims? Was it not the way to put everything in peril? We know the answer: this open-door pamphlet re-echoes it: “It was a case of Diotrephes loving to have the pre-eminence.” What can we rejoin but that in this again the critics err grievously against the truth. We love much the pre-eminence of Scriptural views and principles, and we have always laboured to promote the pre-eminence of every man whose influence we believed contributive to this preeminence. For our own pre-eminence, in a personal sense, we have an actual and absolute distaste. Even if it were otherwise, they ought not to begrudge it as men professing to have the interests of the truth at heart, seeing it has tended to the pre-eminence of those same interests: for with what result have we lived and laboured for nearly 40 years? Has it not been the exaltation of the Bible and extension of its influence? If we have ever stood in anybody else’s way, it has been with pain, and because their influence was not manifestly promotive of spiritual influence, but the reverse. It has not been because we desired our own pre-eminence. It has been our mortification to be suspected of such feelings. We forgive those who entertain such humiliating suspicions, and who circulate such hard speeches against us. Very likely they think they are true. At the same time but a little sense ought again to have saved them from such a mistake. When a man desires pre-eminence for the sake of it, he never makes arrangements likely to interfere with it. Had we been animated as our open-door friends allege, we should not have given the place which we did to the man whom they followed to their hurt when he wandered from right ways. We know the answer that is ready even to this. The Lord knows the absolute untruthfulness of all these malevolent suggestions that have been made, and the unmixed disinterestedness of the measures so industriously misrepresented; and he will have a terrible word to say to those who are guilty of the misrepresentation if He forgive not.

The facts are simple, and require no distorting to be intelligible. We imagined the ex-pastor of Rock Ferry Congregation to be a man who not only admired and understood the Bible, but could be entrusted with its defence, and the defence of its teaching, against a world in arms. So long as we thought this, we accorded him implicit trust and boundless co-operation in the gratitude that such a help to the truth was calculated to inspire in this day of small things. But when, to our dumbfounded astonishment, he began to shew enmity and to contend that the Bible was not to be called the Word of God, and that there were errors in its composition due to fallible authorship (and this as the mere echoist of Dutch and German critics whose plausibilities he was not penetrating enough to see through), we were caught in a trap. There was no alternative but war. This war continues and will not end, so far as we are concerned, except with death or something much better. Persons have taken sides from various motives. Some, no doubt, honestly imagined new truth had been discovered, and to this day have been unable to deliver their minds from the mist of controversial difficulties in which they became enwrapped.

Whatever were the motives actuating various classes of opponents, there was for us but one practicable course, and that was to insist upon the unerring character of the Bible as the word of God, as the first principle in our basis of fellowship, and accept whatever sacrifices this might involve. These have been great; but regret on this account is out of the question. If they had been a hundred times greater than they were, we could not repent of a course which, whatever enmity may surmise, was dictated by a single consideration for what is called for at the hands of servants of God in a day of universal contradiction of His truth.

Our plausible friend of the open door steps forward with the suggestion that “cool blood” may have brought a different view of the affair, and should end the strife. If that means that those who have faltered are now prepared to profess acceptance of the Bible as the unerring word of God, there will be something joyful to consider. If it means that those who have insisted on this may be disposed to relax in their insistance, we can only say, so far as we are concerned, that he is woefully mistaken. Our blood is not cool on this subject, and never has been for 40 years. We shall go in to Christ’s presence for weal or for woe with the cry of No surrender on the question of the Bible. If we must be condemned and cried down on account of this attitude, we bear it in sorrow.

The argument from Dr. Thomas is inapplicable, unless our friend maintains that the doctor’s scriptural enlightenment was complete from the very start. In 1837, he was only beginning to feel his way in many things. He spoke of the whole Campbellite community (to which he belonged) as persons only “beginning to emerge from the smoke of the great city (Babylon) ,” and it was to persons in this position that he applied the expression of opinion quoted by our friend, in italics, that in performing acts of dis-fellowship, they were “overstepping the bounds of modesty, decorum, and discretion and propriety.” In later writings, from which we could precisely quote, if need arose, he plainly laid down the apostolic doctrine that to have fellowship with error in doctrine or practice, was to be responsible for it. Why should our friend go back to 1837, when Dr. Thomas was still in darkness? Why should he have the doctor’s remarks of that date “written in letters of gold on every Christadelphian periodical”; and the doctor’s later utterances concealed away out of sight in common printer’s ink? If Dr. Thomas of 1837, is “our justly esteemed Doctor,” what is Dr. Thomas of 1862 when he advised us to withdraw from the fellowship of Dowieism because of its ambiguous attitudes? Is he not likely to have been more “justly esteemable” after 25 more years acquaintance with the Scriptures than when he was “just emerging from the smoke of the great city?” Why should we be asked to “go the whole way with the Doctor” in 1837, and not the whole way with the Doctor in 1862? There is manifestly here a sympathy with the immaturities of partial enlightenment.

The quotation from the Doctor’s answer to David King in 1848 seems to bear out our “open door” friend’s view about non-fellowship, but only seems. Even if it really did so, we could not allow it to have any weight against Paul’s doctrine on the subject. But it does not do what it appears to do.

The situation must be taken into account. There were no ecclesias in existence. There were Campbellite meetings disposed (some of them) to receive the truth. Dr. Thomas was operating in connection with them in the public exhibition of the truth. David King found fault with the Doctor for doing this, and said he ought to have nothing to do with them after practically dis-fellowshipping them by his re-immersion on receiving the hope of Israel. The letter from which the quotation is made is the Doctor’s answer to this. Its essence lies in the remark, that the position was one of “bearing and forbearing with one another in hope that all will come to see the real truth, on which side soever it may be.” The time came when decision on this issue had to be taken, and then, with a new situation, new phases of duty forced themselves on the Doctor’s recognition, and among others, the duty of receiving those only who received the truth. His negative reference to Paul’s Corinthian attitude was not one he afterwards insisted on. As for “the dark spirit of Popery,” &c., it is his description of the spirit he recognised in the man to whom he was writing. He could not mean that the spirit of conformity to apostolic precept was of this character, and among other precepts is the one to “withdraw from every brother” who refuses to consent to the wholesome words and works of truth ( 1 Tim. 6:3–5 ; 2 Thess. 3:6 ). But, as before said, Dr. Thomas would not be put forward as an authority for any course that could be shown to be opposed to the teaching of the Word.

(To be continued.)

*     *     *     *     *

The following article is a couple of articles out of chronological order, but it is the continuance of the above article.  It is of such importance historically, that I thought I would keep these two pieces together.

Chdn. 1891  pg.  346-347

"THE OPEN DOOR”

Our friend of the “open door” pamphlet divides his effort into two parts:—First, his address or opening remarks on the situation in general, in which he tries, by the aid of capital letters, to put Dr. Thomas into antagonism with a movement which he would certainly have espoused with all his heart; and, second, the so-called “correspondence” with brother Sulley, consisting of one brief note of courtesy from brother Sulley, and two prolonged epistolary elbow-jerks from our friend, in attempted justification of his attitude, from a Scriptural point of view. “Open the door” is the cry. It is a good cry on the face of it, and it is unpleasant to appear so ungracious as to seem opposed to such a good thing.

An “open door” suggests hospitality and kindness; and no man of sense and goodness would desire to be identified with anything else. But there are times when the friends of God have to submit to a wrong appearance in the case. It is one of the hardships of their position in the present evil world, that they have often to act as if they were unsociable, and illiberal and cantankerous, and even conceited. They are hampered by considerations of right and wrong that do not trouble the lovers of pleasure. They have accepted rules of action and a policy of life that are absolutely unintelligible to those who live for the present life merely, in whose eyes they are liable to appear morose and censorious cynics. In the very first century, they wrongly acquired the reputation of being man-haters, because they strove to obey the apostolic injunctions: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world;” “Come out from among them, and be ye separate;” and because the ordinary relations of life did not weigh with them when incompatible with their enthusiastic fealty to Christ and his Father.

Well, there is pure reason at the bottom of their action, however unfavourable that line of action may appear in the light of popular maxims. For this reason they can submit and wait. There is a time to accept the odium of the narrow way, and to appear in men’s eyes far other than the man of God is in his own inner self, and it is such a time when men are shouting for an open door where God has closed it. When a man comes in the name of the truth and consents not to the truth, John says, “Receive him not into your house.” If a man even consents to the truth but disobeys the commandments, Paul enjoins that with such an one we are “no, not to eat.” This is very unpleasant; but there is no alternative if we are to submit to apostolic law which will outlast all law. Our friend of the open door pamphlet says he will not be a party to disunion. In this he is disobedient, if men seeking union are disloyal to the truth, which is the basis of union. Christ commended the brethren in Ephesus for finding out and discarding unfaithful professors: he condemned the brethren in Pergamos and Thyatira because they suffered false teaching and false teachers in their midst ( Rev. 2:2 , 14 , 20 ). Had our friend been at Thyatira, and carried out his policy of refusing to be a party to disunion, he would have been on the side condemned by Christ.

He quotes scripture in defence of his policy, but it is with a want of discrimination which we may hope time will correct. He quotes from the parable of the tares: “Let both grow together until the harvest”—both the tares and the wheat. We cannot understand such a quotation unless our friend means to argue that we are not to obey the commandments which direct us—1, to treat a lawless brother after proper warning “as a heathen man” ( Matt. 18:17 ); 2, to avoid those who walk contrary to the apostolic doctrine ( Rom. 16:17 ); 3, to put away from among ourselves a wicked person ( 1 Cor. 5:13 ); 4, not to keep company with any man that is called a brother if he be a fornicator or a railer ( 1 Cor. 5:11 ); 5, to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly ( 2 Thess. 3:6 ); 6, to have no company with any man who refuses to submit to the apostolic writing as to the commandments of the Lord ( 2 Thess. 3:14 , 1 Cor. 14:37 , 38 ); 7, to withdraw from perverse disputers who consent not to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness ( 1 Tim. 6:3–5 ); 8, to turn away from men having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof ( 2 Tim. 3:5 ); 9, to reject a man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition ( Titus 3:10 ); 10, and to receive not any who bring not the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 10 ).

It must be evident that there is something wrong in a construction of the parable of the tares that would have the effect of nullifying these reasonable commandments (reasonable because unanimous submission to the faith and practice of the gospel is the very basis of association in Christ). The parable and the commandments are not in collision at all. They refer to two different things. What the commandments refer to is self-evident. It is to the discipline of ecclesial life. What the parable refers to is the seed-sowing operations of the Son of Man in the house of Israel, as shown in Nazareth Revisited , page 138. In this operation it was needful that the tares should not be uprooted till the wheat was grown, otherwise the ripening development of the wheat would have been prevented. The development of the righteous requires that the wicked prosper contemporaneously with them for a time. But to contend that because the wicked are tolerated in the land of the living while the righteous are being trained, therefore we are not to obey the commands concerning those who become insubordinate to apostolic requirements in the community of the truth, is not to illustrate a “right division of the truth,” but to perpetrate a glaring instance of the reverse. Our friend’s contention would justify all the absurdities we have heard contended for in our time. We have met those who say there ought to be no withdrawal for false doctrine; and we have met those who contend there ought to be no withdrawal for wrong behaviour, because the Lord is judge. If our friend’s use of the words, “Let both grow together until the harvest,” is a legitimate use, then both positions would be right. If so, there ought to be no separations from a professing body on any ground. Why, then, have our friends separated from the sects and denominations? To be consistent with their contention, we should all return to the churches.

The belief of the truth and submission to the commandments is “the true basis of apostolic fellowship.” On both heads, the sects and denominations are impossible communions for those who are subject to the Scriptures; and in so far as on either head, any body of people become uncertain or lax; they are in the same position. When they question or leave in doubt the authority of the Scriptures as the infallible work of inspiration, they unhinge that which is naturally, the beginning and foundation of all spiritual truth in our age. This is the mischief that has caused the disunion our open-door friend laments. It is not “the method or manner,” but the fact and effect of inspiration that is in question. This has been reiterated times without number; but our friends choose to ignore or evade the issue. Yet its reality is manifest in everything they write. Even this open-door friend cannot quote Paul’s statement on inspiration without quoting it in the non-committal form that commended itself to semi-sceptical Revisers: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable, &c.” He says he never came across anyone claiming to be a brother who denied this yet; denied what? That every inspired scripture is profitable. That is not the question. The question is what is inspired scripture? this or that; all or part? Here is where we part—either because the question is answered wrongly, or because an answer is refused, on personal grounds, or because if rightly answered the questioner wants it not to matter as regards communion with those who cannot or will not so answer.

Then our friend objects to the phrases, “infallible” and “wholly-inspired,” on the ground that they are unscriptural expressions, and, therefore, presumably representative of unscriptural ideas; for what else can the remark mean, that “those who hold unscriptural ideas are obliged to go outside the lids of the Bible to get phrases to convey their meaning.” What is this but saying he does not believe the Bible to be wholly-inspired and infallible? If he said so plainly, he would only say what the more candid of them honestly believe. Some in their blindness deny there are such persons as partial inspirationists among the separated brethren. The editor of the Investigator , who is in fellowship with them, knows better, and candidly avowed the other day in conversation with the editor of the Christadelphian that there are partial inspirationists among them, and that the Bible is not loved among them as it ought to be. This we know to be a true testimony.

To talk as our open-door friend does of such an issue as “a squabble about a non-essential point of doctrine” is only to show that he has not estimated the scriptures aright yet, or the bearing of the controversy that has been raised. To stand up for the scriptures against those whose doctrine would undermine them, is not “wasting precious energy on fratricidal strife,” but employing it in the commendable work of “contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” And this will not be to their dishonour in the day of final adjustment, but otherwise, if sincerely and humbly done. Those who take this course may be accused of causing the divisions. The accusation is only as true as Ahab’s accusation against Elijah that he was the “troubler of Israel.” Ahab was the true troubler, for it was his course that caused the trouble by compelling Elijah to act his part. The responsibility of division rests with those who refuse to avow their faith in the complete inspiration of the Scriptures, or who while affirming it do so with a reservation which prevents them from avowing belief in its infallibility; or who believing and avowing both, hold on by those who deny both. There can be no open doors with faithful men to such ambiguities. The only open door they can have to do with is the open door of the narrow way that leadeth unto life.

  NEWPORT (MON.)

Chdn. 1891, pg. 316  In the report last month, under this heading, of “an ineffectual attempt to come to an understanding with certain in Cardiff,” the statement is made that “they accepted the Cardiff constitution”; this ought to have been Newport constitution. It was a slip of the pen on the part of the editor.—There has been further communication, but no favourable result is yet reported.—Withdrawal has taken place from brethren Shepherd and Cross for continued absence from the table; brother Harry Edwards has separated himself.

*     *     *     *     *

So even though the Cardiff ecclesia accepted the Newport Constitution, as they had previously affirmed to Birmingham that they had no partial inspiration believers in their ecclesia, nor would they permit them in their ecclesia,  they are refused fellowship because they remain in fellowship, and travel to ecclesias which do harbor errorists.  I cannot see any way that the Nicodemites explanations can account for this behavior, and in all the ecclesias who continue association with Temperance Hall.

ROMSEY

Chdn. 1891, pg. 318  Circumstances have arisen which necessitate my removal from Wimborne to this town. I found sister Godwin here, who had been living in isolation for some time. Sister Godwin had been in fellowship with those who countenance partial inspiration, having been introduced to the truth by friends on “the other side.” After a careful consideration of the position, she has been enabled to take the uncompromising attitude, and now breaks bread with sister Morris and myself. We are looking forward to being able to do something in the cause of the truth here.— Andrew Morris .

*     *     *     *     * 

Another brother in Wales elects to stand aside from Cardiff, and the other ecclesias in fellowship with Cardiff, and he has his correspondence published, while Cardiff still can't.

LIANDAFF

Chdn. 1891 pg. 476  This comes with my kind love to you and yours, and all the brethren with you. I cannot agree with the Cardiff brethren. One of them stood up and taught that the Bible is not an inspired book altogether. Before that, I thought I was aboard of the old ship, but looking aloft, I saw that they had not the old standard flying at the masthead, so I drew up anchor and about ship and left them, and sent to the old admiral and got a new chart of directions, fully understanding the articles therein named. I came in contact with brother Grimes, who handed me the Guide . I had never seen this before. If I was in power, I’d give every Christadelphian one of these Guides . One brother has been asking me for one. With love to all, I remain, your brother in the one hope of the redemption of Israel.— Morgan Rees .

Chdn. 1892

LANDAFF

Chdn. 1892 pg. 29  I was very pleased to see my last letter in the Christadelphian . But there is one correction which I should like to make. When I said “one of them stood up and taught that the Bible was not an inspired book altogether,” I omitted to say that it was in Swansea that these words were uttered, by one, however, who belongs to the same body as the “Cardiff Ecclesia.”— Morgan Rus .

*     *     *     *     *

In 1892, bro. Roberts travels to Glasgow Scottland, where the truth has done very poorly.  Bro. Roberts is surprised and encouraged that there are even 50 brothers and sisters who come to his lecture.  While there, he is challenged to debate the subject of fellowship as applied to the way the partial inspiration question is being handled.  Now if our Nicodemite brethren are correct, there is no reason for debate on the subject at all.  The brethren should simply state their position and invite fellowship on that alone, like Cardiff did, (and was rejected.)  Or they just focus on sound brethren, and withdraw from the unsound, which was done in countless ecclesias (though those now are regarded as out of fellowship by bro. Roberts.)

Bro. Roberts refuses the debate.  He says there is no reason to debate a subject long settled in the minds of the brethren.  So not only did bro. Roberts believe as the Bereans do, and as this history demonstrates he both believed and practiced; but he didn't even think there was any room for the discussion of any other practice.  Should we fellowship sound brethren who can't see their way clear to stop fellowshipping those associated with error?  It was not even something worth talking about.

BATH

NEW ZEALAND

Chdn.  1893, pg. 200   Auckland .—“I am sorry to inform you that eleven brethren and sisters with myself had to separate from the Auckland ecclesia, owing to their alteration of basis, by cutting out the negative aspects and a belief in partial inspiration of the Scriptures. We meet each first day of the week at brother and sister Walker’s residence, Arch Hill, to remember the death of our Lord. Brother Matthews, originally of Birmingham, is one with us, but has left for Invercargill.”— S. Harrison .

NEWPORT (MON.)

Chdn. 1893, pg. 480  We have during the month received a very pleasing communication from Abergavenny, in which brother H. C. Edwards, solicitor (who has been appointed as recording brother, pro tem .), informed us that slightly more than half the Ecclesia, which hitherto has been in fellowship with “Partial Inspirationists,” have now cut themselves off from their old associates, and decided in favour of fellowship only with those who maintain “the complete Divine Inspiration, and consequent infallibility of the scriptures as originally written by God’s prophets and apostles.” They have always held the scriptures to be wholly inspired and infallible, but have heretofore maintained a neutral position in reference to the division caused some years ago by the agitation of the doctrine of partial inspiration. They have asked for help in the lecturing department, and we have arranged to send brother J. Lander for Oct. 15th, when a free discussion upon “Our Unity and Welfare, and the Interests of the Truth” has been decided upon by our brethren there. We hope to hear a good report from our brother when he returns.

Chdn. 1893, pg. 480  J. M.—The person you enquire of is not in fellowship with us. No doubt the partial inspiration community could tell you something of him.

LEEDS

Chdn. 1894 pg. 41  Wellington Road .—We are sorry to state that brother and sister T. E. Howe did not join the Huddersfield Ecclesia, as suggested last month, but those at Brighouse, who tolerate partial inspiration, &c., &c. Lectures this month have been by brethren Pickles, Grimes, and Suggitt.— G. B. Suggitt .

STOCKPORT

Chdn. 1894, pg. 408  It has been painfully evident to us during the past month that we are not yet beyond the dominion of the King of Terrors. On November 30th our sister, Jane Richardson, fell asleep, aged 26. She has been suffering from illness all the summer which developed into consumption. Our brother, Henry Mead, also fell asleep on December 1st, aged 79. Of him it can be said, he “came to his grave in a full age, like as a shock of corn cometh in his season.” He experienced the truth of the psalm concerning those who attain four score years, having for some time been partially disabled by rheumatism. We have laid our brother and sister away, taking comfort in the thought that they had hope of a better resurrection, and that our separation will not be a long one. It has been necessary for us to withdraw from brother Wm. Smith, as we find he fellowships those who support the theory of partial inspiration. The attendance at our public meetings has of late been encouraging.— S. F. Willson .

Victoria (B.C.). — Brother Drysdale takes occasion, in ordering some books, to say:—“I have just been in the truth about two and a half years. It was through reading your Christendom Astray and through talking with a brother Buckler that I was led to see the truth. I used to be a Presbyterian. I am sorry to see the trouble at present over the resurrectional responsibility question, and hope it will soon end.”

A. P. Blyth, on behalf of self and others, fearing they may be considered reprobates, writes a correction of Victoria intelligence, appearing in the January number of the Christadelphian . The correction, however, relates merely to details and not to the main act of their sympathy with partial inspiration. They say: “It is incorrect to say we would not subscribe to their ‘Constitution’ because we ‘had never considered the question’ of inspiration, we having been conversant with the ‘Inspiration Controversy’ from the beginning. We could not agree with their ‘Constitution’ because it demanded acceptance of a theory of inspiration which we could not endorse. We differ from them in our interpretation of several of the sayings of Christ and of the apostles, which, of course, does not necessarily mean a ‘loose interpretation’ as a matter of fact. Then, again, we are accused of speaking ‘evil of some of the brethren.’ This is behaviour we are not guilty of. But we did criticise the actions and sayings of such as yourself and other brethren who have taken part in the ‘Inspiration Controversy.’”

[That is to say, the main facts alleged are admitted, only they are described in the softer language of an elastic periphrasis. There was no need for the correction.— Ed. ]