Fellowship - Berean Christadelphians UK

Fellowship
Its Nature and Conditions
If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
— 2 John 10-11
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
The Truth is professedly and confessedly a “narrow” thing. Jesus declares this in saying— “Straight is the
gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life.” This “Way” he afterwards speaks of as the “Truth,”
saying—
“Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
“Every one that is of the Truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37).
The narrowness of the Truth is one of the obstacles to its general adoption. People do not like to be fettered
either in doctrine or practice. It is also one of the causes of the active tendency to corruption which has manifested
itself among those embracing the Truth from the very day it was apostolically established at Jerusalem.
It is inconvenient to be under restrictions in our dealings with fellow men, in the Truth or out of it. If it were
a question of choice, we should all prefer absolute freedom. But no one recognizing Christ as the supreme
Teacher can think of freedom in this matter. If we make freedom our rule we can only have the freedom of
those who set Christ aside altogether, saying in the words of the wicked— “Our lips are our own: who is Lord
over us?” (Psa. 12:4).
None who truly knows Christ would desire this freedom. All who sincerely accept Christ will recognize
his law as paramount, however irksomely it may work in some of its present relations.
It is one of the narrownesses of the Truth that it demands of those who receive it that they “contend
earnestly for it” (Jude 3), even if an angel from heaven oppose or corrupt it (Gal. 1:8-9); and that they maintain
it intact and unsullied among themselves as the basis and association among those who profess it—refusing to walk
with a brother who either disobeys its precepts—
“If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him” (2 Thess.
3:14).
“Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid
them” (Rom. 16:17).
—or refuses consent to its teachings in vital matters—
“If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him
God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11).
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness...from such withdraw thyself” (1 Tim. 6:3-5).
This policy is so contrary to natural friendliness that it is easy to drift away from it, and to invent theories that will relieve
us from its unpleasant obligations.
The controversy on Inspiration has forced the reconsideration of this question upon us. We say reconsideration,
for it was considered and debated in the beginnings of things connected with the Truth in this
generation, and satisfactorily disposed of for a time.
The principle cause of our trouble in the present situation has been the divergence of view that has
prevailed at the bottom on this fundamental question 1 . Many who have allowed the entirely inspired
character of the Scriptures have not been able to see the necessity of insisting upon that truth in our basis of
fellowship. They have been inclined to leave it as an “open question.”
1 It will be noted that, according to Bro. Roberts, the basic root cause of the Partial Inspiration division was not the Partial Inspiration
theory itself, but a fundamental divergence of view on the vital doctrine of Fellowship, which allowed many—while not
believing the theory themselves—to fellowship those who did. This is one of the facts that makes majority-vote reunion merely a
return to the former unsound condition that required the division.

This is the result of a dim or faulty perception of the apostolic doctrine of fellowship (a common-sense doctrine)
which requires agreement on fundamentals as the first condition of walking together, or co-operating,
associating or fellowshipping together in the prosecution of the objects of the Truth. As a brother writing on
this question says—
“There is prevalent at the present time a lamentable looseness in regard to what must constitute the basis
of fellowship. It arises partly from ignorance, and partly from over-anxiety to increase numbers and keep
together divergent elements. This must inevitably result in serious trouble or general declension.
“The Truth’s interest is at stake, and no doubt much depends upon our action, as to whether it is yet to be
maintained in its purity and simplicity, or lapse into Laodiceanism. The crisis is, doubtless, the most acute that
has taken place since it was brought to light in these latter days. It has been brewing for past years. You were
reluctant to believe it, and labored to stave it off.
“A too long course of loose discipline and slackness in dealing with wrong principles in doctrine and
practice has, no doubt, intensified the evil and made it all the more bitter and grievous and hard to bear.
“I am persuaded that good will result in the case of those many or few who will outride the storm by
keeping a firm grasp of the anchor of the soul, by coming out of this ocean of suffering as gold tried in the fire.”
With a view to the thorough ventilation and effectual exhibition of the scriptural principles of fellowship, we
append a double series of propositions in which there is some attempt to formulate them in their bearing upon
the question which has been troubling the ecclesias.
THE FIRST SERIES
1. “Fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” consists in walking in the Light, as God is
in the Light. (1 John 1:3-7)
2. “Fellowship with one another” depends entirely upon our conformity to this first and necessary
principle of all fellowship, which John so emphatically lays down in 1 John 1:6-7.
3. “Light” is a figure of speech—a metaphor for Divine wisdom, true knowledge, and accurate understanding.
4. God is the Fountain-head of these incomparable powers. Hence “God is Light, and in Him is no
darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
5. His Light is manifested to us in three ways: first, in Christ; second, in the Scriptures; and third, in His
saints.
6. In Christ: — “I am come a Light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in
darkness” (John 12:46).
In the Scriptures: — “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a Light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105).
In His Saints: — “For ye were sometimes in darkness, but now are ye Light in the Lord: walk as Children
of Light” (Eph. 5:8).
7. These points being hereby established, they constitute a chain connecting God and man, not one link of
which can be removed, or in any respect impaired, without endangering the whole sequence, and breaking
the harmony of the Divine relations to us individually.
Take away Christ, and you destroy all possibility of fellowship with God. Tamper with that Bible which
he approved, and you equally render Divine recognition of you hopeless, while you remove the only means
in visible existence among men which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among them who
are sanctified. You destroy the foundation of the righteous, and dissolve in so doing the Household of Christ.
8. “Walking in the Light,” therefore, means “Believing ALL things that are written in the Law and in the
Prophets,” as Paul affirms he did (Acts 24:14), as well as the subsequent writings in the New Testament;
exercising “hope toward God” as embodied in “Christ our hope,” and “Following righteousness, faith, love,
peace with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22).
9. Without the patient and faithful observance of these things, fellowship with the Father and with His Son
Jesus Christ is impossible, and in consequence fellowship one with another is likewise impracticable.
AGAIN
Is it not a commandment of God that we should receive His Word—His Oracles, the Scriptures—as
supreme? Does not Christ enforce it in his “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39) and elsewhere? Does not Paul

teach it in many ways, in regard to both Old and New Testaments?
Admitting this unavoidable conclusion, and reading it in the light which 1 John 2:3, etc., throws upon the
conditions of true fellowship—
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him,
and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him
verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
“He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked” (1 John 2:3-6).
—must we not exact Christ’s estimate of the Old Testament, and Paul’s of both the Old Testament and his own
writings, as a necessary condition to be recognized in our “fellowship one with another,” if we wish to secure the end
for which we are working, namely— “Fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
THE SECOND SERIES
1. In the accomplishment of its mission among men, the Truth acts by separation and association—
a. It separates men from the world: “Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17).
b. It associates those so separated: “Ye are all one...forsake not the assembling of yourselves together”
(Gal. 3:28; Heb. 10:25).
It produces these results by the creation of scripturally derived ideas in the minds of those operated upon.
By these ideas they are dominated and controlled. They become mentally “new creatures,” and manifest the
change in their altered relations to men and things around them.
2. But the association of those separated by the Truth is governed by conditions that sometimes interrupt
that association. Hence, “Have no company,” “Withdraw,” “Turn away” are apostolic commands concerning
some who have been actually separated by the Truth.
3. The conditions of association relate to two departments of our standing in Christ, which may be
expressed as conviction and character. Unity of conviction and mutuality of conformity to a certain standard of
action, are the two conditions out of which association and fellowship grow, and by rupture of which, it is
necessarily interfered with.
4. This rupture may be only partial in either department, and yet be sufficient to cause suspension of
association in fellowship. Apostolic examples—
a. Refusal to recognize that Christ had come in the flesh was made a reason for not receiving men who
believed in God and the Kingdom and a number of other elements of truth (2 John 7-11).
b. Idleness was declared a ground of disfellowship where men had otherwise submitted to the
commandments of Christ (2 Thess. 3).
5. That the first condition of association is the belief of the Truth, apart from the perception and reception
of which, there is no basis of fellowship.
6. That the Truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements that are each essential to
its integrity as a whole.
7. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association
with us in the Truth.
8. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the
receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of
leavening the whole community. The elements of the Truth are so mutually related that the displacement of
one undermines the foundation of the whole.
9. A man himself believing the Truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of
its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the
faithful maintenance of the whole.
Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the Truth himself,
such a man is responsible for the error of those he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar
responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship— “He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of
his evil deeds” (2 John 11).
10. That it is the duty of the friends of the Truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by
refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.

11. Paul commands withdrawal from “any man” who “obeys not his word...delivered by epistle”
(2 Thess. 3:14). He commands the brethren to hold fast the traditions taught by him “whether by word or
epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15).
12. Paul teaches by epistle that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Tim. 3:16).
13. We are bound to hold fast by this, and refuse association with any man refusing submission to this
apostolic tradition.
14. The doctrine of partial inspiration is a nullification of this apostolic tradition; and a doctrine,
consequently, from the holders of which we are bound apostolically to withdraw.
15. That the highest sanction of reason supports this apostolic obligation, since logically, the doctrine of
partial inspiration, when worked out, deprives us of confidence in the only access we have to the Divine mind
in our age.
—September 1885
We call especial attention to numbers 9 and 10 above, which define the difference between the original sound
doctrine of Fellowship among Christadelphians, and the view prevalent with many at present. It will be noted that Bro.
Roberts does not make the modern artificial distinction of restricting fellowship responsibility to individual ecclesias, by
which—in practice—the principles of fellowship are nullified. There is not a hint of this artificial distinction anywhere in the
above.
Truly the primary responsibility devolves upon the local ecclesia. Truly every effort must be made to restrict problems
within individual ecclesial boundaries. Truly, as far as possible, ecclesial autonomy should be carefully respected and
great patience exercised by those not directly concerned. Much indeed must be left to local ecclesial responsibility, and
inter-ecclesial interference should be avoided as long as and as far as possible.
But there is a limit to what can be tolerated as “ecclesial autonomy” if fellowship is to retain any power, beauty or
meaning. When individuals issue books or periodicals or otherwise agitate new theories subversive of sound doctrine and
the clear scriptural expositions of our pioneers, then to hide behind the fiction of limiting the many scriptural injunctions
concerning withdrawal to ecclesial boundaries can only lead to increasing confusion and unsoundness. —G.V. Growcott
◆
BIDDING GOD-SPEED
He that bids a denier of the Truth “God-speed” by receiving him in approving cooperation is
“partaker of his evil deeds.” This is John’s doctrine (2 John 10-11), and John’s doctrine is Christ’s, and
Christ’s is God’s (Luke 10:16; John 12:49).
It is very inconvenient for the present world, but the law of God was never given as a rule of
convenience now. Its convenience and joy will be unutterable at the last. — Bro. Roberts, 1891.

Whom I Love in the Truth
“For the Truth’s sake that dwelleth in us, and shall be with us forever” — 2 John 2
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
John’s second epistle brings out a few things about “love,” which it is important to recognize. “Love,” in
the world, is one thing; “love” according to the ideal of the sects, another; and the “love” of apostolic
discourse, yet another. The two former we may dismiss. The world’s “love” is an ephemeral affair, having its
foundation in the instincts, dying with use and age, and passing away in death. Orthodox “love” is a sickly
distortion, lacking the elements that give strength and comeliness to the “love” of the Scriptures. It works
spiritual mischief now, and is destined hereafter to vanish like smoke.
The “love” of John’s epistles has foundations, without which it cannot exist. This partly comes out in the very
first sentence of this second epistle: “The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the Truth.”
Outside the Truth, a brother’s love is not operative. He loves not the world, nor the things in the world,
remembering that— “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him”.
His friendships are bounded by the Truth, as regards both men and things. In Christ, he is a “new
creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). After the flesh he knows no man. The friendship of the world is enmity with God
(James 4:4). Therefore he cultivates no friendship with those who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of
our Lord Jesus. His love is bounded by the Truth.
Does he, therefore, shut up his bowels of compassion against those who are without God? By no means.
He recognizes the obligation put upon him by the same law, to salute not his brethren only, but to do good unto
all men, as he has opportunity, even to his enemies. But there is a difference between doing good to unbelievers
and cultivating friendship with them; and the saint is careful to observe this difference, lest he come under the
rebuke that greeted the ears of Jehoshaphat, on his return from friendly co-operation with Ahab:
“Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them who hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon thee from
before the Lord.”
We can have our conversation towards the world in all courtesy and benevolence, without going on to
their ground, and joining affinity in the schemes of pleasure, profit, or friendship.
The “love” that belongs to the Household of Faith is— “For the Truth’s sake that dwelleth in us, and shall
be with us for ever” (2 John 2).
This is John’s definition of its source and scope. Everyone that is truly of the Household responds
instinctively to it. To the carnal mind it appears very “narrow,” but this is an illusion of ignorance. It is the true
breadth, for it relates to that which shall be for ever, while the world which would have us unequally yoked,
passeth away. The Truth connects us with “the shoreless ocean of eternity,” while the friendship of the world
is confined to “a narrow neck of land”—the brief existence of this animal probation.
The at present “narrow” operation of apostolic “love” is also founded in wisdom; for unrestricted
friendship with the world is full of danger: it draws away from the fear of God, the hope of the calling, and the
holiness of the Master’s house, “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast
unto the end.”
It is, therefore, a snare; pleasant and advantageous meantime, but having the suction of the maelstrom
with it, drawing us to death; for when the Lord of Light stands on earth, to set in order destiny, according to
the Father’s purpose, the world will have from His presence “fled away.”
John rejoiced concerning those to whom he wrote that he had found them “walking in the Truth.” Saints
walk not otherwise. Their actions, plans of life, friendships, aims, enterprises, hopes—everything connected with
them, in some way or other comes from, originates in, and is conformed to the Truth. The Truth is their
inspiration—the controlling energy.
“If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Not that all answer to this. There are professors who serve not the Lord Jesus, but themselves; but such are
not the children of God. None but the sons will be gathered in the day of the 144,000. They are few now, as they
have always been, and the world “knoweth” them not in many senses; but they know what they are about.
They are not dreaming; they are not fanatics. They are the children of wisdom; and wisdom is justified of
them all, though the world understands them not. They understand the world too well to be entrapped into its

fellowship. They are known of God, and will be publicly revealed in due time, in glory, honor and
immortality. Meanwhile, they “walk in the Truth.” On this ground they are to be met and understood.
Approached on any other ground, they will seem not what they are. They are not to be comprehended “after
the flesh.” “This is love, that we walk after His commandments.”
No man loves after the Spirit’s fashion who disobeys. Apostolic “love” is that state of enlightenment and
appreciation in relation to the things of God that impels a man to be a “doer of the Word.” John gives this an application
that was special to his day; and yet is at all times appropriate wherever the same need and the same danger
manifest themselves. He says—
“This is the commandment that as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.” (2 John 6).
We wonder what he means, then presently the light dawns—
“For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus is come in the flesh” (v. 7).
He means that they should hold fast to the doctrine of Christ as originally delivered; because many were
drawing the disciples away therefrom. The obedience of the commandment is the evidence of New Testament
“love,” and it is also necessary for our acceptable standing before the presence of the Lord’s glory at his
coming. This is John’s view, as evident from the words immediately following:
“Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought; but that we receive a full
reward” (v. 8).
There would have been no need for these words if the things that had been “wrought” were not imperilled
by the doctrine of the deceivers of which he is speaking. He indicates, in strong language, the consequences to
the individual thus ensnared— “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not
God” (v. 9).
This may seem a strange saying in view of the fact that the “deceivers” referred to believed in one God, the
Creator of heaven and earth; and also in Christ, after their own fashion. But the apparent strangeness
disappears when we look closely at the matter John is writing about. To “have” God in the sense of John’s
words, is to stand in His favor, now and hereafter.
All things are “in” His goodness. As David says, “Thy goodness is over all Thy works”: but the goodness
of God in the common benefits that come upon all alike, is a different thing from that personal “favor” which
guides, attends, and prospers (even if by chastisement), with a view to a perpetual sonship in the spirit-nature.
The enjoyment of this favor is a thing of conditions. One of those conditions is a recognition of the channel in
which He offers it.
Out of Christ, sinners cannot come near. They have the goodness of God as creatures, like the sparrows,
not one of which can fall to the earth without the Father’s knowledge; but they are not in the privilege of
children. They have not the Father’s favor and purpose concerning the ages to come. This is only to be enjoyed
in Christ; but even here, it must be the Christ of God’s appointing. Any other than this is presumption and a
mockery of His wisdom: and they who teach otherwise than the truth concerning Christ, preach another Christ,
though it be intended to refer to the Christ of Nazareth.
This is evident from the case of those to whom John is referring. They believed that the person known as
Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ; but in their reasonings upon him, they reasoned away the truth about him, and
consequently believed and preached another Jesus than the Son of the Father.
There were different sorts of the class, but all their heresies had a common origin in an attempt to bring the
mystery of godliness within the rules of human reason, instead of accepting the testimony with humble and
childlike simplicity.
One set argued that such a character as Jesus was a moral impossibility in flesh and blood, and that,
therefore, his whole life was a mere accommodation on the part of a spiritual being to the senses of mortals.
Another believing him to be flesh and blood philosophized in a contrary direction, concluding that as such, he
must, from the nature of things, have been a “mere man,” and that the idea of his being God in fleshmanifestation,
was preposterous. The Papacy blended the two and taught that though flesh, his flesh was not
the corrupt and mortal flesh of men, but a superior, clean, “immaculate” sort.
In our own day, as recent painful experience has made us aware, a class of believers are treading the same
dangerous ground, in teaching that the flesh of Jesus was destitute of that which, in the flesh of his brethren, constitutes
the cause or source of mortality. In relation to all of them, John’s declaration reveals the mind of the Spirit:
“Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the

doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (v. 9).
The “doctrine of Christ” is that he is God made and manifested in the mortal flesh of Abraham’s race for
the deliverance thereof—on His own principles—from “that having the power of death.” Those who hold fast
to this have both the Father and the Son; for in Jesus they have the Son, and the Father manifest in Him. As to
those who “bring not this doctrine,” John’s commandment is (v. 10): “Receive him not into your house, neither
bid him God speed”!
This command we can no more evade than any other commandment delivered unto us. The obedience of
it may cost us something. It is crucifying to the flesh to refuse friends—some of them excellent people as
human nature goes—who in one way or other have been seduced from their allegiance to the doctrine of
Christ; but there is no alternative. Friends are but for a moment; the Truth is for ever; and if we sacrifice our duty
to the latter from regard to the former, the latter will sacrifice us in the day of its glory, and hand us over to the
destiny of the flesh, which, as the grass, will pass away. “He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds.”
This applies to all without distinction, and erects a barrier to fellowship with even some who hold the Truth;
for though they may hold the doctrine of Christ themselves, yet, if they keep up a “God speed” connection
with those who do not, by John’s rule, they make themselves partakers with them, and, therefore, cut themselves
off from those who stand for the doctrine of Christ.
The epistle, as a whole, is singularly applicable to the situation in which we find ourselves this morning.
We have been obliged to stand aside for the doctrine of Christ from some we love. The Epistle of John justifies
us in our course, both as regards those who have departed from the doctrine of Christ, and those, who, while
holding on to it themselves, see not their way to break connection with those who have departed.
It is a painful situation, but we must not falter, nor need we fear or be discouraged. God is with us in the
course of obedience, and we shall see His blessing in the increase in our midst of zeal and holiness, and love
and preparedness for the great day of the Lord, which is at hand.
◆
ERROR AND ITS TREATMENT
Dr. Thomas has been nearly 17 years in his grave. The Truth’s friends are vastly more numerous than
they were at the time of his death. On the other hand, progress has been checked by internal convulsions.
The formal renunciation of a vital element of the Truth concerning the sacrifice of Christ, and more recently
the formal promulgation of the doctrine that the Bible is only partly inspired and is marred by errors due
to the participation of human authorship, have caused division and alienations.
The blame of the dissension lies with those who set the cause in motion, and not with those whom
that cause left no alternative but action against it. Supineness of action might have preserved the union of
persons, but it would have been at the expense of purity and spiritual strength on the only basis that can
hold people profitably together.
Both defections have been characterized by an animus against Dr. Thomas’ writings. Events have
justified the Providential arrangements by which their continuous publication has been secured against
the hostility of such as have only partly loved or partly understood the Truth which the author of those
writings has been instrumental in reviving in our day and generation. — January 1888
Error and opposition to Bro. Thomas’s sound exposition (including Revelation) go hand-in-hand. —G.V. Growcott

The Doctrine of Fellowship
“Receive him not into the house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God
speed is partaker (fellowshipper) of his evil deeds” — 2 John 10-11
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
This dialog appeared in the Christadelphian of 1892. It’s in answer to an unsound pamphlet, taken
sentence by sentence. The pamphlet’s statements are in “this type”, prefixed by “F:” for “False”. The
scriptural replies are prefixed by “T:” for “True.” The pamphlet argues that breaking of bread is not “fellowship,”
that breaking bread with and/or fellowshipping errorists is not unscriptural, and that “fellowship” is actually
something beyond our control (if we’re in agreement, we’re “in fellowship”; if we’re not, we’re not; we can’t
control it, and need not worry about it.) It is not consistent, admitting some things it elsewhere denies. Though
it disagrees violently with it, it clearly recognizes and concedes what was the established Christadelphian
position on fellowship up to that time, and herein it is a valuable testimony. It is quite clear, both from the
admissions in the pamphlet, and the answers for the Truth, that the accepted Christadelphian belief then was,
and regularly had been—
1. It is wrong to fellowship those who fellowship error.
2. Breaking of bread is inseparable from fellowship, and is the “highest act of fellowship possible” (Bro.
Roberts), involving “God speed” to those participated with.
3. Breaking bread with known errorists involves us in responsibility for their errors.
This is what is being objected to. This is what is being defended as established Bible truth.
— Bro. G.V. Growcott
A DEFENSE OF THE HISTORIC CHRISTADELPHIAN POSITION
T: In many cases we have to refuse fellowship to those we hope to see accepted by-and-by through the mercy
of God. But it would not be scriptural to allow this hope to be the ground of fellowship.
F: I cannot agree. I only hope to see men in the Kingdom when I believe there is some possibility of them being
there. When I could see NO reason for hoping, THERE I should refuse fellowship, but NOWHERE ELSE.
T: Your contention that in fellowshipping others we incur no responsibility for their actions or beliefs is quite
opposed to Bible teaching, and some of your admissions will help make such manifest. We shall confine our
remarks to points on which you are at issue with us, as there are many statements in your pamphlet which we
do not question. Now for your first complaint.
F: I believe fellowship is a subject that has really received very little consideration, and consequently is but
imperfectly understood.
T: Speaking of the ecclesias with which we have been connected for 17 years, we can truly say that
“fellowship” has repeatedly been most thoroughly discussed—as much if not more so—than any other
doctrine.
F: Among the voluminous literature dealing with almost every phase of the Truth, the doctrine of fellowship has
been given little or no place.
T: That is not true. The doctrine of fellowship has been given a large place in the Christadelphian, especially
when false brethren have introduced heresy.
F: I have come to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship is radically unsound. First
of all, and in order that its bearings may be fully appreciated, it will be better to give some sort of a definition of
fellowship as it is generally understood by us. It is usually believed to consist of the act of breaking bread and
drinking wine in memory of the death of our Lord, and in recognition of our adoption into the family of God.
T: Nonsense! That “fellowship consists of this act” is not usually believed by us. In fact, you are the only
person we ever heard had such an idea and a moment’s reflection will make manifest your error. For if
fellowship “consists of this act,” then fellowship only exists between those who have actually met together,
and thus we should have no fellowship with our brethren abroad.
You must know we do not so believe or teach! We also have fellowship with God and with Christ without
the act of breaking bread (see 1 John 1-3).

F: It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God speed to all with whom we partake of the
sacrificial emblems.
T: True. WE DO SO BELIEVE. And when you give reason for believing otherwise, we will deal with such,
and give you testimony to support our belief. We shall also have something to say of our belief that breaking
of bread is simply an act of fellowship, and not its sum total. But go on.
F: It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by
them, or unrighteous conduct that they may practice.
T: True also: provided 1) that the errors affect first principles; 2) that the unrighteous conduct has not been
repented of; and 3) that we are aware of such errors of belief and conduct.
F: And we have refused to break bread with brethren whose faith we know to be identically our own, because
they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or
other.
T: If by “some point or other” you mean such errors as just referred to, we are justified in so refusing, and the
grounds for such refusal will be manifest as we proceed with our arguments.
F: Our fear has been that the responsibility of error would be transmitted to us through the medium of someone
who had himself become subject to that responsibility through the act of fellowship.
T: What do you mean by “responsibility transmitted”?
F: That evil, either of faith or practice, is conveyed from one to another by the act of breaking bread, much in the
same way as uncleanness was conveyed from the leper through another who came into personal contact with
him, to a third person, a fourth, and so on.
T: Your understanding of the matter is not correct. As to responsibility being “transmitted” through
mediums, we have never held any such idea. A man is only responsible for his own errors (and quite enough,
too). We believe that if he knowingly fellowships false teachers, he is responsible for so doing. But that is a very
different thing from having the particular evil of such teachers “transmitted” to him.
F: Now, if this principle be a true one, it...
T: But we have not contended it is; and therefore there is no need to speculate as to where it leads, or what
the results may be of applying such a principle.
F: It has led to the severing of the Brotherhood.
T: As the principle has no existence with us, it cannot lead us to anything. What has led to the severance of the
Brotherhood is the fact of certain ones bringing into its midst ideas contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10),
thus causing division—which has been ended by the earnest contenders of the Faith withdrawing themselves (2
Thess. 3:6), marking those who have caused the division (Rom. 16:17).
F: It is continually troubling us with questions of an aggravating character that prevent us occupying our whole
time in building ourselves up in the Faith.
T: Surely you fail to recognize what’s included in that “building up”. A scamping builder is not particular as
to what material he uses. A wise builder uses only that which will meet with the architect’s approval. So a
faithful workman in assisting to build up the spiritual Temple (2 Cor. 6:16) will scrupulously avoid compromising
the work by using what he believes the Divine Architect does not approve of. The work is not ours but
His. It must be done according to His specifications: wind- and water-proof (Matt. 7:24-29). As to the
disastrous effect a little bad material will have on even a large building, you will do well to read 1 Cor. 5:1-11,
and such like testimony.
F: We spend too much time in considering whom we ought to admit to be in faithful service to Christ.
T: In view of your circumscribed ideas of “building up,” doubtless you think so.
F: And leave too little time to do our own faithfully and well.
T: We have already seen that to be faithful needs our doing what you condemn.
F: The way out of this difficulty we believe to be through an acknowledgment that this doctrine of fellowship
just mentioned (which is responsible for such a lamentable state of things) is a false doctrine.
T: In your desire to avoid unpleasantness, you would purchase peace at the expense of purity. Christ will not
countenance this. He would prefer that sword separate father from son, than that such a price should be paid.
Yea, he predicted that such would be the case (Matt. 10:34-35). When trouble arises through faithfulness to the

doctrines of Christ, it would be an easy “way out of the difficulty” to conclude that those doctrines were false,
and thus (but only for the present) avoid a “lamentable state of things.” But “in all things consider the end.”
Wise men will do so, always bearing in mind that “through much tribulation we must enter the Kingdom.”
F: Actions which have been done upon its basis are steps in the wrong direction which have brought us into a
position that is altogether unjustifiable, and must be displeasing in God’s sight. But it is not enough that we
should say this. We must show that this doctrine of fellowship is unscriptural, and also what the Bible really does
teach upon the subject.
T: That is true; to “say” is not enough.
F: The word “fellowship” occurs 17 times in the Bible, but not in one instance is it used as meaning the act of
breaking bread.
T: That is denying what isn’t affirmed. The converse is what we believe; that breaking of bread is fellowship,
one of the highest forms of it, in fact. But this is a very different thing from what you are opposing. If you said an
oak was a noble tree, and we began in opposition to show you that all noble trees were not oaks, you would
conclude we were ignorant of the most elementary logic. Your denial is on a par with this illustration.
F: The original word translated “fellowship” is given in a lexicon as “companionship, agreement, or communion.”
T: That’s just how we understand it, provided the idea of “distribution” is combined therewith. The Greek
word is so rendered in 2 Cor. 9:13. This goes to show the permeating character of fellowship.
F: We are told in Acts 2:41-42, “There were added unto the church about 3000 souls, and they continued
steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and in fellowship, AND in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” This of itself
is sufficient to show that fellowship is not breaking of bread, for the two things are separately spoken of.
T: Quite so. The converse of your statement is what we impugn.
F: And are as distinct as the two others mentioned: the apostles’ doctrine and prayers.
T: In a sense, yes. But from the Bible point of view, they cannot be separated. They stand or fall together. True
fellowship, like true charity, comprises many items, but consists in no individual one.
F: In 1 Cor. 10, we are taught the true distinction between breaking of bread and fellowship, for the apostle
plainly declares that the one is the representation or acknowledgment of the other.
T: Quite true! And you will do well to note and bear in mind the two admissions involved in your statement:
1) that we must not separate the breaking of bread from the fellowship which it “represents”; and 2) that when
we break bread it is “an acknowledgment” that fellowship exists.
F: Verse 20 confirms this idea, for he wrote that “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils
and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”
T: That completely overthrows your contention that we do not involve ourselves in the errors (of belief or
practice) of those with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. Here Paul distinctly counsels them NOT
to “fellowship devils” BY eating and drinking to them.
F: But they could not break bread and drink wine with devils.
T: Just so! And therefore the way in which these Corinthians could “fellowship devils” was by breaking bread
and drinking wine with those who BELIEVED in the devils, and in that manner they would involve themselves in
the errors of devil worshipers. Thus it is plain from Paul that to “fellowship” anything does not necessitate
personal communion. A profession of agreement with their votaries is all-sufficient, and such profession you
have already admitted is found in breaking bread with them. Moreover, Paul in this chapter (1 Cor. 10:18)
plainly declares that those who eat DO thereby “fellowship.” (The AV reads “partakes,” but the original word is
the same as is translated “fellowship” in verse 20.)
F: In 2 Cor. 8:4 we have the word “fellowship” used with apparently a still different meaning. Writing of the
churches of Macedonia, Paul said, “To their power I bear record—yea, and beyond their power—they were
willing of themselves, praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the
fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” Here a certain office or capacity appears to be spoken of. It is
manifest that the ordinance of breaking of bread can have no reference to Paul’s words here.
T: If you would but recognize that breaking of bread is but ONE of many forms of fellowship, these passages
would all become plain to you. The word in the text you quote is, as we have already said, rendered in v. 13
of the next chapter, “distribution,” which is another form of “fellowship” among the saints.

F: We have probably adduced sufficient passages to prove our point: that the word “fellowship,” as used in the
Scriptures, is not an equivalent of the act of breaking bread.
T: You have not adduced a single passage that proves we are wrong in maintaining that to “break bread and
drink wine” in remembrance of Christ is a form of fellowship, by reason of being the “acknowledgment” of such.
F: We admit that the ordinance instituted by Christ is an acknowledgment, or an outward sign, of fellowship—
but it is not the thing itself.
T: True, the ordinance of breaking bread is not the sum total of fellowship. But, nevertheless, it is “an act of
fellowship,” as you (no doubt unwittingly) have admitted. Paul’s reasoning with regards to the body and its
many members forcibly applies to your mode of argument (1 Cor. 12:14). Although the whole body be not
simply the eye or the ear, yet both form portions of the body. So, the fellowship be not simply “breaking of
bread” or “prayers,” yet both form important elements of it.
F: Fellowship is a matter entirely beyond our control; and there is NO MEANING in our words when we say we
will “fellowship” this brother, and we will not “fellowship” another.
T: If your statement is true, then we must deprive the early Christians of any merit in continuing “steadfastly
in fellowship” (Acts 2:42), for according to you, to do otherwise was “beyond their control.” Paul says, “To do
good and communicate (original: fellowship) forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Your
statement teaches that we need no reminding to fellowship, as to do otherwise is “beyond our control.” And
for the same reason, there can be no “sacrifice” in the matter, and therefore God is simply well pleased with
our doing a thing we cannot help doing, as it is “beyond our control” to do otherwise.
F: Brethren who believe the same Gospel and are working in the service of Christ ARE in fellowship with each
other.
T: True.
F: Their common faith and common labor constitute that fellowship, and it cannot exist without them.
T: True—always remembering that such common labor includes “assembling together” and “eating” of the
sacrificial emblems when circumstances admit of it.
F: We cannot be in agreement with any upon the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ without being in fellowship
with them.
T: It would be more scriptural if you used the expression “things” concerning the Kingdom of God and the
Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), AND “continue in well-doing” (Rom. 11:7). But perhaps you mean this: if
so, your statement is true.
F: Neither can we be in disagreement upon the essentials of that Gospel, and yet be in fellowship.
T: That follows as the logical sequence.
F: We cannot “fellowship” false doctrine without being in agreement with it, and therefore believing it.
T: That is NOT true. The Scriptures declare we can fellowship without believing it. One illustration will
suffice. In the chapter referred to (1 Cor. 10:18) we have seen that Paul tells his brethren that those who eat of
the sacrifices offered to idols are “partakers” (original: fellowshippers) of the alter, and therefore fellowship
ALL represented thereby—which in this case were “demons” or idols. Now, you have admitted that they did
not eat with the idols themselves, but with their worshipers. The Corinthian believers knew with Paul that an
“idol is nothing in the world” (1 Cor. 8:4). Therefore it is clear from Paul’s counsel to them that they could
“fellowship” false doctrine without believing in it themselves.
F: We cannot fellowship the evil deeds of another without being in agreement with them and doing the same
things.
T: We have just shown we can. But further: John in his second epistle calls false teaching concerning Christ
an “evil deed.” And he says if we bid the man with this false doctrine God speed,” we become partakers
(original: fellowshippers) of his evil deeds. It is quite clear he is not referring to those who believed or were
doing the same things, for he says it is the bidding him God speed that creates the participation. Now, what is
meant by “God speed”? The original word occurs 74 times. It is only rendered “God speed” twice. The rest of
the time it is rendered “hail, rejoice, rejoicing, greeting, joy, glad, and farewell.” So the primary meaning is
evidently “welcome.” We are not to welcome a holder of false doctrine. Not to welcome him where? At our
homes, or at the Table? Why, at the Table of the Lord—for surely you cannot contend that we ought to welcome

a person there when we cannot welcome him at our house.
F: The idea of responsibility for the beliefs and doings of others being transferred to us by the breaking of bread
is a false idea.
T: Your ideas on this “transference of responsibility” are entirely without foundation. We believe no such
thing.
F: The principle taught throughout the Bible is that declared in Ezekiel: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The
son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness
of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (18:20).
T: Yes, and every true Christadelphian heartily endorses that testimony. In no way does it militate against
their belief that God will not hold him guiltless who presumes to “hail” or bid “God speed” to those who fail
to respect the holy, separate, peculiar position to which He calls them.
F: This was said by God in reply to a statement made by the Israelites to the effect that His way is not equal,
because they believed that the evil doings of an individual would be visited upon another. Let us be careful how
we make this same accusation against God.
T: The accusation is certainly not to be found in the Christadelphian doctrine of fellowship, one of the
principles of which is that each member is responsible to God for the company HE keeps.
F: It is as true in the 19th century after Christ as it was five centuries before him that “the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked upon him.”
T: Yes, quite as true. And that man who bids erroneous teachers and evildoers “God speed” or “joy” by
partaking of the emblems with them will not suffer for the evil deeds of his companions, but for his own
unfaithfulness in holding fellowship where God has forbidden it.
F: There are many other considerations that plainly show the fallacy of the idea that the breaking of bread is a
medium for the transference of evil.
T: No doubt. But such a thing as “transference of evil” is not believed by the Christadelphians, hence there
is no need to go into “other considerations.” But while the breaking of bread cannot be the medium for the
“transference of evil,” it can be the means of making a man an evil-doer by partaking with evil-doers, as we have
most clearly proved from the epistles of Paul and John.
F: We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove, and would not do ourselves. We
constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching. But do you think
for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with
those that practice them?
T: God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us. Hence, what is sin to one may
not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word “essentials.” By that, we presume you mean “first
principles.” Only errors which involve those “essentials” or “first principles” should bar our fellowship.
F: If we break bread with a brother whose idea upon some doctrinal subject is different from our own, does that
act make us believe the same as he?
T: Of course not! The question is too ridiculous to seriously ask.
F: Then we have no agreement with such a belief, consequently we do not fellowship it.
T: You have made that statement before, and we have shown its unscripturalness.
F: If evil be thus transferred, then upon the same principle, the good would be also.
T: Certainly. But as evil is not transferred, on the same principle, good is not. It would be better if you kept to
the words “partake” or “fellowship” instead of coining the word “transfer” for us.
F: Why should we become partakers of a brother’s sin by breaking bread with him, and not be partakers in
another brother’s well-doing by the same means?
T: Just as we “partake” of sin in bidding “God speed” to evil-doers, so we “partake” of good in doing
likewise with “well-doers” (Mal. 3:16).
F: If every time we break bread in the same company with a righteous brother and a wicked brother, we have
fellowship with their righteousness and their iniquity respectively, then both righteousness and wickedness
would be imputed to us as a consequence?
T: With regard to the typical uncleanness under the Law of Moses, created by contact with unclean persons

(to which you have referred), it distinctly states— “When he knoweth of it, THEN he shall be guilty” (Lev. 5:3).
In like manner, under Christ’s law, iniquity is not imputed where we unwittingly “sacrifice” or “break bread”
with a “wicked brother.” WE only (knowingly) fellowship righteous brethren, and therefore only righteousness
is “imputed” (your word) to us.
F: John wrote: “Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (I John 1:3). Now we read in
the same chapter (v. 8) that “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the Truth is not in us,” for “All
have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3.23). But, although we are all sinners, yet “we have
fellowship with the Father and the Son.” Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?
T: If we are “walking in the Light” [required for fellowship: v. 7], then the “sin” which we have is not imputed
to us, but we are covered by the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:6-8; Rev. 7:14). Clothed with this garment, we
have the fellowship of the Father and the Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their
fellowship. While we have fellowship with them, we are “clean every whit” (John 13:10), and thus there is no
wickedness for them to be “involved” in.
F: If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and
the Son.
T: Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives
through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote: “If we
confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9). Bearing this in mind, can you not
see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children “cleansed from ALL
unrighteousness” (same verse), and that therefore there is no sin for the Father and Son to be “involved” in.
WITHOUT THIS FORGIVENESS, THERE IS NO FELLOWSHIP. That man is not forgiven who unrepentantly
continues in sin, and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves
from the fellowship of the Father and Son.
F: If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong-doings by the fellowship we are permitted to have with
them, then our brethren are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with
us.
T: Firstly, we have shown that there is no wrong-doing for the Father and Son to be involved in. Secondly, we
do not believe or teach responsibility for other men’s sins; but that it is for our OWN sins in knowingly partaking
with unrepentant wrong doers that we are held responsible.
F: These few points, if carefully reflected upon (especially bearing in mind that not a tittle of Scripture evidence
arrays itself against them) are sufficient to destroy the idea hitherto held by most of us.*
T: It ill becomes you to talk about “Scripture evidence.” From beginning to end, you quote but seven texts in
a long, written address in which you profess to have demonstrated the unscriptural nature of what we
contend is a Bulwark of the Unity of the Household of Christ. Your quotations are: Lev. 6:2; Psa. 94:20; Acts 2:41;
1 Cor. 10:15-20; 2 Cor. 8:4; Eze. 18:4; 1 John 1. We have shown that these do not help you but us. And we have
amply supported them with other quotations. Your assertion about “not a tittle of evidence” against you is on
a par with your statement about the “subject being imperfectly understood.”
F: The idea has gained a place in our minds by being handed from one to another and accepted without
examination. Thus it has operated for a considerable time without anyone feeling called upon to give a reason
for it.
T: If the “our minds” consists of your own, we do not object to your assertion, but if you mean the brethren
generally, we impugn it. And we have already given our reason for so doing.
F: This doctrine has been responsible for most of the awful divisions that have taken place among the
Brotherhood.
T: But that is no reason, to a student of the Word, for rejecting the doctrine. The beloved apostle alone informs
us of three divisions on account of Christ in the short space of one year (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Christ himself
tells us that obedience to him would result in division (Luke 12:51). Peter and Paul both speak of Christ as “a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Peter 2:8; Rom. 9:33; 1 Cor. 1:23). And on one occasion Christ said
even “all” his disciples would be “offended” because of him (Matt. 26:31). But shall we reject him, because he
was the reason for all these divisions? Nay, is it not rather to be expected that as Christ was himself the
“source” of so many divisions, so his doctrine would also be, if faithfully contended for?
*Let us note well this testimony that “most” had till then held the views he is repudiating.

F: If we are in agreement on the subject matter of “The One Faith,” and mutually strive to walk in harmony with
Christ’s commands, our fellowship remains—even though we may not “break bread together” till Christ comes.
T: That is true—provided it is not our fault that we do not break bread with others: such as inability to get to
the meetings, etc. But if we refuse to break bread when opportunity occurs, then we are wilfully disobedient,
and cannot expect the fellowship of God and of His faithful children.
F: Do not let me be misunderstood. We ought not to acknowledge fellowship where there is no agreement upon
fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ. That is the basis of our fellowship—of our communion.
T: And a scriptural basis it is, too. But in the statements you have made, you decline to confine your
acknowledgment of this fellowship to those who are in agreement on this question. You are willing to extend
fellowship to those who do not see the need for such agreement on those fundamental elements, and who
thereby destroy unity of mind on this highly important doctrine of fellowship.
F: If there be agreement among ourselves and others upon the ground of our Faith, and companionship in our
efforts to conform to the spirit of God’s commands, then we ought to be glad and willing to acknowledge the
fellowship.
T: Yes, “if”! But there is no such agreement, if you acknowledge fellowship with those who—while believing
with you on the “essentials”—are nevertheless willing to fellowship with others who do not see the need for
having the same mind.
F: Do not let us think that perfection of agreement is requisite upon all sorts of recondite matters in connection
with the Truth, in order to establish the fellowship of the Gospel.
T: You must know we have never so believed, and therefore such a remark is not creditable to you.
F: Those things that God has plainly declared to be necessary before a man can be truly baptized into Christ,
are the only essentials of fellowship, and there can be no fellowship without them.
T: True. And that must be the gauge or test to be applied, not only to those with whom we personally
acknowledge fellowship, but also to those who are acknowledged by them, and so on.
F: Where they are believed and observed, fellowship is established, whether we recognize it or not.
T: “Believed AND observed”! True.
F: It behooves us to act toward each other as we would have Yahweh act toward us.
T: Yes, provided no command of God is thereby violated—for in some cases faithfulness prohibits us so
acting.
F: God admits men into His fellowship who are not perfect.
T: That is not true. Only those clothed in His Son’s righteousness (and therefore perfect in him) are so admitted.
F: Not one of us dare say that many brethren who are denied the privilege of sitting with us at the Lord’s table
are not the adopted children of God, even as we.
T: And neither do we so say. But there are faithful and unfaithful children. Connivance at, or condonation of,
unfaithfulness is not permissible.
F: Not one of us dare assert that they are less worthy of the divine approval, or that they are not admitted into
the fellowship of the Father and Son.
T: And we have no desire to make such assertions. We leave Christ to do the asserting. We simply say we
believe you are dishonoring God and His Son by partaking with those who do not maintain the Unity of the
Faith. We decline to participate in unfaithfulness by receiving your fellowship.
F: I say again that there is only one way in which we can fellowship iniquitous conduct, and that is by practicing
the same things, or conniving at their practice.
T: You have simply given us such “say,” while we have clearly proved from the Bible that this “say” is
unscriptural.
F: Let us require no more on the part of others before we will recognize the fellowship that actually DOES exist
between us—whether we consent or not. Let us require no more of them than we are ready to render ourselves.
T: If that means anything at all, it means that you believe we are those “who say, and do not” (Matt. 23:3). In
making such grave charges (by implication), it would be well if you kept your remark to a pronoun of the first
person singular.

F: On the other hand, let us continue to refuse to break bread with all who hold not the Truth as it is in Jesus.
T: Good! But then you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood generally with whom
you are in fellowship. You maintain that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so
recognize in fellowship. The logical result can be but one: you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a
community that permits fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines
you believe to be fundamental. Your alleged “unity of faith” will go to the winds and be destroyed by unsound
principles.
F: Let us cease to think so much of responsibility for the actions of others that cannot belong to us.
T: It would be more scriptural to cease to talk in that way, and begin to remember that “He that biddeth him
God speed is partaker (fellowshipper) of his evil deeds” (2 John 11). To remember also that Christ threatened the
early churches for KEEPING IN the church evil thinkers and evil doers (Rev. 2:14-15, 20)—while not charging
them personally with believing or doing the same things.
F: Let us spend less time in the unnecessary carefulness to keep ourselves immaculate from the blemishes of
others by reason of touching but the border of their garments.
T: A smart sentence: but sad to hear from one who has known the Truth. In reply, we will simply give you
a few texts to think over, and which some day you may see inculcate the carefulness you now condemn—
“Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, and avoid them”
(Rom. 16:17).
“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out the old leaven...put away...that
wicked person” (1 Cor 5:6-13).
“Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).
“Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers...Come out from among them and be ye separate...and
I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:14-17).
“Be not ye therefore partakers with them...Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”
(Eph. 5:7-11).
“We command you in the Name of our Lord Jesus: withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us...If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that
man, and have no company with him” (2 Thess. 3:6-14).
“Be not partakers (fellowshippers) of other men’s sins” (1 Tim. 5:22).
“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers (fellowshippers) of her sins” (Rev. 18:4).
F: Let us take greater care to keep our OWN garments unspotted from the world.
T: To do this effectually, we must attend the counsel in the texts just quoted.
F: Christ came into direct contact with worldly filth enough, but it did not adhere to his own robe of
righteousness.
T: Aye! But though “in the world,” he was not “of the world” (John 17:11-16). He had “no fellowship with the
works of darkness, but rather reproved them” (Eph. 5:11). We are counseled to “follow his steps” (1 Peter
2:21).
—Christadelphian, February-March, 1892

Distance and Fellowship
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Some inaccurate ideas appear to be entertained by some on the subject of fellowship. The 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 (1 John 1:7).
Fellowship is that recognized 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.
Suppose, when an ecclesia is asked, “Are you in fellowship with the Mormons?” it should answer that
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.
And 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 into barbarism. And so a body of men professing
to receive the Truth in its uncompromised fullness 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 had closed his eyes.
INWARD PEACE THROUGH OUTWARD TURMOIL
The Truth can give peace, and in this peace it can preserve a man amid all the troubles and turmoils
of life. Not that he will never know trouble. A righteous man cannot be in this present evil world without
knowing trouble: but there is a trouble that is OUTSIDE and a trouble that is INSIDE—as regards causes.
Christ’s troubles were great, but they were all outside: inside, peace was his experience: “My peace”
as he called it. So it will be with his brethren. They may know trouble among men, but in their own hearts
towards God, peace reigns.
But even this peace is a thing of conditions; and it is the conditions we have to watch. When have we
the greatest peace? Is it not when we see the most clearly and believe the most heartily the things
declared to us by the Truth? It is the vivid sense of those “things” that imparts peace. —Bro. Roberts
◆

The True Christadelphian Ecclesia
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
The Christadelphian Ecclesia must have Love.
“This is MY COMMANDMENT” (says Jesus) “that ye love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12
and 13:34).
“We know that we have passed from death into life—because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his
brother abideth in death” (1 John 3:14-16).
“ABOVE ALL THINGS, have fervent love among yourselves, for love shall cover the multitude of sins”
(1 Peter 4:8).
“ABOVE ALL...put on love, the bond of PERFECTNESS.”
“Let us not love in word, but in DEED and in truth.”
It may be objected that we cannot force love; but it should be remembered that love is a spiritual principle
required by the Law of Christ, and it should be our pleasure to obey that Law. If we cannot do this we cannot
please him.
* * *
The Christadelphian Ecclesia must have the Spirit of Christ.
“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is NONE OF HIS...as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are Sons of God.”
“Because ye are Sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts: IF ye are Sons, then are ye
heirs of God!”
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness” (Gal. 5:22-
23).
The Spirit of Christ is a gentle Spirit —
“When he was reviled he reviled not again, when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to
Him that judgeth righteously” (1 Peter 2:23).
* * *
The Christadelphian Ecclesia must have a living Faith.
“Without Faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6).
The Faith that pleases God is a Faith that works—
“...works by Love” (Gal. 5:6) ... “purifieth the heart” (Acts 15:9) ... “overcometh the world” (1 John 5:4).
“Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).
* * *
Works of the Flesh not tolerated.
The Christadelphian Ecclesia, having CRUCIFIED the flesh with its affections and lusts, does not tolerate
the works of the flesh as enumerated in Gal. 5:18-21, of which we appropriately mention— “Enmity, strife,
jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension” (RV).
It will be observed that the apostle says with great emphasis that— “They that do such things shall not
inherit the Kingdom.”
* * *
Fellowship in Christ.
The Christadelphian Ecclesia knows that—
“If we SAY we have fellowship with Christ, and walk in darkness, we LIE...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 Son” (1
John 1).
She knows that righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness, no concord of Christ and Belial, no
communion of light and darkness. She knows that she walks in the light by keeping the commandments of Christ,
who says—

“IF ye love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS” (John 14:15).
“Ye are my friends, IF ye do whatsoever I command you”
“Why call ye me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things I say?”
Christ’s brethren have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. The tares and the wheat cannot
grow together in Christ. They can, and do, in the world.
* * *
“A Spiritual House.”
The Ecclesia, having a LIVING Faith, is made up of—
“...lively stones, built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable
to God by Jesus Christ.”
It is the—
“Temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in it, and if any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God
destroy.”
Christadelphians are—
“A people taken OUT of the Gentiles for the Name of the Lord.”
They are, therefore—
“A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people—that they might SHOW
FORTH the praises of Him Who hath called them OUT OF darkness into His marvelous light.”
* * *
The Christadelphian Ecclesia is the Bride of Christ—
—and knows that when her Bridegroom comes she must have on the wedding garment, if she would be
presented to him as—
“A GLORIOUS Ecclesia, having no spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but should be HOLY, and
WITHOUT BLEMISH.”
The “spots and wrinkles” CAN BE OBLITERATED by the righteousness of Christ, who is always our
Advocate with the Father: provided—that we confess AND FORSAKE our sins, and pray earnestly for mercy
and forgiveness.
* * *
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, keeping the Feast with unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.”
Her work is not a work of ignorance and indifference, which says,
“Christ fellowshipped Judas...”
“Let the tares and the wheat grow together...”
“Everyone 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...etc...”
—and this (to be said by) the Ecclesia, or Body of Christ, the “pillar and ground of the Truth,” and the “Temple
of God” in which His Spirit dwells!
* * *
Her Warfare
The Christadelphian Ecclesia knows she has a great conflict with foes within and without—the world, the
flesh, and the devil—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the 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.
—Christadelphian, 1887
Fellowship and Division
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
There is such a thing as “the Truth.” There is such a thing as “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 leads to division, and not any insensibility to the advantages 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”
(Luke 12:51-52).
The result is inevitable in an evil world, so long as there’s any faithfulness left. It is insinuated 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 says concerning those who “bring not the doctrine
of Christ” that the faithful are to “receive them not into their house” (2 John 10). And Jesus, in his message
through the same John, commends one ecclesia for acting on this discrimination, and condemns one for not—
“Thou (Ephesus) CANST NOT BEAR them that are evil, but have tried them that say they are apostles, and hast
found them liars” (Rev. 2:2).
“Thou (Thyatira) sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants...”
(Rev. 2:20).
Schism is the result of acting out these principles, and it 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.
The Truth 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.
—February 1891
FELLOWSHIP
The belief of the Truth is not a sufficient basis of fellowship if it be allied with wrong-doing or
nullifying doctrine. We are commanded to withdraw when that is the case, and from those who would
countenance the wrong, even if they would not themselves perpetrate it. There are various forms of
wrong-doing and spiritual leaven.
—July, 1892

Union and Unity
“All speak the same thing...that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be
perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment” — 1 Cor. 1:10
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Unity is a beautiful and desirable thing, but it has conditions that cannot be forced, and it requires no
pleas. Where it exists, it asserts itself like a law of nature. Union may require its pleas.
Union has advantages. There has been much talk of late years of “the re-union of Christendom.” The
scheme is favored by many who would sacrifice oneness of faith (or indeed faith of any kind) for the sake of
seeing all sects fused into one church. It was supposed that the Pope himself was in favor of the scheme; so he
was, provided all accepted the Roman Catholic faith, in which, so far as theory was concerned, he was more
consistent than the rest.
Among ourselves, there was a similar movement 20 years ago. Records of it will be found on page 538 of
the Christadelphian for 1877—under the heading “Proposal for Re-union.” In that case, the cause of disunion
was disunity of mind on the subject of the nature and sacrifice of Christ.
The remarks made then are applicable at the present time, when the particular disunion existing is due to
disunity of mind on the more serious question of the character of the Holy Scriptures. We remarked then as
follows:
“Union and peace are results springing from preceding conditions. Those from whom separation
took place would rejoice to accept the restoration of fellowship if it were offered on the basis of truth
accepted and error discarded; but they cannot accept it on the basis of a form of agreement which
would cover up and compromise the real issue.
“To ‘let bygones be bygones’ is a reasonable proposal when the ‘bygones’ are of such a nature as
to be sorrowed for and repudiated; but those to whom a return is proposed have no bygones to repent
of so far as their course in this particular matter is concerned.
“They acted with a good conscience before God, with sorrow they were compelled to act, but
seeing no alternative: and they are in the mind to act so again if necessity call for it—which God forbid.
Their position now is the position they occupied then.
“If any desire to take part in this position as the result of a conviction that they have been seduced
into a wrong position, those to whom they wish to return will gladly welcome their fellowship in it.
But let there be no misunderstanding. THERE CAN BE NO UNION WITHOUT UNITY.”
These remarks, just 20 years old, are strictly applicable to the present case. Agreement as to the wholly
inspired infallible character of the Scriptures is the very first condition of association on the basis of belief of
what they teach. This agreement was broken by the promulgation of a theory of the effect that the Scriptures
were partly human and erring.
There were those who accepted this theory and those who could not, and there were those who were disposed
to make it a matter of indifference. Cleavage was the inevitable result of such a situation.
The author or authors of the present “plea for unity” are not the only persons “saddened” by the
“divisions and estrangements that have taken place,” but union without unity is not the remedy for the sadness.
And UNION WITH UNITY WILL NEVER BE A GENERAL THING TILL THE LORD IS HERE. He said
there would be division even in families about him. And it has been so; and it is not going to stop till he ends
it.
The only practicable rule of operation at present is fellowship on the basis of oneness of mind. It is a rule
fraught with embarrassment and pain, but it is not of human appointment and cannot be set aside where
faithfulness to the Word of God is not extinct.
To confound this rule with the Corinthian schisms that gloried in particular men after the flesh, is a
serious mistake.
* * *
There is suggested the appointment of “delegates” to meet and “finally settle the differences which exist.”
“Delegates” have no power to settle matters of faith, conviction, or duty. You may give them power to engage

a hall or enter upon a printing contract, or any other secular matter in which you agree beforehand to be bound
by their decision.
You cannot delegate the decision of spiritual issues. This is wholly a matter of individual responsibility in which no
man can bind or absolve another. When you appoint “delegates” to settle questions of duty, you abdicate
individual conscience and set up a spiritual tyranny akin to the councils which have already for ages
desolated the world.
The only practicable method of work in an age when God has chosen to be silent is for each man to judge for
himself and as many as are of one mind to work together.
The proposal to “appoint delegates with full powers to act,” and that “their decision for unity shall be
final,” is the proposal of a man who may want peace (which is a good thing on the right foundation), but who
does not understand what he is proposing.
If oneness of mind be not the condition-precedent of oneness of association, then let us return to the churches and
chapels with all speed. Why stand apart from the orthodox communions, with their many advantageous
connections and associations, for the sake of a spiritual fad, if the One Faith is not essential to the One Body?
It is a thing apostolically enjoined, a thing commended by the highest reason, to contend earnestly for the
Faith in its integrity, and to stand aside from all who corrupt it. It is a thing, the absence of which in the first
century, led to wholesale corruption, and would in our day have already destroyed the distinctive features of
the Truth.
In the arduous battle for the Truth, it is a thing beset with many difficulties, and a true friend of the
spiritual order would not increase those difficulties by protesting against it, but would rather abet and
encourage every tendency in the direction of faithfulness in this gloomy and unfriendly age.
* * *
Then there is the proposition that “Christadelphianism is not a finality.” If this were our opinion, we
should be found altogether elsewhere. We would not sacrifice present respectability and present ease for the
sake of a thing admitting of uncertainty and requiring further “enquiry.”
In this point we totally differ from all our critics. WE ARE CERTAIN WE HAVE ATTAINED TO THE TRUTH,
WE ARE POSITIVE, WE HAVE NO DOUBT. The Truth is not with us an object of search, or a subject of
investigation, it is a possession and a finality, and this confidence is not a matter of assumption or an
idiosyncrasy. It is founded on a lifetime’s incessant daily reading of the Scriptures.
The critics condemn confidence as to the teaching of the Word. They either mean that we never can reach
to the full assurance of faith or that their view of the case and not their neighbor’s is the infallible one.
If the former be their meaning, they convict themselves of belonging to the class condemned in the
Scriptures, who are “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.” If the latter, it is a
choice of infallibilities, and we do not hesitate to reject theirs.
“Progress” is a pretty word, and “stemming the current of progress” a dreadful crime, of course; but there
is progress two ways, and we cannot accept the guidance of the critics as to when the progress is backwards and
when forwards. The backward progress of things in the first century was pushed forward with “good words
and fair speeches, which deceived the hearts of the simple.”
We are one with those who hold the Truth as a finality, who do not require to “lay again the foundations;”
but who, strong in faith and filled with all wisdom, are engaged in the work, not of discussing the Truth, but
advocating it for the development of a people who shall be found in all assurance of faith, looking and
preparing for the second appearing of the Son of Man in power and great glory.
Paul commands the brethren to “all speak the same thing,” and to be “perfectly joined together in the same
mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). How strangely, by the side of this, does the statement of this
pamphlet read: That “certain differences of opinion are necessary to progress,” and that these differences are
to be “appreciated rather than otherwise.” What can we do but hold by Paul and reject the pamphlet?
We can understand the sentiment of the pamphlet as applied to matters of science where knowledge
comes from investigation, and investigation is stimulated by conflicting theory, but it is incomprehensible in
reference to the faith of Christ except on the hypothesis already rebutted—that this is a matter of uncertainty.
The advocacy of “differences of opinion” as a matter of advantage among brethren will please well a
certain class; but it will not find any favor among true saints who have come, and are helping others to—
“...come unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...being henceforth no more

children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
In fact this principle of unity, as opposed to “difference of opinion,” distinguishes the true brethren of
Christ from mere opinionists, who have a smattering of the Truth; but who, though “ever learning,” are never
able to come to a knowledge of it.
* * *
To the charge of holding “that the knowledge of Scripture, in the writings of Dr. Thomas, has reached a finality,” WE
PLEAD GUILTY.
If we were ignorant or unfamiliar with the Scriptures, or were like those who when they attempt to write
or speak, have to look at them through the telescope of dictionaries, concordances, and such like, we should
not have ground sufficient to entertain this conviction; but our acquaintance with them in daily intercourse for
a lifetime enables us to be confident on the point.
Our reading has not been confined to the Scriptures, or to the writings of Dr. Thomas. We have read what
others have to say in many realms of human thought. We have, therefore, all the materials to form a judgment;
and our judgment is distinctly to the effect imputed—that, in the writings of Dr. Thomas, the Truth is developed
as a finality, and that they are a depot of the Christian doctrine. In this sense we are “committed to Dr. Thomas.”
Dr. Thomas has been laid aside in the grave for a season; and so long as God permits life and health, we
shall defend the mighty results of his labors against all ridicule and opposition from friend or foe. Were he in
the land of the living, some who are in hostility would be in a different attitude towards him. When he
appears, they will be ashamed.
Meanwhile, God, who used him in the doing of His work, lives to note the gap made by his death, and the
results which were not unforeseen to Him. In His sight, and with His help, we shall hold fast to the Truth
brought to light by his means; and, please God, will rejoice with him at the near-impending realization of all
the hopes of the saints, in the day when bitterness of present warfare will only add sweetness to the hour of
triumph.
We shall try to endure the odium which calls this a dictatorial spirit. The clear perception, strong choice,
and resolute defence of that which is true and good is not the offspring of dictation; nevertheless, if enemies
or friends choose to consider it so, we must heed them not. It is this spirit that enables a man to say at last—
“I have fought a good fight: I have KEPT THE FAITH!”
We recognize in sorrow and compassion, the painful position of all men who love the good things revealed in the
Scriptures, and incline to pursue the course that is right, and yet find themselves in a strait between their desire to live
peaceably with all men, and their resolution to walk in faithfulness to the Gospel to which they have been called.
We have from the beginning suffered from this agonizing embarrassment, and can sympathize with all
who suffer in the same way. This sympathy takes off the edge of the resentment we should feel at the odiums
cast upon us by many who love peace and misunderstand our attitude.
At the same time, it cannot relax enlightened determination to persevere in the policy of the past. Dr.
Thomas recommended that policy and we have found it the only practicable one; to GIVE THE TRUTH THE
BENEFIT OF ALL DOUBTS, and to accept such co-operations only as uncompromising loyalty to it might allow.
There are, of course, extremes in the application of this principle to which Dr. Thomas himself did not go,
and to which we cannot lend ourselves—where unrevealed details admit of variety in opinion.
But as regards the great general truths involved in “the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the
Name of Jesus Christ,” there is no tenable ground between returning to the churches and unqualified assent to these
elements of truth.
—Bro. Roberts, 1898

Our Duty Toward Errorists
“If any come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house...He that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” —2 John 10-11
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
It may smack of assumption to talk of such a duty: but the duty exists, however offensive it may be to the
social proclivities of some and the personal dignities of others. If there is such a thing as Truth, there must be
such a thing as Error. Is there such a thing as Truth? We speak as to those who have made up their minds. If
some say— “Certainly there is such a thing as Truth, but it is the height of arrogance to profess to have found
it.” —we can only remember that Truth not found is of no use to us: and that if men have not found the Truth,
they are in darkness and are no guide for those who are in the light.
If men have found the Truth, they are in the light, and only walk honestly as they walk in the light. If men
have found it, it is no arrogance to own up to the fact, and to go further and defend it, and act in harmony with
the obligations it creates.
The obligations are often far from agreeable, and they are always opposed to a man’s temporal interests.
What then? If we would please Christ, we have no choice: and if we please not Christ, we can have no object in hampering
ourselves with the Truth’s obligations at all.
Christ’s last communication to his friends reveals his mind in the matter in a manner that precludes
misconception. His messages to the seven Asiatic ecclesias through John, in Patmos—almost all of them—insist
in some form or other on the duty of scrupulosity with regard to error and errorists. Ephesus was commended
because—
“Thou canst not bear them that are evil and hast tried them that say they are apostles and are not, and hast
found them liars.”
“Thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.”
To Smyrna:
“I know the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.”
Pergamos was found fault with, because—
“Thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam...So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of
the Nicolaitanes.”
Thyatira was found fault with, because—
“Thou sufferest that woman, Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants.”
So the others were found fault with for laxity and lukewarmness. Error changes its form from age to age, but
the dutiful attitude remains the same—the duty of individual repudiation and non-toleration in fellowship.
We may not in the 19th century have those particular questions to trouble us that agitated the first; but we
have the same duty to perform towards the errors that may belong to our time.
It is a distasteful duty and in every way an inconvenient one. For this reason, many with whom the
apprehension of divine obligations may be weak, or susceptibility to human considerations may be strong,
are liable to swerve and sacrifice truth and duty to friendship.
Their amiability may lead us to sympathize with them in a sentimental sense; but their attitude is none the
less of practical unfaithfulness, and to be sorrowfully refused (on their account), by true friends of Christ.
The peculiar crime of the present age of Christian profession is that of dishonoring the Scriptures. All
classes lend themselves to it in one way or other.
Either they neglect them while acknowledging them as the words of God, or they completely nullify them
by beliefs and traditions subversive of all their teachings, or they say they are not sure they are the words of
God, and that there is a good deal of the word of God in other books as well; or that there is a good deal of the
word of man in the so-called word of God, and that the extent and effect of inspiration is an entirely open
question; or that, in fact, the Bible is but an interesting and antique form of the word of pious men, disfigured
by the weakness and errors characteristic of the writings of all, and only to be considered the word of God
insofar as it may coincide with truth; or that it has no claim to be considered the word of God at all, but is a
lying invention of priests and parsons in by-gone days of darkness.

Can we imagine Christ, who addressed the seven Asiatic ecclesias, in reprobation of false doctrine and
commendation of the true, regarding any of these forms of treachery with anything but detestation? Can we
imagine him looking with favor upon any toleration by his friends to any form of it?
Whatever others may think, we have not so learnt Christ. Charity is charity, but it does not require us to submit
to the corruption of the Truth.
This abomination has been introduced among believers of the present day. While some of us would have
none of it, others have parleyed with it, and blown with trumpets of very uncertain sound. Others have
bewildered themselves for want of clear perception of the bearing of things. “Wisdom would teach us,” say
some, “not to import your troubles here.”
My pleasant friend, it is not “our trouble” in any personal sense. It is the trouble of God’s friends
everywhere. You cannot keep it away if you are faithful. The question has nothing to do with person or place. Places
will change and persons will die, but truth and duty are the same forever. The Truth of God at all hazards is the
only course open to men with open eyes.
It is your course as well as ours; and it extends to fellowship as well as the personal reception of the Truth,
else the words of Christ mean nothing.
You believe the right thing yourself, but you receive another who is in fellowship with those everywhere
who believe the wrong and are leagued in opposition to the right. In this you take part with the wrong.
It would be pleasant if we were at liberty to make personal goodwill the rule of fellowship; but no man can
act on this principle who accepts the apostolic writings as a rule of conduct.
It is one of the preparatory disciplines to which the wisdom of God subjects the heirs of the Kingdom, that
they be faithful to His Word in the relations of the present evil state; and however distasteful to flesh and blood
are the embarrassments which this rule creates, faithful men have no choice but to submit with as much
sweetness as they can bring to a disagreeable duty.
◆
The Complete Truth Essential For Fellowship
The principle which isolates us from the popular communion isolates us also from the fellowship of all
who reject any part of the Truth. Some accept the Truth in part, but are either unable or unwilling to receive it
in its entirety...
Such persons are generally what is called very “charitable”; that is, they are willing to connive at any
amount of doctrinal diversity so long as friendliness is maintained. They are lovers of peace. Peace is certainly
very desirable when it can be had on a pure foundation: but the charitable people referred to are not particular
about the foundation. They will compromise the Truth in some one or other of its integral elements for the
sake of personal harmony.
This is a spurious charity altogether. We are not at liberty to relax the appointments of God. The exercise
of “charity” must be confined to our own affairs. We have no jurisdiction in God’s matters.
What God requires is binding on us all: and the faithful man cannot consent to accept any union that
requires a jot or tittle to be set aside or treated as unimportant. Such a man cannot consent to form a part of any
community that is not “the Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
—December 1876
CONTROVERSIES
If there is a doubt, give the Truth the benefit of the doubt. Do not be governed by personal leanings.
Men have to be powerfully in love with the Truth to act on this principle, but men of God will act on it.
To go with the wrong for friendship’s sake, or to retire in disgust into the corner, are equally inconsistent
with that fidelity to God which is required of us in this dark and evil day.
—July 1891

Offender and Offended
“I cannot forgive an offender till he seeks forgiveness, or
I make myself as great an offender.”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
There can be no doubt that acknowledgment is the natural and prescribed condition of forgiveness in all
cases of unquestionable personal injury in word or deed. Nothing admits so clear and sweet and lasting a
reparation. It is the lesson of Moses’ Law throughout, and continually exemplified in God’s dealings with
Israel.
But in the confusions of human intercourse, in the present state of weakness, there arise hundreds of cases
in which it is impossible to apply this law in any strict manner: first, because it usually happens that there are
faults on both sides; and second, because it nearly as often happens that where one side may be clean-handed
enough, the other side is the offending side—not through any intention or desire to do injury—but through
a wrong understanding of things.
In such cases, no wise man would insist on the unconditional surrender implied in the request for
forgiveness. Even in a clear case, he is too conscious of his own shortcomings to take an imperious attitude. He
would run more than half way to meet his offending brother if he saw the least disposition to concede the
point.
But as for the idea that forgiveness cannot be granted without confession, and that such forgiveness would
be sin, the brother broaching such an idea will be likely to abandon it on full reflection. We are commanded
to forgive if confession is made, for this was the point in question when Jesus spoke (Matt. 18:21; Luke 17:3-
4).
But we are not forbidden to forgive in the absence of confession. We are at liberty to forgive without it if
we like—certainly. Jesus gave us this example:
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
Paul also: “I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge” (2 Tim. 4:16).
Stephen also (Acts 7:60): all this without confession on the part of the offenders, for they were too darkminded
to know their need for forgiveness. This is the magnanimity which belongs to the children of God,
who can even return good for evil. A man may be within his rights who says, “I will not forgive him unless he
ask me”—though he is marking himself thus as the feeblest of the children of God (if indeed he be of the
children, showing thus he hath not the spirit of Christ).
But there is nothing to hinder a man soaring far above his rights, and saying— “This man who has
wronged me is too ungifted from God to see what he has done. I will let the matter pass. I will pray God to
forgive him; and if He forgive at the judgement seat, the man will gladly see and own his fault: I can wait.”
The man who applies the rule of confession before forgiveness too strictly is in danger of having the same
measure applied to himself. So Christ says (Matt. 18:35). And how then? WE CANNOT BE SAVED, for we are too
dim-eyed to know all our sins. And if those only are forgiven that we see and admit, the unforgiven balance must
sink us to perdition.
Another point the offended brother should consider is whether his state is due to wounded pride or
violated righteousness. If he is expert at self-examination, he will probably find it is the former three times out
of four, at least—for he discovers that other offenses against the law of God do not hurt him at all if they do not touch
HIM. If so, he will act wisely to hold his hand, and be as little exacting with the offender as possible.
On the other hand, the offender should be frank and gracious in his acknowledgments. He rarely is so. As
a rule his concession is tardy and ambiguous, and generally takes the shape of an insulting hypothesis— “If
I have given offense, I am sorry for it.”
This is not acknowledgment at all, my friend. It may even be an insulting implication to this effect— “I am
sorry my neighbor has been such a simpleton as to take offense where it was perfectly unwarrantable he
should do so.”
If you mean confession, let it be fair and square and handsome— “I have done this: I ought not to have done
it: I am sorry for it.”
Graciousness on one side will lead to graciousness on the other, and love will flow. But that good time has
to come! But it will come—and the children of mercy will prosper and rejoice. —June, 1890

Compromise With Error Fatal
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
“How much of the Truth may I give up without imperiling my salvation?” NOT ANY. The Truth is our city
of refuge; in it we are safe. Immediately we wander outside of it, our life is in danger. A few hours spent on Paul’s
writings, provided we are open to conviction, will assure us upon this point.
Even apart from direct teaching, are we not told that the existence of false teachers caused Paul many a tear?
There is no intelligible explanation of this away from the fact that he knew error meant destruction to those who
embraced it.
Again we read: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat (whatever they were it maketh no matter to me)—
to whom we give place by subjection, no, not for an hour!—that the TRUTH of the Gospel might continue with
you” (Gal. 2:5-6).
This passage also indicates Paul’s estimation of error, for he was not the man to speak without good and
weighty motives. The path of error is the path of death. This may offend “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,”
but what of that? Because the serpent says, “Ye shall not surely die,” we are not bound to believe it.
—1890
DIVISION
Discord and division are painful. Let them not overthrow you. They are not new. They have been
upon the earth ever since the Gospel was first preached to the Gentiles. Jesus said it would be so—
“Henceforth, there shall be division.”
This is the time of probation, and purposely dark and distressing. The Lord will find his precious
ones, in spite of all. Save yourself, whatever others say or do.
PUBLISHING ERROR
—Bro. Roberts, 1890
The editor of The Truth(!) magazine solicits “literary contributions from those holding views of
doctrine not generally endorsed by the brethren.” What an extraordinary proposal on the part of a man
professing to hold and to serve the Truth! A man is not fit to be an editor who either has no definite
convictions of his own, or who is not prepared to stand by his convictions, and asks his contributors to
say anything they like, on the plea that he is “no autocrat,” and that he will “not feel bound to interfere
with any observations.”
—March, 1892

“Heresy Hunting” a Duty
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
“All heresy-hunting is of diabolos,” says the Flesh.
“TRY THE SPIRITS whether they are of God,” writes the Spirit; and the reason given is (1 John 4:1)—
“because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
The “false prophets” were teachers of heresy, but professed to teach that which is true. There was a
difficulty in identifying them, and therefore all teachers of divine things were to be tried to ascertain whose
teaching was genuine and whose adulterated. The object of the test was that the heresy teachers might be
repudiated.
The Spirit in Peter, writing of Israel, says— “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord
that bought them” (2 Peter 2:1).
How were such false prophets to be treated? Moses says— “They shall be PUT TO DEATH” (Deut. 13:5).
Even a “brother,” “son,” “daughter,” “wife,” or a “friend” who attempted to introduce idolatry was not
to be spared (v. 6-11). The object was that Israel might be purged of evil.
* * *
COMMUNITIES were to be dealt with on the same principle as individuals. If it were reported that any
one city had commenced to “serve other gods” (vs. 12-13), “Then,” said Moses (vs. 14-15)— “...shall thou
enquire and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such
abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the
sword, destroying it utterly and all that is therein.”
The comparison drawn in Peter’s epistle between false teachers in fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel is
evidence that this Mosaic enactment contains a lesson for us.
The use of the sword or anything destructive is out of the question; a practical protest by refusing to
fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New
Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it.
When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only
permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently” to see
whether it be true and the thing certain.
If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil.
It is on this principle that ecclesial action has been taken on the Inspiration Question. It was reported that
false teaching existed in spiritual Israel concerning the authorship of divine writings, and on enquiring,
making search, and asking diligently, many have found the thing “certain.”
Some, it will be said, have enquired without finding its existence; but it is necessary to remember that there
are different ways of enquiring, and that none are so blind as those who do not wish to see. The evidence of its existence
is undisputable, and there are no excuses to justify its being ignored.
The repudiation of responsibility for the false teaching of those at a distance shows a defective appreciation of the
unity which should exist between all members of the One Body— “The members should have the same care one for
another, and whether one member suffer, ALL THE MEMBERS suffer with it” (1 Cor. 12:25-26).
Heresy searching among national Israel was not of diabolos, but of God; therefore heresy searching
among spiritual Israel, can have no other origin.
And what is its results? It tends to preserve the purity of revealed Truth. If a heresy test were of diabolos,
it would be difficult to justify the repudiation of heresy; and thus the One Body would gradually become so
defiled that pure doctrine would wholly disappear.
—Christadelphian, July 1886

There Shall Be Division
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
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 throng 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 as “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”
(Luke 12:52-53).
The result is inevitable in an evil world, so long as there is any faithfulness left.
It is insinuated 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, says concerning those who “bring not the doctrine
of Christ,” that the faithful are to (2 John 10)— “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 (Rev. 2:2): “Thou canst not bear them that are evil, but
have tried them that say they are apostles, and hast found them liars.”
To Thyatira he says (Rev. 2:20)— “Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to
teach and seduce my servants.”
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.
The Truth 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 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 socalled
“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 things 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 together.
—1891

Know No Man After the Flesh
“It was needful for me to write to you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for
the Faith which was once delivered unto the saints” — Jude 3
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
I am no man’s personal enemy. I have neither time nor inclination to trouble myself about persons, or their
affairs.
But when they approach me on the premises of the Truth, then they are either my friends or my foes, and
I am theirs. I am their friend for the Truth’s sake.
I would rather be the friend than the foe of any one upon any ground. This is the bent of my fleshy nature;
and if men will not be friendly, I do not feel resentful, but my disposition is to give them a wide berth.
This is the natural man. But if they pretend to be the friends of the Truth, and they are neither intelligent
in, nor faithful to, what I believe to be the Truth, and will not consent to be instructed, then I have a duty to
perform as one of Christ’s brethren, in obedience to apostolic injunction, and that is, to— “Contend earnestly
for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
And in so doing, which is well-doing (1 Peter 2:15)— “To put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.”
That their “mouths being stopped,” they may no longer— “Subvert whole houses, and lead captive silly
people laden with sins” (Titus 1:11).
In the performance of the duty common to all the faithful, I do not wait to be attacked. If no one will go with
me to the assault, I go alone, with the determination to scatter them, or be demolished in the attempt; in which,
however, I do not expect to succeed, because: “The saints are prevailed against till the Ancient of Days comes”
(Dan. 7:22).
Why then labor in expected failure? To obey the injunction, and prove my own faith.
In this spiritual warfare, whose weapons are neither lead nor steel, but more effective than either for putting
to flight the aliens, there are neither truce, armistice, neutrality, nor peace. He that is not with us is against us;
and he that gathereth not with us, scattereth abroad.
I, for one, know no man in this warfare as a brother and friend who is neutral or not gathering. A man
who is neutral stands by with arms folded and sees the enemy crushing me to death! He believes in the cause
I am fighting for, but he calmly views my destruction without any sign of help.
Is such a man my friend and brother? Is he not rather a sympathizer with the enemy? If he helped me, we
might prove too strong for the foe; the enemy knowing this cannot look upon neutrals in any other light than
his friends.
And this is just where Christ puts all neutrals in the good fight of faith.
But, if this be the position of neutrals, what shall be said of those who either oppose or nullify what we
believe to be the Truth? Who not only so, but seek to destroy the influence of those who have, while they were
mere heathens, proved themselves through evil and through good report, and when the Truth had few to say
a good word for it, faithful advocates of it—what shall be said of them?
They may virtually acquiesce in the theory of the Truth, but can we call them friends and brethren? Are they
Christ’s Brethren?
If they were Christ’s Brethren, they would love the zealous and disinterested advocates of the Truth, and
would be careful to do nothing that would embarrass them.
Shall I call such enemies of Christ, my friends and brethren? I tell you, nay; I will have none such, if I know
it. They are my enemies, and it is my duty to make war upon them.
If I belong to the Spirit’s witnessing prophets clothed in sackcloth (Rev. 11), and any man will to injure me
in my witnessing, it is my duty to devour him with the fire of my mouth—to torment him with my testimony.
If he persist in storming our works, then— “He must in this manner be killed.”
I have no sympathy with a yea-and-nay profession and advocacy of the Truth. It does no good to the
professor, to those who are associated with him, nor to those dwelling in outer darkness.
“The whole world lieth in the evil one.” (1 John 5:19).

—in Sin; and the only exception to this are the untraditionized believers of the Truth we believe and teach and
have obeyed; and who are walking as little children therein.
If we are these scriptural exceptions, we have nothing to do but keep clear of this evil world, and to testify
against all the traditions it would substitute for the Truth, or by which it may seek to nullify it.
The greatest and most dangerous enemies to Christ are those who pretend to be his friends, but are not
faithful to his doctrine; and they are unfaithful who from any motives of personal interest would weaken
the point of the doctrine, or soften it for gratification of their natural feelings, or for fear of hurting the
feelings of the enemy, and so affecting their popularity with him.
We have a great and important work before us. It is to bring people to the understanding of the ancient
apostolic doctrine and to the obedience of faith, in the form inculcated by them upon all believers.
If our friends faithfully and intelligently execute this mission, they will be placed in opposition to all the
world—they will find themselves in the position of the Spirit’s witnessing prophets, standing in the court of
the Gentiles, and bearing testimony against— “The god of the earth.” —with all the power, learning, and
influence of the Great Harlot, her State daughters, and dissenting abominations arrayed against them; and
besides all this, the heartlessness and cowardice and treachery of professed neutrals and friends.
To take up such a position, and to maintain it without surrender, requires knowledge and faith working
by love of what is known.
HENCE, THE NECESSITY OF MEDITATION UPON THE WORD.
This will develop faith, and the more an honest-hearted man understands of the Word untraditionized by
what is falsely called “science,” the more enlarged and the stronger will his faith become; and the more valiant
will he be for the Truth, and the more efficient for the work before him as a “witness,” a “prophet,” a
“lightstand,” and “olive tree” before the “Deity of the earth.”
The light of Truth must shine clearly in a man’s head, before he can speak critically or accurately upon—
“The deep things of the Spirit.” —and if you undertake to implant these in the brains of Modern Athenians,
who, like their brethren of old time, are exceedingly fond of gossip, you must be bright and lucid in your
irradiations, that you may shine away the darkness of the subtleties and the vagaries of the inner consciousness,
with which the cup of the Old Harlot has crazed and intoxicated them.
And this you will find to be, if you have not already done so, no easy work to do. The traditions radiating
infinitely and at all angles, form almost an impenetrable cloud—a cloud which befogs everything, and renders
it impervious to— “The simplicity that is in Christ.”
But shall we despair? By no means. The work before us at present, is not to demolish Antichrist, and the
tradition with which he is clothed as with a black and threatening cloud. This is beyond our power, as it is extra
to the mission of the saints against whom he has prevailed almost “forty and two months.”
His demolition is their work, when joined therein by the Ancient of days. This is their patience and faith—
Rev. 13:10; 14:12. The saints are waiting for this.
In the meantime, they hold the position of the witnesses for Jesus; and it is required in witnesses, who are
stewards of the testimony, that they be faithful after the example of Christ and Antipas—Rev. 1:5; 3:14; 2:13.
At present, they have to show the Truth in every way that will make the Truth shine; that it may stand out
in the foreground of the picture so distinctly from all surroundings, that observers at a glance may
distinguish it in all its outlines, without any possibility of confounding it with the dark cloud of the things
beyond.
This is the work for us to do, that men seeing the photograph, Christ written upon their minds by the
testimony which is light, may confess that it is a true, faithful, and beautiful picture; and embracing it with
affectionate hearts, may so put it into their bosom, and become married, or rather betrothed, unto the Lord.
In this way an enlightened, and affectionate, and valiant people will be prepared for him; who will not only
be watching for him but—with garments kept, and lamps well trimmed with the golden oil of the good olive
tree—will be ready to enter in on the closing of the door against all the world.
—1865

Divider of the Flock
“I have just been to the ‘Michigan Yearly Conference’ held near Homer. It was a great sham. No two seemed to have
the like faith. There were Campbellites, Adventists, Marshites, and a long train of such. You were somewhat roughly
handled in private conversation among the Brotherhood. Your great sin, of course, was that you are such an ‘exclusionist’
and ‘divider of the flock.’ There was much talk of ‘Christian unity’ among them. Genuine believers are as
scarce as gold dust in this part of the country. Do no be discouraged. Go on in the good cause. You are contending for
the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus’.” —Henry Hudson, Michigan
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
We beg leave to say that we “exclude” no one; not even a Jew, Mohamedan or Pagan. It is not we that
excludes, for it is not our prerogative to do so. We learn from the Bible that there is a certain thing called the
“Word.” We did not invent this, and therefore we are not responsible for its definitions and testimonies. We
believe that the Deity is its Author, and that therefore He is responsible for all its hard and crucifying sayings,
and the “exclusion” of all from His salvation except the few whom He condescends to choose. He says— “Many
are called, but FEW are chosen...Many shall seek to enter in, but shall NOT be able...Strait is the gate, and narrow
is the way, that leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it” (Matt. 22:14; Luke 13:24; Matt. 7:14).
All this is very “exclusive.” But this is not our “great sin”—if sin it be at all. If the Deity had waited until
He had consulted the Michigan Conference, and had deferred to its advice, He would have reversed this
arrangement, which provides only for the salvation of the “few.” But He did not wait to consult it, nor any of
His creatures. This plainly indicates to our mind that He had no respect for any of their opinions or views in
the premise. What He hath purposed, He hath purposed in Himself for His OWN good pleasure (Eph. 1:9; Rev.
4:11). In this we acquiesce with perfect and entire satisfaction.
All, then, that we have to do is to study this Word, and to find out what it teaches for faith and obedience. We
endeavor to discover how the Word defines the few that shall be saved, and what it says of the “gate” and the
“way which leadeth into life.” We believe that we understand what the Word teaches upon these important
subjects, and we tell an unthankful and perverse generation what it says.
We show its “wise and prudent” whom the Word excludes, and whom it does not. And because it excludes
them, and theirs that “wonder after” them, they hate it. But to conceal their hatred of the Word, they “handle
roughly” in their talk all who show the condemnation which that Word fulminates against them. Thus while
they hate God, as evinced in their “casting His words behind them,” they transfer their attacks to them who
are more accessible, for He is in the heaven but we on the earth. But never mind: their tongues may prevail
against us now, till the Ancient of Days shall come.
Doubtless it gratifies them; for it is so fine a thing to be thought “liberal and charitable.” It makes us so
popular with the Old Adam. And who can doubt our charitableness, when we denounce “exclusionists,” and
proclaim the salvation of all who merely believe a negative?
As to being a “divider of the flock”: in the name of Scripture and reason, what “flock” is that? Is it a flock
identical with the Michigan Conference? When was it ever united? Who can “divide” a heterogeneous flock of
Campbellites, Adventists, Marshites, etc.? Division is the essence of such a flock, whose falling asunder is a
matter of no concern in heaven above nor in earth beneath, save to those whose craft it is to feed it with traditions
palatable to the flesh.
Introduce the Truth among them, and it will throw them into an uproar. And if there be any honest and good
hearts among them, it will cause them to evacuate the house of Jezebel with all promptitude and dispatch, lest
partaking in her sins they become obnoxious to the ruin which impends.
We glory indeed in being a “divider” of all such from so goatish a community. Christ’s sheep are a flock
who know the Shepherd’s voice, which is THE TRUTH. This never divides them, and they make no outcry
against EXCLUDING WOLVES AND GOATS from their fold. They are particularly anxious that they should
not be permitted to creep in.
They have no more tolerance for a great goat or a big wolf in their fold than little ones. The greater the goat
and the bigger the wolf, the more careful they are to make all the sheep see that, though coated with much wool,
they are but goats and wolves after all. And we never yet heard a real sheep say, “This is very offensive to us.”
—September 1861

Principles of Fellowship
Withdrawal Not Judging, But Protection of Self and Truth
“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”—Eph. 5:11
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
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 not to be 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 that are 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 endeavor to conform to another.
These thoughts are suggested by a current effort which may be well meant enough in some directions, but
which cannot receive favor 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 meaning 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
papistic 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 practice partakes of his evil deeds.
In withdrawing, we wash our own hands. We leave to God those whom we withdraw from. We are not
authorized 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 a rule be carried out? How can we know who have and who have not forfeited the said
right? It is calling on 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 suggested “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 toward 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 ‘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 operation of the Gospel that— “Many are called, but few are chosen”
(Matt. 22:14) —and that— “All are not Israel that are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6).
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 expediences of the passing mortal hour are at an end in the manifested presence of the
Author of the seven messages to the ecclesias.
—April, 1891
Separated Brethren
At the conclusion of the separation of the faithful Body from the errorists and their supporters
in the Inspiration Division, Bro. Roberts and the Birmingham ecclesia are addressing
those from whom they have had to separate.
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
In our judgment, it is not possible for men to commit a greater evil in our age than to corrupt and weaken
the Word of God by a doctrine that it is not wholly reliable...You may believe Paul’s statement to Timothy (2
Tim. 3:16) equally with ourselves, but if you make yourselves one with those who nullify it by the doctrines
they hold, you erect the same barrier between us and you that exists between us and them...
We do not say by this that you are not brethren, or that Christ will refuse you at his coming. We leave that.
We do not judge you: we judge ourselves. We say we cannot be implicated in the position which you feel at
liberty to hold toward the new doctrine that has been introduced. We desire to regard you with feelings of
friendship and brotherly love. But so long as you retain connection with a false doctrine of so dangerous a
character, you compel us to step aside in the spirit of Paul’s recommendation, which—while telling us to count
you not as enemies, but to admonish you as brethren—at the same time directs us to have no company while
things are on a footing that does not allow of it (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
—July, 1885
The salutation was, “Dear brethren and sisters.” It will be noted, too, how clearly this defines Bro. Roberts’ views
concerning fellowshipping those who fellowship error. It is a sad, modern, Word-nullifying subterfuge to say we “break
bread” with them but do not “fellowship” them. This is a Pharisaic juggling of words, and a confusion-breeding prostitution
of scriptural terms.
—Bro. G.V. Growcott
PERSISTENT ERROR
The only remedy for persistent error, when all endeavor to remove it from the mind of the subject of it
is a failure, is that prescribed by Jesus to the disciples in reference to the Scribes and Pharisees: “Let them
alone.”
This cannot be followed out except by dissociation, or withdrawal, which—however painful to the
feelings—will operate wholesomely on both sides, by at all events securing peace one side, and opportunity
for reflection on the other. —Aug. 1880

Contend Earnestly for the Faith
“I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel to teach and
seduce my servants” —Rev. 2:20
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
It has been said we ought not to judge, as Christ has forbidden it. My answer is that while we are not to
judge in the sense forbidden by Christ (that is, deciding in advance who are and who are not worthy of eternal
life), there is a sense in which we are to judge, as Christ indeed expressly enjoins in saying—
“Why do ye not of your own selves judge that which is right?” (Luke 12:57).
“Beware of false prophets: ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15-16).
We are called upon on our own behalf to decide where fellowship should be given and where it should be
withheld. If this is not a true principle, whence arises the true distinction between the ecclesia and the world?
We come out of the world; we separate from the Apostacy; we withdraw from the fellowship of both, and
would one and all refuse to resume that fellowship by admitting parties belonging to either class into the
ecclesia. And we would even, without dispute, refuse to countenance a disobedient brother. Paul says (1 Cor.
5:11)— “I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one know not to eat.”
Again he says (2 Thess. 3:14)— “If anyone obey not our word by this epistle, have no company with him, that he
may be ashamed.”
Again, verse 6, same chapter— “Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
traditions he received of us.”
Again (1 Tim. 6:3)— “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing...from
such withdraw thyself.”
Here are plain apostolic injunctions which cannot be carried out without forming a judgment on the
matters involved. For how shall we know when to withdraw from another, unless we conclude that a state of
things justifying it exists? And how can we come to this conclusion without observing and considering the
matters relating to it? The mental act is the very basis of the withdrawal enjoined.
If these things are not so, those who say we should not judge have already committed the very crime they
condemn, and are guilty of schism. Why did they leave the Presbyterians, the Baptists, and the others? Were
not all these respectable, well-behaved people, plentiful—many of them—in gracious looks, kindly words,
and good deeds? On what principle can they defend separation from them? Do not the orthodox communities
believe the Bible and profess the Name of Christ? Why have they come away from them? Are they not guilty
of having “judged” these “sincere” professors of religion?
They have done quite right, for they are commanded to judge of themselves what is right, and act
accordingly. John said— “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine [that is, the truth concerning
Christ’s manifestation in the flesh], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him
God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
Paul indicates the same duty in several places. He speaks of certain “false brethren brought in.” He says—
“To whom we gave place by subjection no not for an hour.”
Judaistical believers taught the necessity for being circumcised and observing the Law. He says of them—
“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I would that they were even cut off which trouble you” (Gal. 5:9-12).
There is nothing more conspicuous in Paul’s letters to Timothy than his jealousy of those in the ecclesia
whose influence was detrimental to the Truth. He says—
“Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus”
(2 Tim. 1:13).
“The things that thou has heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who
shall be able to teach others...
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
Word of Truth. But SHUN profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness, and their

word will eat as doth a canker; of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus” (2 Tim. 2:2, 15-17).
“Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY. For of this sort
are they which creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the Truth. Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and
worse, deceiving and being deceiving, But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned” (2 Tim. 3:5-
14).
“Preach the Word. Be instant in season, out of season. Reprove, rebuke, with all longsuffering and
doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they
heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, and shall
be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4).
The same anxiety about preserving the Truth in its purity from the corrupting influence of its loose
professors is manifest in his letter to Titus. Defining the qualifications of an elder, he says he must be a man—
“Holding fast the faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine to exhort
and convince the gainsayers.
“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose
MOUTHS MUST BE STOPPED.
“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition REJECT” (Titus 1:9-11; 3:10).
To the same purpose are the words of Jude (3-4)— “It was needful for me to write to you that ye should
CONTEND earnestly for the Faith which was once delivered unto the saints; for there are certain men crept in
unawares, etc...”
The objectors themselves have shown their apprehension of these apostolic precepts by separating from
the sects and denominations of the orthodox world. But they say those we are now separating from have a
great part of the Truth. This is not enough. There is no authority for making one part of the Truth less
important than another. A reception of the Truth on one point will not condone its rejection on another.
Can we suppose that the Judaizers had no part of the Truth? Did the Gnostics who denied that Christ had
come in the flesh, reject the Kingdom of God? Did not the unbelieving Jew hold the Truth in great part? Yet
Paul counselled withdrawal from them all.
Nothing short of fidelity to the WHOLE Truth can be accepted as a safe policy. The “things concerning the
Kingdom of God” and “those things that concern our Lord Jesus Christ,” in their scriptural amplitude must
be the measure and standard of fellowship. Those who go for less than this must be left to themselves. In this
they are not judged; they are only subjected to the action of another man’s conception of duty, and are left at
perfect liberty to organize themselves on whatever they may conceive to be a scriptural basis.
By what means shall a community, based on the Truth, preserve the Truth in purity in its midst?
Obviously by the means indicated by Paul and John: that is, by exacting of ALL who are in it an implicit
adherence to the things, facts, principles, points, tenets, or whatever else they may be called, which go to make
up the Truth in its entirety, and by refusing to associate with those who oppose or refuse to endorse any of
those elements.
Some recommend, in opposition to this, the employment of argument with those who may be in error. As
a preliminary process, common wisdom and humanity would dictate this course. But if an ecclesia is to go no
further than argument, how could its existence continue? An effort should doubtless be put forth to reclaim
those who are in error; but where those efforts fail, dissociation by withdrawal is natural and inevitable.
The ecclesia is not a place for argument: it is for worship in agreement. When a man requires to be argued with, his
natural place is OUTSIDE, and if he will not go outside, separation must be enforced by withdrawal on the part of the rest.
Division is the inevitable concomitant of an uncompromising adherence to the Truth. Peace purchased at
the cost of compromise is doubly dangerous. The Truth is the standard, and must alone be allowed to rule. All
doubt ought to be solved in its favor. This is the principle of action to which study will ultimately lead.
The action of separation is not an act of judgment against those from whom we may separate. It is an act
of self-vindication; an act by which we discharge a duty and wash our hands of evil.
The Truth has gradually emerged from the fables in which for centuries it had been lost, and only an
inexorable policy on the part of those receiving it will preserve it from a recurrence of the disaster which drove
it from among men shortly after the days of the Apostles.
—From “My Days and My Ways” Personal references omitted.

The Truth as Expounded by Bro. Thomas
A Finality
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
A current pamphleteer writes—
“The fact of Dr. Thomas having arrived at a certain point ought not to deter us from adding to our faith
knowledge...We have had the benefit of his experience and of his struggle for the Truth. We have had the advantage of his
writings, and may say we begin where he left off. But are we to remain here? Surely not. If we can bring out the luster of
his own writings by shaking off that incubus of unscriptural ideas and expressions which have beclouded the minds of
many, then we shall be progressing. But to stand still is dangerous, and to retrograde is worse.”
This is a very plausible speech, but what does it mean? It either means that we have not attained to a
knowledge of the Truth; or that having done so we are not to remain grounded and settled in it, but—like the
Athenians—are to be always itching after some new thing. In either case, we beg respectfully but firmly to
differ from the pamphleteers.
If Dr. Thomas has developed the Truth, he has developed a finality, because the Truth is a finality. And
that he has done this WE KNOW, because it is a matter admitting of knowledge. If others are uncertain, let
them be uncertain. We will not join them in sapping the foundations of confidence.
—December 1877
If A Brother Sin
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offenses (Matt. 18:15) is doubtless applicable to
sins of every description. That it is applicable to personal misunderstandings, no one questions. But some who
recognize this, stand back in a case of sin which they may hear of in a brother, but which does not affect them
in a personal way. This is inconsistent with the other commandments which prescribe a kindly care of our
brothers in everything.
Sin of any kind on the part of a brother (doctrinal, practical, or what not) is truly a sin against all his
brethren, who are necessarily more or less injured by what he wrongfully does; but all his brethren may not
know of it.
It is the part of those who do know to take the course Jesus prescribes: not to talk to others of it (which is
ITSELF A SIN), but, observing silence to all others concerning the matter, to go direct to the brother
concerned, and discuss the matter with him alone. Nothing is so likely to remove the evil as this course,
providing it is done in the way the law of Christ prescribes (Gal. 6:10)— “In the spirit of meekness, considering
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”
—September 1893

Loose Fellowship
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
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 larger cooperation with men, and a little more of the friendship of this world
than is possible with those who accept the stranger-ship-with-God with 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.” This phrase 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, 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.
Dowieism was welcomed 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 worldwide corruption from which it has been fished
up and washed in these latter days.
What is the “popery” that some cry out about, but inflexible insistence on the right—with courtesy where
possible, but always with inflexibility. Would the outcriers do less than insist on the right?
“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 one 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 leisurely about getting into the boat.
Our paper Constitution [not the Statement of Faith] was powerless against the organized perfidy of two
regularly published papers with a phalanx of secret sympathizers. There was nothing left but to put aside the
paper Constitution, which 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 prompted 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.
—October 1887
Unquestionably, Bro. Roberts’ prompt and robust action saved the Truth and the Body at that time from progressive
corruption. And let us note well: as he points out, previous erroneous elements that had been separated from were drifting
together, and the Partial Inspirationists were already following the same course of loose reunion, creating a “mixed
multitude.” What unfaithful folly, then, to sweep back in all this “mixed multitude” by a mere majority vote—taking in the
noes as well as the yeas. What wonder at the current confusion!
—Bro. G.V. Growcott
The One True Gospel
“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house...He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil” —2 John 10
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
It has been the purpose of God from the foundation of the world to set up a kingdom and empire of nations
which shall supersede all others previously existing upon the globe. The development of this imperial
constitution of the world, when brought to the birth, will have occupied six days of a thousand years each in its
formation.
No topic can surpass this in interest and importance to every man that breathes the breath of life. God has
made the belief of the things concerning it a condition of partaking in the glory, honor, and incorruptibility which belong
to it.
WHATEVER IGNORANCE MAY BE OVERLOOKED, IGNORANCE OF THE THINGS PERTAINING
TO THIS KINGDOM ALIENATES MEN FROM THE LIFE OF GOD.
This is equivalent to saying that no man can attain to eternal life who does not believe the Gospel; for the
subject matter of the Gospel is this very Kingdom which it is God’s purpose to establish for the Son of Man and
the saints.
It is of primary importance that we believe THE TRUTH, and not a substitute for it; for it is by the Truth
only we can be saved— “the Truth as it is in Jesus,” neither more nor less, is that to which our attention is invited
in the Word. “The Truth” is set forth in the law and the prophets; but we must add to these the apostolic
testimony contained in the New Testament if we would comprehend it “as it is in Jesus.” The Kingdom is the
subject matter of “the Truth”; but, “as it is in Jesus,” is the Truth concerning him as the King and supreme
Pontiff of the dominion; and the things concerning his Name, as taught in the doctrine of the apostles. As a whole,
“The Truth,” is defined as— “THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE NAME OF
JESUS CHRIST” (Acts 8:12).
This phrase covers the entire ground upon which the “One Faith,” and the “One Hope,” of the Gospel are
based; so that if a man believe only the “things of the Kingom”, his faith is defective in the “things of the Name”;
or, if his belief be confined to the “things of the Name,” it is deficient in the “things of the Kingdom.”
There can be no separation of them recognized in a “like precious faith” (2 Peter 1:1) to that of the apostles.
They believed and taught ALL these things; God hath joined them together, and no man need expect His favor
who separates them, or abolishes the necessity of believing the things He has revealed for faith.
There can be no doubt of the truth of these statements in view of Paul’s emphatic declaration that—
“Though we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have
preached unto, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).
Here, then, he pronounces a curse upon even an angel, if he should come and offer to us any other gospel
than that which was preached by himself and the other apostles. It is our wisdom, therefore, to receive nothing
which has not the sanction of their authority. Paul styles everything else but what he preached “another
gospel,” that is, “a perversion of the Gospel of Christ”; and, as we can only be saved by belief of the Truth, such
a gospel is both useless and injurious.

* * *
“GOSPEL” is a word which signifies good news, or glad tidings; and the Gospel some particular good news.
“Blessed,” say the Scriptures, “are they who know the joyful sound”, or the Gospel; and the reason is, because
it makes known the “blessedness” which is to come upon the nations, and will give everyone an interest in it
who believes and accepts it.
The Gospel of God is the good news of blessedness promised in the Scriptures of the prophets, and
summarily expressed in the saying— “In thee, Abraham, shall the nations of the earth be blessed.”
The making of this promise to Abraham is termed by Paul the preaching of the Gospel of Abraham. He says
(Gal. 3:8)— “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the
Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.”
This he styles “the blessing of Abraham,” which is to come upon the nations through Jesus Christ.
Abraham holds a conspicuous place in relation to the blessedness of the gospel. He is named by Paul six
times in Gal. 3, which he concludes by saying, “If ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs
according to the promise.”
Hence, men are required to be Christ’s that they may be Abraham’s seed. But why is it so important to be
of the seed of Abraham? For the very obvious reason that, as the promise was made to Abraham, it is only by
being constitutionally “in him” that any son of Adam can obtain a participation in what belongs to Abraham.
This idea may be illustrated by reference to the law of inheritance among all civilized people. If a man be
possessed of an estate, the members of his family alone have any right to it at his decease. Though all the world
may be his friends, unless they are named in his will, they can have no part in the inheritance he may leave
behind. And again, if he have no heir, his estate and property would revert to the lord of whom he happened
to hold his title; but, to avoid this, it would be quite competent for him to adopt an heir according to the law. The
person so adopted would become his seed in every respect save that of natural birth. In the case before us, God
hath promised an estate to Abraham; therefore he is styled “THE HEIR OF THE WORLD” (Rom. 4:13)—that
is, of the glory, honor, and power, of the nations throughout the globe in their millennial blessedness—a gift
worthy of Him that hath promised it.
Now the promise of this to Abraham and his seed is a promise to no one else. No stranger can lay claim to it. He
must be Abraham’s seed, or he has no right to Abraham’s property. On this principle, no one who is not a
lineal, or fleshly, descendant of Abraham can inherit the world with him when God fulfils the promise. This
is the view taken of the matter by the Jews, who found their hope of participation in the world when it becomes
Abraham’s and his seed’s, upon the acknowledged fact that they are Abraham’s flesh and blood.
This would be very well, if no other condition of inheritance were specified. But the Word saith that—
“The children of the flesh are not the children of God; but the children of the promise (those who believe it) are
counted for the seed” (Rom. 9:8).
If the children of the flesh had a right to share with Abraham when he obtains possession of the world
which God has promised him, then all descended from Ishmael and Esau, his son and grandson, as well as
from Isaac, would have equal rights. But God, Who not only promises the estate, but specifies the conditions of
heirship, has restricted the inheritance to those termed the “children of the promise as Isaac was.” He has
proclaimed the great truth that— “The son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman”
(Gal. 4:30).
To be a son of the free-woman, a man, although a Jew, must believe in the promise made to Abraham; he must
be of a like disposition with Abraham; he must be obedient like Abraham; he must have faith in Jesus as the
seed of Abraham associated with him in the promise; he must believe in his Name; he must be constitutionally
inducted into Christ by immersion into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;—being the subject of these conditions
he is included in the Family of God, to whose members it is said—
“Ye are all the children of God in Christ Jesus through the faith. For as many of you as have been
BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.
“There is no distinction of Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female among you; for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26).
These are the children of the promise, the children of God, the brethren and joint-heirs of Jesus Christ, the
sons of the free-woman, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s seed, who are alone entitled to possess the world
with him. ◆

Withdrawal Not Excommunication
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
The friends of Christ are not allowed, in the present state, to employ coercive measures in any form. The
execution of the judgment written is a prerogative in reserve for such only as come through the present
probation with divine approval. Meanwhile, we are allowed to use the defensive weapon of non-association
where there is non-compliance with the precepts of Christ. “Excommunication” is an ordinance of the
Apostacy. Ecclesial withdrawal is of apostolic prescription.
—April, 1898
There is is much woolly thinking and writing on this subject, especially among those who—advocating loose
fellowship—desire to frighten the simple with the bogey of the mortal responsibility for “excommunicating” anyone. The
very idea is orthodoxy.
—Bro. G.V. Growcott
Fellowship and Withdrawal
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Paul commands withdrawal from every brother obeying not the word he wrote, by 2 Thess. His word in
that epistle includes an exhortation to the Thessalonians (and therefore to ALL believers to all time, until the
Lord change it) that they “stand fast and hold to the traditions (teachings) which they had been taught,
WHETHER BY WORD OR BY PAUL’S EPISTLE (2:15).
Hence the duty of withdrawal applies to EVERY CASE involving the deliberate and unrepentant
disobedience of ANY of the apostolic precepts.
Brother Thomas’ Work
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
—1872
If God had not raised up in this century such a man as Dr. Thomas, our generation would have been
stumbling on in the inherited fogs which have entirely hidden the teaching of the Bible from view, while
glorifying the Bible itself in a certain sentimental way.
It does not appear that the understanding of the Bible has been attained in any other channel. There is a deal
of writing about the Bible, and a deal of smattering in connection with separate and scattered points involved
in Bible things.
But where, outside of his work in our day, is to be found that complete mastery of the whole Scriptures, from
Genesis to Revelation, which renders the work of God through Israel from the beginning a consistent, connected
and progressive thing: which not only does not require the help of human philosophy, but which cannot endure
the admixture of it, without being spoiled?
We know not its like in any current system or movement, or in the hands of any teacher or institution of
modern life anywhere. If others know of it, we’d be delighted to be introduced—with the liberty, however, of
thorough independent inspection. We know enough of shams and echoes and abortions to make us very chary.
—November, 1891

Neutrals
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
In this spiritual warfare, whose weapons are neither lead, nor steel, but more effective than either for
putting to flight the aliens, there are neither truce, armistice, neutrality, nor peace.
He that is not with us is against us: and he that gathered not with us scattereth abroad. I, for one, know no
man in this warfare as a brother and a friend who is NEUTRAL and NOT GATHERING.
A man who is neutral stands by with arms folded and sees the enemy crushing me to death! He believes
in the cause I am fighting for, but he calmly views my destruction without any sign of help.
Is such a man my friend and brother? Is he not rather a sympathizer with the enemy? If he helped me, we
might prove too strong for the foe; the enemy, knowing this, cannot look upon neutrals in any other light than
his friends. And this is just where Christ puts all neutrals in the good fight of faith. ◆
Why Did Jesus Tolerate Judas?
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Jesus tolerated Judas because Judas outwardly conformed to the precepts of righteousness during the 3-
1/2 years that he sustained the part of “one of the twelve.” Jesus “knew” him, but did not act on a knowledge
that could not have been appreciated by either Judas or the other disciples. He waited till Judas should reveal
himself, which is the divine procedure with us all.
Though a thief, he perpetrated his embezzlements under pious pretences— “Ought not this ointment to
have been sold for 300 pence, and given to the poor?”
If Jesus had expelled him from the apostolic body before his real character was manifest, it would have
caused confusion, besides removing a needed instrument for the hour of betrayal. —October, 1897
One Thing Only Can Separate Us From God
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
There is one thing, and one only, can separate us from God’s love. It is this— “Your iniquities have separated
between you and your God” (Isa. 59:2). God will have no regard for those who forget Him or neglect His
commandments. Those who sink into a state of self-service; who let God slip from their practical recognitions,
His Word from their studies. His honor from their concern, His commandments from their lives, will awake
to find that where life and death, and men and angels, and heaven and earth, were powerless to interpose an
obstacle between them and the friendly regard of the Almighty, their own folly has done it without further
remedy.
God is love; but our God is also a “consuming fire.” He will not be mocked. He will not be put off with the
fag-ends of our service. He demands the WHOLE heart and the WHOLE life; and he who refuses the call is not
his own friend. For there will come a time when the man who has served himself will find he has served a master
who can only pay him at last with tribulation, and anguish, and death; while the man who obeys the divine
call will at the same period discover that in making God his portion, he has secured the joyful eternal
inheritance of all things. —February, 1877

Epistles To Corinth
Do Not Justify Fellowship of Error
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
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.
Paul had authority as an apostle which he could use with decisive effect in case of need. It was authority
he had received— “For edification, and not for your destruction” (2 Cor. 10:8). —as he said: but still it was
authority which he was prepared to use— “Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me” (2 Cor. 13:2-3). He
could say— “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company with him” (2
Thess. 3:14).
We all know that men having authority in any matter to fall back on 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 the
opposition. This has to be considered in judging of Paul’s tone and attitude towards an ecclesia in so corrupt
a state as the Corinthians. But as to the right attitude towards such corruptions in the abstract, we must gather
them where that is the subject in hand.
Paul recognized the original character of the Corinthian ecclesia as “God’s building,” and argued against
the various corruptions in 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. 5:18).
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” (v. 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” (v.
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 cognizance of manifest evil-doing, to the extent of refusing to eat with any called a brother who is a
fornicator, etc. (v. 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 in 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 tenor of
apparent toleration “lest,” says he (2 Cor. 13:10)— “Being present, I SHOULD USE SHARPNESS according to
the power which the Lord hath given me to edification and not to destruction.” “Shall I,” enquires he— “Come
unto you with a ROD, or in love and the spirit of meekness?” (1 Cor. 4:21).
And— “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 (can it 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.
6:4) from a class 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.”
He also says— “Avoid profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some

professing have erred concerning the Faith” (v. 20).
He also advises him to shun certain “babblings” personated by Hymeneus and Philetus— “Who concerning
the Truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim. 2:18).
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 offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned, and avoid them” (16:17).
John speaks plainly to the same effect (2 John 9-10)— “If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house.”
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.
But 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 cases we are to practice almost inexhaustible patience and care.
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.
—May, 1890
“Cry Aloud, and Spare Not!” (Isa. 58:1)
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
Lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show the people their transgressions, and the sons of Belial their sins!
I have never heard a man yet, thoroughly imbued with the Truth and the love of it, cry out against a hearty and
uncompromising castigation of error, as bitter and too severe. Where men’s faith is weak, and their minds are
full of uncertainty, and they are conscious that their own deeds will not bear the light, you will find them full
of “charity,” and sensitively fearful of the Truth being too plainly spoken. All their sympathies are with the
corruptors and transgressors of the Word. They don’t want their feelings hurt, lest it should “do harm”! The
fact is they don’t want the Truth too plainly demonstrated lest it should make them unpopular; or they should
themselves be obliged to defend that of which they were not fully assured. ◆
Fellowship: Coercion or Freewill?
We do not believe in, or practice, “coercion.” Submission to the Truth is an affair of enlightened freewill
on all hands. Individually, we claim and exercise the right only that every man claims and exercises (our
opponents most of all): the right of deciding for ourselves and for ourselves alone, what it is our duty to do or
refrain from doing.
If others for themselves agree with us, this is not our crime; but a happy coincidence which only muddymindedness
can lay to our charge. We make no profession to have more ability than others to decide such
questions. We are what we are, making no professions one way or other. ◆

Fellowship and “Tares”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
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
Mohammedan among Mahommedians, etc.
There is no middle ground between the Christadelphian position and the absolute indifferentism of
national ecclesiasticism. The Christadelphian position is: 1) the recognition of apostolic Truth as the material
of individual conviction; and 2) 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—Berean,
1977; page 299) [see page 1 of this book], 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.” 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” insofar 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. 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 19th 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 toward 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.
—Feb., 1886
“REVELATION ALL FUTURE” — A HERESY
Men who teach that the Revelation of John has a wholly future application, do not “hear what the Spirit
saith to the churches,” and therefore cut themselves off from those who desire to be in harmony with the Truth.
— Bro. Roberts, March, 1897
This isn’t a new error; most errors are stale and second hand. — Bro. G.V. Growcott

Judge, Judge Not, and Fellowship
Commenting on an agonizingly sincere appeal for more “love” and “unity,” and
less carefulness for separation over doctrine.
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
It is impossible not to respect the spirit and intent of this letter. It doubtless represents the mental state of
a large class. There are men with almost agonizing sincerity of purpose who cannot see through the fogs that
envelop the Truth in an age when there is no living voice of authoritative guidance, and when the power of
correctly interpreting the written Word is the only rule of conviction.
It is natural to wish to think that in such a situation of Divine Truth on the earth, the same consideration
will at last be shown towards those who earnestly do their best in the dimness, that was shown—on the
intercession of Hezekiah—toward the multitude of Israel who (2 Chron. 30:18)— “Had not cleansed themselves,
yet did eat the Passover otherwise than written.” It may be so. God is not unrighteous or unreasonable.
At the same time, in such a situation, when the Truth can with difficulty be kept alive at all, it is not for
those who know the Truth to work by a may be. We must be governed by what is revealed, leaving the Lord
to revoke the present rule of probation, or make His Own allowances in its application.
The rule at present, as our correspondent fully recognizes, is the reception of and submission to— “The
things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ.” He unequivocally says there must be no
deviation from this as the basis of fellowship. The question is: Are we to require all the “things” or only a part
of them, in laying this foundation? If we agree to all the things, and not a part only, then we must front the
question whether the two subjects on which he comments are or are not included in the “things” in question.
He will find it impossible to exclude them. If the nature of Christ and his function as Judge be not included
among them, it would be difficult to give a reason for including any doctrine among them. Where, then, would
be the “things”?
Divergences on these subjects are as lamentable and bitterness-engendering as our correspondent feels
them to be. But they are inevitable where men are in earnest about the supremacy of Divine principles.
It would be pleasant, and in many ways profitable, to hold them in abeyance and “agree to differ,” but
such a policy on the part of enlightened men is not possible without unfaithfulness.
There is nothing for it but to maintain the Truth in our Basis of Fellowship, with all the patience and urbanity
we can exercise, but with all the quiet inflexibility of men who know they are dealing with a Divine trust, in
which it will be a “fearful thing” to be found at last unworthy stewards.
—February, 1895
NO UNION WITHOUT UNITY
The brethren and sisters assembled at Sutton Park, where they spent a season in Scripture reading and
conversation in quiet seclusion. 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.
— Bro. Roberts, July, 1890

The Truth Concerning
Christ’s Offering For Himself First
Made a Matter of Fellowship in 1898
The following ecclesial news of May, 1898 is very much to the point. Bro. Roberts, though
traveling, was very much in charge of the magazine. Bro. Walker says he did not publish
controversial fellowship matters without Bro. Roberts’ approval. This happened to be at the height
of the Resurrectional Responsibility controversy, though not directly related. It is clear that neither
Bro. Roberts nor Bro. Walker considered that the truth concerning Christ offering for himself was
Andrewism. They totally opposed Andrewism: they totally approved this fellowship stand. The item
is from Bournemouth, and is by Bro. G.S. Sherry, whom those familiar with the history of the
events of these times will recognize as a prominent and sound brother. —Bro. G.V. Growcott
BOURNEMOUTH: “We have had trouble in our midst, which has resulted in division. Bro. ---- publicly
proclaimed the doctrine that Jesus was not in a position requiring to offer himself as a sacrifice to secure his
own redemption; that the sacrifice of Christ was required only to effect the salvation of actual transgressors.
Jesus being no transgressor, for himself his sacrifice was not needed.
“This teaching strikes at the root of the Scripture teaching of the condemnation of sin in the flesh, and also
at the doctrinal basis upon which our ecclesia has been founded.
“It was necessary to meet this error in order to maintain the purity of the Truth. After private and collective
effort, which proved fruitless, it was decided to re-affirm and define our doctrinal basis of faith upon this
subject; and as to those who refuse to acknowledge and accept it, we feel duty bound from such to stand aside.
The following propositions were submitted to every member of the ecclesia for acceptance—
“1. That the Scriptures teach: That Adam was created capable of dying, but free from the power of death;
and when he disobeyed in Eden, he was condemned to death for that disobedience; and that he came under
the power of death solely on account of this sin. That in consequence of this offense, all his descendants have
been condemned to death, but without the moral guilt of his transgression attaching to them; and that those
who are not actual transgressors die under the condemnation they inherit from their first parents.
“2. That the Scriptures teach: That Adam was created very good, and was then utterly devoid of that which
the Scriptures style ‘sin in the flesh’; that from the time of his disobedience, and in consequence thereof, he had
sin in his flesh; that sin in the flesh of his descendants, although not involving them in the moral guilt of
Adam, has the power of death in them; that Jesus Christ, who was sinless as to character, by his sacrificial
death and resurrection put away his sin nature (which was the only appointed means for the condemnation
of sin in the flesh; that is, as a basis upon which it, the flesh, could be redeemed), and by which he destroyed
the devil and death in relation to himself. That this destruction of sin and death by Jesus Christ has been made
the basis of their future abolition in relation to all the righteous.
“3. That inasmuch as the foregoing scriptural truths substantially form part of our doctrinal basis of
fellowship, and are essential to ‘the things concerning the Name of Jesus Christ,’ we hereby resolve from this
time to discontinue fellowshipping all who believe that the descendants of Adam were not condemned to
death on account of Adam’s sin, or that Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death was not necessary to REDEEM
HIMSELF as well as others from that condemnation, until such time as they repudiate these anti-scriptural
doctrines.”
It was the same issue in 1923 with Stricklerism, but with Bro. Roberts gone, action was not so sound.
—Bro. G.V. Growcott

I
t has been suggested by those improperly quoting Bro. Thomas that “his position here” (that is,
in relation to the fellowshipping those who fellowship error) “is decidedly at variance with the ‘stricter fellowships’
of today.” By the term “stricter fellowships” what is meant are those Christadelphians who refuse to fellowship with those
astray on first principle subjects; and those who knowingly fellowship those astray on first principle subjects.
The question before us is, Did Bro. Thomas wink at error in parts of the body from which he was personally separated
by many thousands of miles (and in the case before us, even the Atlantic Ocean?)
The following section is from “My Days and My Ways,” an autobiography by Bro. Roberts. The section from which
we are quoting has to do with the teaching by a brother Dowie in Scotland. The section will include the correspondence
which took place concerning what came to be known as the Dowie Division. Observe for yourself whether Bro. Thomas
urged Bro. Roberts to allow the errorists to grow in the ecclesias, or to withdraw from the error.
There is also an article in this collection by the name of “Know No Man After the Flesh” [see page 29 of this
book]. This article was written concerning Bro. George Dowie and his supporters at the time of the Dowie Division
(see My Days and My Ways, pages 185-190). —Bro. James P. Phillips
CHAPTER XXI
Strained Relations With Dr. Thomas
The Doctor left us in due course to keep appointments at various places in England and Scotland. I have
bitten my tongue several times since at the recollection of the hard work laid out for him by youthful
inexperience. Having no particular sense of fatigue in those days myself, I laid out the program on the time
principle merely, without allowing for the recuperative needs of a man verging towards elderly life. Most of
the nights were arranged for and all day on Sundays. “Poor Dr. Thomas,” I have said many times since. It was
too bad. People of robust health and strong intellectual interest are so liable to look upon a lecturer as a
machine that can go of course. They forget he is human, and that his energy can be pumped out, and must
have time to brew again before he is fit for work without harm. Hearers feel only the pleasure of his words,
and do not feel the fatigue caused to him by the consumption of brain fuel. They feel refreshed by his lecture,
and cannot help imagining that he feels so too.
I distinctly recollect supposing, in the days of boyhood, that there was a good deal of affectation in the
allusions I used to see in the papers about speakers being exhausted by their efforts. It was part of my
ignorance. We are all ignorant to start with. We think we know when we don’t. Experience is the only
thorough and accurate teacher: and it teaches by a quiet and slow and extensive process of tuition that cannot
easily be formulated in words afterwards. It is made up of a thousand mental accretions that can only come
with the varied experiences and reflections of years. Hence the scriptural exaltation of age over youth.
I see it all now: but in my young days I felt a hot-spur impulsiveness of wisdom, of which I am now
ashamed. At the same time, I was unfortunate in having no teachers that gave me the curb of reason. There
was dumb opposition or passive dogmatism which I could not distinguish from stupidity. Had I been
privileged with access to enlightened and benevolent and communicative experience, I think I could have
listened and would have been swayed; for I had always a strong relish for reason. However, it is all past now,
and the Doctor has got through his wearisome labors, and rests with Daniel, ready to “stand in his lot at the
end of the days” now nearly finished.
During his tour, his mind was poisoned against me by envious seniors, who were more alive to their
personal consequence than to the great and glorious work of which the Doctor was the humble instrument,
and which I was striving with all my might to abet. I saw and felt the change when he returned from his
journey: but I knew it would only be temporary when the Doctor came to know the men he was dealing with.
It turned out as I anticipated, but it took time, and, meanwhile, his manifestly unfriendly bias was a trial to
me—quite a bitter one for a time. Had I not been a daily reader and a fervent lover of the oracles of God for
myself, I should have turned away in disgust. As it was, it made me turn round, as it were, and look at the Bible
again, and see if Dr. Thomas was really right. There was only one answer; and, therefore, I swallowed my
bitters and made up my mind to wait.
The sharpest rap was the imputation of a mercenary motive in the list of names which I had appended to
the second edition of the Twelve Lectures. This list included some in Scotland who did not take a thorough-

going attitude on behalf of the truth, although connected with the meetings there that were based upon a
professed acceptance of the truth. I did not know at that time how partial was their allegiance and how limited
was their apprehension of scriptural things, and how uncertain was their repudiation of the established fables
of the day which so thoroughly make void the Word of God. They were professing brethren, and I felt called
on to give them the benefit of all doubts. I was indeed much afraid of doing them a wrong in apparently
proscribing them. I had before my eyes the fear of the words of Christ about offending one of the little ones
believing on him, which has, in fact been one of the chiefest sources of my distress in all the wranglings and
divisions that have since arisen in connection with the truth, and I had not attained that liberty that comes
from clearer sight and a greater breadth of view in all matters affecting the relations of God and man.
Therefore, in the said list of names of referees for the guidance of interested strangers, I gave a place to men
from whom afterwards I was compelled to separate. I did not do it without a mental struggle. It was said I had
put them to help the sale of the lectures. Oh, how much was this contrary to the truth! I had no object in selling
the lectures for they yielded no profit; and all the sale that I ever expected had already taken place. Finally, it
was distinctly as a concession to the fear of doing wrong that I inserted the names at all. It was a sharp lesson
in the art of patient suffering for well-doing and making no reprisals.
I wrote to the Doctor in explanation of my action, and in defence of the men impugned. I received no
answer. Time went on and I came to see that duty required my separation from a doubtful fellowship. I wrote
again to the Doctor, telling him of the correction of my perceptions. In five months afterwards, I received the
following letter:—
“Dear Brother Roberts,
“West Hoboken, Hudson Co., N.J.
October 28th, 1864
I have received from you two letters—one dated February 11th, and the other May 30th—to neither of
which have I been able to find time to reply. In relation to the former one, I consider the delay has been an
advantage to us both; and in regard to the last, I do not think the procrastination will have resulted in any
harm. Had I replied to the former, I should have had to do battle with you to bring you into the position you
now occupy with regard to those blind leaders of the blind—Duncan, Dowie, Fordyce and Co. When the truth
is in question, the benefit of all doubts should be given to it, not to those whose influence with respect to it is
only evil and that continually. You erred in giving them any benefit of doubt in the premises; but I rejoice that
you have seen the error, and will no more send inquirers after the truth to inquire at such Gospel nullifiers as
they.
“I have a copy of your letter to Dowie. It is straightforward and to the point. We can have no fellowship
with men holding such trashy stuff as the April number of the falsely-styled Messenger of the Churches exhibits.
A man who believes in the Devil of the religious world and that he has the powers of disease and death, etc.,
is ignorant of ‘the things of the Name of Jesus Christ.’ If what are styled ‘the churches’ are not delivered from
the influence of the above firm of pretentious ignorance, our endeavors to revive apostolic faith and practice
in Britain will be a miserable failure. No one should be recognized as one of Christ’s brethren who is not sound
in the first principles of the Gospel before immersion. The Kingdom and the Name are the great central topics
of the Testimony of Deity. These are the things to be elaborated; and he that is not well and deeply versed in
these only shows his folly and presumption in plunging head over ears into prophetic and apocalyptic
symbols and mysteries.
“I am truly glad you are ‘located’ in Birmingham at last. I hope you may be instrumental in effecting much
good, that is, in bringing many to a comprehensive and uncompromising faith and obedience. No parleying
with the adversary, no neutrality; Christ or nothing. I hope you will be able to shoulder my friend Davis off
the fence. He understands, I believe, and can defend the theory of the truth; but from the obedience to the faith
he looks askance. There is brother Bailey, too; he is a kind-hearted and sober-minded brother; but I think
rather too diffident of himself. Just put the point of the Spirit’s sword into him, so as to stir him up to what he
can do, without hurting him. I spent much pleasant time with him in Birmingham. Tell brother Wallis that we
had an eccentric colonel in this country, killed in this war I believe, David Crocket by name, who used to say,
‘Be sure you’re right, and then go ahead.’ The Public Prosecutor, I fear, is too well-to-do and too pious to be
converted to the obedience of faith. It is the greatest difficulty we have to contend with in the case of
outsiders—that of converting ‘Christians’ to Christianity. When you see his excellency, please give my

espectful compliments to his pious sinnership, in such set form as you may deem best.
“Will you please write to Mr. Robertson and request him, if he have funds enough of mine in hand, to send
me, through Wiley of New York, and his agent in Trafalgar Square, Charing Cross, a volume entitled
‘Vigilantius and his Times,’ by Dr. Gilly. I suppose it may be obtained of Sealey and Co., Fleet Street, London.
Said Vigilantius flourished in the fourth century, and occupied very much the position to his contemporaries
that I do to mine, and was about as popular. I wish, therefore, to form his acquaintance. It will doubtless be
refreshing.
“I have sent an epistolary pamphlet of 36 pages, size of this, to care of brother Tait. It will reach you on its
travels in due course. If you like to publish it in The Ambassador, without mutilation, you may. The perusal of
it will supersede the necessity of my repeating its contents here.
“You are right. Your ‘mistake’ evoked the testimony of Antipas. It was designed to draw the line between
faithful witnesses and pretenders in Britain; and to define our position here in relation to war, so that if any of
us were drafted by the Devil, we might be able to prove that we are a denomination conscientiously opposed
to bearing arms in his service.
“Half-a-dozen copies of each number of The Ambassador have come to hand. Our currency here will
prevent any circulation in this country. A paper dollar with us (and paper is all we have) is only worth 40 cents
in Canada. You did not wait to learn if I thought it expedient for my biography to appear. It is too late now to
say anything against it. What can’t be cured must be endured. I hope the paper will be self-supporting, and
pioneer a strait and narrow way for the truth through the dense, dark forest and swamps on every side.
“In future, it would be well not to herald my death until hearing from me direct. Not mixing myself up
with politicians, I am not likely to die by their hand. Some pious Methodist or Presbyterian would be more
likely to put me out of the way. A late pupil of sister Nisbet’s, when she was Miss Gardner, and lived in
Berwick, now the wife of a physician in Toronto, who is interested in the truth, greatly to her annoyance and
chagrin, said recently, ‘I wish it were right to poison him!’—a very pious wish for one who calls herself ‘a
Christian of the Presbyterian order.’ When I die my family will certify the fact. But Paul says ‘We shall not all
sleep.’ I and you and others may be of these. Change without death will happen to some. I trust we may be
among such. My father died last spring, aged 82. He died at Washington City, D.C., without the least sickness.
Remember me kindly to sister R. and to all the faithful, and believe me sincerely yours in the faith and hope
of the Gospel, in which all true Christadelphians rejoice.
“CHARITY” OR UNFAITHFULNESS?
John Thomas.”
It is not a question of “charity” at all. It is a question of truth. It is charitable to declare the Truth, surely.
It is highly uncharitable to withhold it. This question of “charity” is much misapplied. It is beautiful, it is
indispensable, that we be charitable. But charity must run on legitimate lines.
Let us be charitable to the utmost with our own things. We have no right to be “charitable” with the ways
or words of God. God saith— “He that hath My Word, let him speak it faithfully” (Jer. 23:28).
What would be thought of a revenue officer dispensing alms out of government funds, or relaxing the
claim of dues out of kindly feeling? He must apply to his own purse to meet the claims of charity. People have
no right to be charitable with the Truth of God: that is, to hide it, or cloak it, or modify it for the sake of the
feelings of men. Yet this is where the cry of “charity” is always raised. And, as a rule, it is raised by those
who are not distinguished by charity in the regulation of their own affairs. Let us get away from this fog.
When this ground is clearly taken, there will be more readiness to insist upon the whole Truth as the basis
of fellowship with professed believers.
— Bro. Roberts, Nov., 1888
◆

B
rethren Roberts and Thomas both wrote much concerning the Revelation. Bro. Thomas wrote a book,
Eureka, in which he deals at length with the first seven ecclesias in Asia Minor. Bro. Roberts, also in his book,
“Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse” also deals with those seven ecclesias.
By selectively quoting from these works, the two brethren are made to appear to contradict what has preceded in this
collection from their works.
For instance, this sentence is quoted from “Thirteen Lectures” to justify continued fellowship with errorists: “There
are a few exceptions in Sardis: ‘Thou hast a few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk
with me in white: for they are worthy’; from which we learn that membership in a dead ecclesia will not interfere with
individual acceptance where worthiness exists.”
The quotation is ended there, though the very next sentence explains the context in which Bro. Roberts is talking.
“Even those who are lacking have an opportunity which they are exhorted to use.”
Use our opportunities. Do not be concerned if the ecclesia is inactive or dead. If you are using the opportunities which
you are given, then (so far as fellowship goes) you are not guilty of any wrong doing. Bro. Roberts is not dealing with
ecclesias which are dead, because they have lost the Truth. They are dead, because they are inactive. Here is the whole
section. —Bro. James P. Phillips
To Sardis
“He that hath the seven Spirits of God”—the symbolic affirmation of omniscience—has little to say in the
way of commendation to the brethren in Sardis. “Thou has a name that thou livest, and art dead.” Men knew
the reputation of the Sardian ecclesia: the possessor of “the seven stars”—the seven Spirit lights kindled in the
seven ecclesias, knew their state. “I have not found thy works perfect before God.” Jesus watches and discerns
the developments of probation. He requires not to bring men to the judgment seat to know, though he will
bring them there to reveal them. There were a few exceptions in Sardis: “Thou has a few names even in Sardis
which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy”; from which
we learn that membership in a dead ecclesia will not interfere with individual acceptance where worthiness
exists. Even those who are lacking have an opportunity which they are exhorted to use. “Be watchful, and
strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die...Repent.” There is this encouragement to repentance:
“He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of
the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” The white investiture is
readily recognizable in that clothing of the mortal body with immortality from heaven, of which all accepted
saints are to be the subjects at the Lord’s coming. The “righteousness of the saints” is said to be the meaning
of the “fine linen, clean and white,” with which the symbolic bride is arrayed; but this cannot be the meaning
of the white raiment in this place, because this is promised as the recompense of the righteousness (or overcoming),
and therefore, cannot be the righteousness itself. It is a fit symbol of the pure incorruptible that will result
from the transforming action of the Spirit of God upon the mortal bodies of the saints who stand before Christ
accepted. Of course it is not literal; white raiment of this sort could be purchased at the milliner’s. There may,
however, be a blending of the symbolical and the literal. That is to say, the immortalized saints may wear
white clothing. The angels, to whom they are to be equal, almost always appeared habited in white (Matt. 28:3;
Acts 10:30, etc.), and the garments of Jesus in transfiguration, became “white and glistering,” “so as no fuller
on earth can white them.” The apparel of the immortal state is an interesting matter of detail, but not of
practical moment. The thing that is of practical moment is the fact that it is possible for a man’s name to be
blotted from the book of life, that is, expunged from the divine recognition as an heir of eternal life, after
having once sustained that relation. Jesus promised to the Sardian ecclesia that this should not happen in the
case of such as overcome, but that they should be confessed by him before the Father and the angels. This is
an honor the greatness of which we cannot estimate because it is yet unseen, but which will be appreciated at
its true greatness when the hour arrives for the muster of the chosen, and the inauguration in glory in the
presence of multitudes of the angelic host and the manifested glory of the Father.
* * *
It is not only Bro. Roberts which is caused to fall in a bad light, as far as the doctrine of fellowship is concerned. Bro.
Thomas is not excepted. Some of his statements in his work, Eureka, are quoted to make him appear to condone the
fellowshipping of errorists.

Particularly, the following quote is made: “Antipas still retained his original position in all the ecclesias, which,
although teeming with false brethren both in the presbyteries and among the multitudes, had not yet been spued out of the
mouth of the Spirit.” It is suggested by this quote that the Antipas class, that is the righteous, were in fellowship with
those they knew to be errorists.
It is not an unreasonable thing for an author to expect that the reader will read his book from the first cover to the last.
Had this happened, there would be no room for confusion on this point. On page 270, Bro. Thomas makes it clear that in
fact the Antipas did not have fellowship knowingly, with the errorists mentioned in Revelation. He writes: “The name
Christians comprehended all the adherents of Balaam and Jezebel, whether Ebionites, Gnostics or by whatever name or
denomination of heresy, they might be known. The ‘real christians’ had NO FELLOWSHIP WITH SUCH; though
among them, as in Pergamos, the poison of the serpent might be detected. The ecclesia and the synagogue of the Satan were
institutions as distinct as they are now; for in the nineteenth century a true believer of the gospel of the kingdom is against
all who have not obeyed the same, yet a congregation of ‘real christians’ may have in it some who are not true, as at
Pergamos; these WILL SOONER OR LATER SHOW THEMSELVES, for their sympathies are fleshly, and they become
impatient of principles which they regard as harsh, uncharitable, and severe.”
When Bro. Thomas says that the ecclesias were teeming with false brethren, he is referring to those false brethren who
have not yet manifested themselves as false, such as Judas before he betrayed Christ.
Much more could be added on this point, and many more passages quoted out of this excellent section of fellowship
from Eureka. But our main point is to show the teachings of the early Christadelphians from whole contexts, which is not
reasonably possible when dealing with Eureka. —Bro. James P. Phillips
The Ecclesia of God
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
The charge that Christadelphians claim to be “The Ecclesia” may be allowed to pass, if understood in the
right way. As individuals, or as a human organization, they make no pretense whatever to a divine
appointment or standing.
Their contention is that the Truth of the Gospel calls the believers of it from out of the world to be the
servants of Christ; and that all who yield to the call become the “called” by virtue of their belief and obedience,
and candidates for the favor of Christ at his coming. They claim to know and believe this Truth.
They do not claim “authority.” They do not attach any virtue to their organization, except the advantages
of edification to come from peace and order to its members. They do not set themselves up as an official body.
They are merely an aggregation of men and women believing the Truth of God, and striving to walk in the
obedience of His commandments, hoping in the mercy of God for that Eternal Life which He has predicated
on such a course.
They have no ecclesiastical pretensions, or desire for ecclesiastical recognition. If others believe in the
same Truth and walk in the same obedience, they are glad of and claim their company under the law of Christ.
If any demur to the Truth, or decline from that obedience, they withdraw from their company under the
same law—not as a judicial act toward the withdrawn from, but as a washing of their own hands of complicity
with evil.
Thus they rest everything on the Truth, and nothing on their individual or corporate prerogative. The
departure of the Truth will be the departure of the Ecclesia, even if the individuals remain in company with
one another. The Truth, with them, makes or unmakes. The organization is an accident of the Truth merely,
and not its governor, or even official medium.
Understood thus, the Christadelphians admit that they claim to be The Ecclesia; a claim, however, in
which they admit all to participate who can prove that they are walking in the belief and obedience of the
Truth.
—May, 1878

Resurrectional Responsibility
Bro. Roberts’ Fellowship Stand in 1898
The matter of Resurrectional Responsibility was of increasing concern in the Brotherhood from 1894 on,
due to the teachings of Bro. J.J. Andrew. There is much on it in the magazines from 1894 to Bro. Roberts’ death
in 1898.
The basic issue was that light (knowledge) brings resurrectional responsibility to Christ’s judgment seat.
As to those who held the Truth, there was never any doubt on this from the beginning. It was generally
accepted in the Body. The works of Bre. Thomas and Roberts confirm this absolutely. It is very specifically
stated in many early writings. Bro. Thomas wrote in Anatasis (1866):
“He that understands the Truth, but declines the obedience it commands, will be held accountable for its
rejection; for ‘he that believeth not shall be condemned’ ‘in a day of judgment’ ‘when the Deity shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel Paul preached’ (Rom. 2:16; Mark 16:16)...
“An enlightened sinner cannot evade the consequences of his illumination. I have known some of this
class flatter themselves that they would not be called forth to judgment, but would perish as the beasts if they
did not come under the law to Christ. Such reasoning, however, is simply ‘the deceitfulness of sin’.”
Clearly, therefore, this was an old crotchet in the religious world, firmly rejected by the Brotherhood from
the beginning, but not a major issue until the teachings of Bro. Andrew brought it into great prominence and
controversy in 1894. There was a very strong reaction in the Brotherhood. Bro. Andrew’s position was
extreme, and led (as usual) to counter-extremes. Many wanted to go too far in the opposite direction, both in
the specific application of the principle of Resurrectional Responsibility (how much or little knowledge
created responsibility, just who individually was responsible, etc.), and also in fellowship requirements.
The Andrew faction was extreme (teaching that God could not raise any for judgment from Adamic
“eternal” death who were not in the Covenant by the blood of Christ). In Britain, this faction seems to have
soon separated itself, but the issue did not subside, as a great range of views remained in the Body, short of the
Andrew extreme. From 1894 to 1898, Bro. Roberts wrote much in exposition of the truth of the matter, and in
pleading with the extremists not to force the uncertain details or to insist upon the specific application of the
agreed basic principle to specific amounts of knowledge or opportunity, or to specific individuals. Some felt
that having access to a Bible would make a man responsible to Christ’s judgment seat, and that all should
agree to this. Some felt it would take the occurrence of an open manifestation of the power of the Spirit to be
able to be sure we could say there was resurrectional responsibility in any particular case.
It is clear from the record of the time that over-reaction to the error (as concerns fellowship requirements)
was the problem, rather than under-reaction. This was Bro. Roberts’ major concern, and that is apparently why
some have gotten the impression that Bro. Roberts did not consider it a matter of fellowship.
But there is not the slightest room for doubt or question that on the basic issue of light bringing resurrectional
responsibility, Bro. Roberts was adamant that this was an essential First Principle of Fellowship, and was included—and
intended to be included—in the original Statement of Faith, though time indicated that the original wording left room for
quibble, and had to be clarified. We shall demonstrate this beyond any possibility of denial.
Many ecclesias passed resolutions of fellowship on the issue. SOME BRO. ROBERTS PRINTED, AND
SOME HE WOULD NOT. And when he did not print them, he explained that it was because he could not go
in fellowship requirement as far as they went. This is a very important and significant point: HE WOULD
NOT PRINT AS ECCLESIAL NEWS A FELLOWSHIP STAND HE COULD NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY
SUPPORT.
In proof of this, here are extracts from three replies he makes on the inside front cover of the February 1898
issue. They are by Bro. Roberts himself. Though in Australia, he was in direct control of the magazine and its
contents right up till his death. Ecclesial news of any doubt as to its soundness or publishability was referred
directly to him—not published. Proof of this will be given below.
Whatever appeared in the magazine up till his death was with his direct approval and in harmony with his
views. (For complete accuracy, a very minor exception to this must be mentioned: very occasionally, if
someone felt misrepresented, he would publish a rebuttal or explanation from them on the cover, with or
without comment.) But in the body of the magazine, and in the Ecclesial News, Bro. Roberts did not print what
he did not agree with, except with a very specific disclaimer, or with a direct answer to it by himself.

The following are from February 1898 inside front cover, by Bro. Roberts—
To B.S.D. “While you are pushing for division on responsibility, another party is pushing for
indiscriminate union. Of the two, we’d rather be with you than them, but we fear it will not be in our power
to run with either.”
To W.M. “Your action in withdrawing from the brethren in your neighborhood is an action affecting
the brethren everywhere else, therefore you could not expect us to publish it unless we were prepared to join
it, which we are not, for the reason briefly indicated in the [following] note to V.C.”
To V.C. “We regret our inability to share the extreme attitude which some are taking on the
Responsibility Question...Though the rule of responsibility is clear enough, its application is impossible
for man, because no man can say where knowledge and privilege exist to a sufficient degree to bring
a man within its operation.
“We should therefore be content, AS HERETOFORE, with the recognition of LIGHT AS THE GROUND
OF CONDEMNATION.
“If a man come, openly denying, as some have recently done, that knowing rebels against the light
will be brought to judgment, and insisting upon their view as a condition of fellowship, there is no
alternative but to accept the breach which he creates. But there is no need for the retaliation implied in
extreme action on the other side.
“We ought not to insist upon uncertain details as a question of fellowship. Who can tell which of the
rebels and unbelievers will be raised to judgment?...In the present case there is no principle at stake,
but mere questions of detail as to which it is impossible for any wise man to be certain...
“Where God’s untrammeled prerogative to deal with the enlightened rejector is admitted, and the
CERTAINTY OF THE RESURRECTION OF SOME AMONG THEM TO PUNISHMENT IS
RECOGNIZED...men in this position...are men entitled to our fellowship.”
It will be apparent from the above that—
1. Bro. Roberts was in full charge of the magazine.
2. He would not publish matters affecting fellowship he did not agree with.
3. He insisted on the principle of light as ground of resurrectional condemnation.
4. He was battling those who wanted division—not on the basic principle—but on uncertain details.
If anyone feels any stated point is not amply proven, plenty more evidence can be given. The material is
volumnious.
Here is further evidence that Bro. Roberts would not publish fellowship decisions he did not agree with—
July 1898 inside front cover (to W.M. and W.E.G.): “If we do not publish your Intelligence, it is not that
we differ from you in doctrine, but because we cannot share what we consider the unrighteous action
of rejecting righteous men who believe and obey the Gospel, but who are not as clear as you as to the
extent of the operation of the law of responsibility in an age lacking some of the grounds of it. If they
denied and opposed it, like those with Bro. Andrew, it would be a different thing.”
August 1898, page 357: “Reported resolutions in reference to the responsibility of rejectors have
recently been omitted from Intelligence communications appearing from various places: Barrmill,
Southampton, Newbury, Heckmondwike, etc. They were forwarded to the Editor in Australia, who
cannot (for reasons already given) join in refusing the fellowship of obedient believers who may
happen to be unclear as to the amount of punishment God will mete out to those who refuse
submission in these times of darkness, SO LONG AS THEY ARE PREPARED TO ADMIT THAT THE
GROUND OF RESURRECTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THE LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE...
“If there are to be resolutions, let them be...such as—
“That we reject the doctrine recently introduced to the effect that men must be baptized before they can come
under the condemnation of the Gospel at the resurrection. We believe that the ground of condemnation is—not
a partial submission in baptism—but a refusal to submit to the claims of the Gospel at all, where there is
sufficiency of discernment as to the Divine character of those claims. Of this sufficiency of discernment, God
alone can be judge. WE CANNOT INVITE THE FELLOWSHIP OF THOSE WHO ADVOCATE THE NEW
DOCTRINE, but we cannot refuse the fellowship of those who recognize that KNOWLEDGE IS THE
GROUND OF RESPONSIBILITY, though they may not be clear as to how the principle will work out in an age
of darkness like our own.”

Note how Bro. Roberts rigidly insists, FOR FELLOWSHIP, on acceptance of the principle that light brings
resurrectional responsibility. But the problem he faced during the years 1894-1898 was not the acceptance of
this basic principle, but the variety of extremes of many who wanted to make fellowship rules far beyond it,
into realms impossible for man to judge.
Bro. Roberts sympathized with their concern and motives, but he could see that the welter of varying
extremes would fragment the Body unless they were resolutely opposed.
In May, 1898, page 185, he states the GENERAL PRINCIPLES he considered ESSENTIAL TO FELLOW-
SHIP, as against many of the applications of that principle—some possibly true, some obviously irrational—
that were being pressed as issues of fellowship—
“RESPONSIBILITY: GENERAL PRINCIPLE— That men are responsible to the resurrection of
condemnation who refuse subjection to the will of God when their circumstances are such as to leave
them no excuse for such refusal.
“UNCERTAIN DETAIL— But when, in our age, are men in such circumstances? Who can tell but
God alone? Some think it is enough if a man have a Bible. Some think that it is not enough unless the
Bible is explained to him. Some think even that is not enough unless the hand of God is openly shown
in certification of the divinity of the Bible, as in the apostolic age...
“Where men admit that rebels and unbelievers who deserve punishment WILL RISE AT THE
RESURRECTION to receive that punishment without reference to the question whether they are
baptized or not, they admit all that can be righteously exacted of them.”
Reams more could be quoted to show that Bro. Roberts ALWAYS INSISTED ON THE FIRST PRINCIPLE
STATED IN THE PRESENT CLAUSE 24 OF THE STATEMENT OF FAITH, and that what he was objecting to
and battling against was unjustified extremes beyond that clause. To try to use him to justify looseness in
fellowship on basics, or to imply that the stand in fellowship taken in Clause 24 was after his time and not in
harmony with his views, is ABSOLUTELY, PROVABLY INCORRECT.
Here is another proof that Bro. Roberts personally checked all doubtful Ecclesial News, and did not
publish any that took a fellowship stand he could not support—
April 1898 inside front cover: “Intelligence communications from Partick, Barrmill, Beith,
Heckmondwike, Newbury and Radstock are referred to the Editor in Australia, the cause being
embarrassments created by the Responsibility Question.”
This note is specifically identified as being by Bro. Walker. All cover notes not so distinguished are by Bro.
Roberts himself. In reading these magazines back and forth from month to month in 1898, one can only marvel
at the close touch and supervision Bro. Roberts had of the magazine, though he was in Australia. He says (May
1898 inside front cover)— “Australia is not so far off as some think. The editor is only behind the door.”
We tend to forget that steamships crossed the Atlantic in 7 days as early as 1867, and in 5 days as early as
1888. In England in those days, mail within a city was regularly delivered in the afternoon if posted in the
morning. Appointments for the same day were regularly made by postcard.
The magazine, right up to the time of his death, was wholly Bro. Roberts’, and he was very much in touch.
That brings us to perhaps the basic and primary point: the fellowship stand taken (more correctly: clarified
and reaffirmed) in January 1898 by the Birmingham Ecclesia, as reported in the February issue. In December
1897, page 506, in the Birmingham Ecclesia notes, the following appeared:
“The continuation of controversy concerning the Responsibility Question, and the widespread circulation
of grave charges against the Birmingham ecclesia, of sheltering error and suppressing or
hindering the truth, have induced the arranging brethren to recommend the ecclesia to define its
position on the matter. Their recommendation will come before the ecclesia at the quarterly meeting.
It has never ceased to warn men to flee from the wrath to come: and there is no cause for the fears of
some and the censure of others.”
In February 1898, page 79, the following appeared in the Birmingham notes—
“The usual quarterly business meeting of the ecclesia took place on January 6. On the question of the
Responsibility to Resurrection and Condemnation of Enlightened Rejectors of the Truth, the ecclesia
adopted the recommendation of the arranging brethren, which ran as follows:
“Seeing that this doctrine is contained in the Statement of Faith, which forms our Basis of Fellowship, and
that organized and active denial of it, in London and elsewhere, has taken place, also that the matter has been

thoroughly discussed in our literature for more than 3 years past; and seeing further that controversy concerning
it resulting in division in certain ecclesias is still current, and that it is widely and publicly alleged that we are
fellowshipping or sheltering error on the matter, it is
RESOLVED
That we reaffirm Proposition XXIV of the Statement of Faith in the following amplified terms, and that we
fellowship those only who hold the same doctrine—
PROPOSITION XXIV
That at the appearance of Christ prior to the kingdom, the responsible (namely, those who know the revealed will
of God, and have been called upon to submit to it), dead and living—obedient and disobedient—will be
summoned before his judgment seat ‘to be judged according to their works’; and ‘receive in body according to
what they have done, whether it be good or bad’.”
It will be noted that this was not a new stand, but a restatement and clarification of a First Principle belief
held from the beginning, which had been called in question by the propagation of error. It will be noted that
until this clarification was made ruling out the newly introduced error, the Body was in violent agitation for
several years, the faithful increasingly concerned and increasingly convinced that something must be done to
clear the picture and preserve the Truth. It was a time of great sorrow and struggle, but the Truth was
preserved, and when the correct position was taken, the turmoil ceased.
As has clearly been shown, Bro. Roberts was in full and direct charge of the magazine, and he did not
publish decisions affecting fellowship with which he could not concur. In this same February issue, he
specifically refused to publish some Ecclesial News on the matter, as we have quoted earlier. But he did
publish this, from his own home ecclesia, to which he expected to return in a few months, without a word of
demur or reservation, either then or later.
And this was not just another item of ecclesial news affecting one ecclesia. This was an amendment of the
basic Statement of Faith he had been primarily instrumental in drawing up ten years earlier, and which was
the accepted standard of fellowship for the ecclesial world.
And this professed to be a clarification and reaffirmation of the true intended meaning of the original
Statement that he himself had been a party to. He certainly would not have published it if this were not true,
and if he did not consider this a vital First Principle. THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION THAT
BRO. ROBERTS WAS IN FULL AND ACTIVE ACCORD WITH THIS AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT
OF FAITH.
This is further confirmed by the fact that while, as we have seen, he withheld many fellowship resolutions
on the Responsibility Question which he believed went too far, he on the other hand did publish many
others—all in harmony with this Amendment. We will later quote some of these, and list others.
Here are a few more links showing that Bro. Roberts was in agreement with, and actively in support of, this
Amendment as a necessary Basis of Fellowship.
February 1898, page 89, Tanworth Ecclesia News: “I think the time has come when a stand should be
taken in regard to the Responsibility Question. This is another error captivating the minds of the
brethren. What a number of errors there have been in these last 20 years!...All I can say is, if Bro.
Roberts had not worked well and battled with the errors, and taken steps to expel them from our midst, the
Truth would have been lost.”
Note that this was in the same issue as the above Amendment.
April 1898, page 176, Ystrad Ecclesial News: “The distressing effect of the Resurrectional Responsibility
trouble has made its appearance among us, preventing the hearty cooperation so necessary among
the brethren...Bre. Jones, Fox and Green, having adopted the ‘extremist’ view, have seceded from us,
their attitude on this matter appearing to be one of denying the possibility of salvation to those who
know the Lord’s will and do it, unless they can define the degree of knowledge necessary...We hope
now to resume our duty to the Truth in its application to ourselves and others, fully endorsing the
position HELD BY BRO. ROBERTS and that of the Temperance Hall ecclesia, as reported in the Christadelphian
of last 1 month.”
1 Written in March, referring to the February issue containing the Amendment.

July 1898, inside back cover, to Y.R. by Bro. Roberts: “There is a difference between those who are
uncertain as to the application of the rule of responsibility, and those who deny it altogether. You are in
the latter position...Under this contention, it follows that the way for a sinner to keep clear of judgment
would be to disobey God entirely from the start, and set Him at defiance by keeping out of the water.
This would reduce the moral procedure of God to a monstrosity. FOR WHICH WE CANNOT MAKE
OURSELVES RESPONSIBLE IN FELLOWSHIP.”
October 1898, inside front cover, by Bro. Roberts: “We cannot publish the rescindment of OUR
resolution on responsibility, on the understanding that it means the fellowshipping of those who deny
that disobedient knowledge of the will of God renders a man liable to resurrectional condemnation.
THIS IS A FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE REVEALED SYSTEM OF TRUTH. Its rejection places a man in
a totally different position from those who recognize perceived light as the ground of responsibility,
but are uncertain only as to its application.”
This is absolutely conclusive as to Bro. Roberts’ active and wholehearted identification with the Amendment
of Clause 24 as an essential Basis of Fellowship. This was in the same issue as the notice of Bro. Roberts’
death.
There is not a shred of justification for the claim that Bro. Roberts was not a party to, and in full agreement
with, the Amendment of Clause 24, as a Basis of fellowship. The evidence that he was is irrefutable and
overwhelming.
In conclusion, here are two sample ecclesial resolutions that Bro. Roberts did permit to be published,
remembering that by his own statement he excluded any which he did not and could not support—
January 1898, page 40, Milnsbridge: “It is our earnest conviction that a knowledge of God’s revealed
will (irrespective of submission to it) is the ground of responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ at
his second appearing, as taught by Christ and his apostles. This being so, we feel it to be our duty to
withhold fellowship from any who believe the contrary. Neither can we fellowship any who are in doubt on
the matter, and who therefore have not arrived at the same conviction as ourselves. We shall also feel it to be
our duty to refrain from fellowshipping any who, while believing as we do, yet by their fellowship,
tolerate those who believe otherwise.”
January 1898, page 41, Swansea: “We believe that the Gospel has claims upon those who hear and
understand it, and that knowledge of the Gospel, even though not followed by baptism, makes a man
responsible to the resurrection and judgment of the last day. We believe this to be a truth taught in the
Scriptures, and we consequently refuse our fellowship to any who are unable to assent to it; or to any
ecclesia which, while assenting to it itself, tolerates in its fellowship any who do not believe this truth.
We repudiate any desire to pronounce arbitrarily where the needful knowledge exists in individual
cases, that being a matter beyond our jurisdiction, and one that must be left for the Judge himself to
determine.”
Similar ecclesial resolutions of a fellowship stand on the matter occur throughout 1898, as on pages 85, 87,
88, 89, 130, 131, 134, 174, 176, 221, 222, 313, etc.
It was a sad and troublous time. The Brotherhood, under the faithful leadership of Bro. Roberts, went
through much struggle and heartbreak. But the Truth was defended and preserved. Those who are wise will
maintain the strong and sound position that was won and established at such cost by the faithful of a past
generation.
◆

Resurrectional Responsibility
and Fellowship
Clarified Clause 24 The Absolute Fellowship Minimum For Faithfulness:
Not To Be Diluted By Compromise For Unsound Union
All from the “Christadelphian Magazine” 1894 - 1898
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
All in this type is by Bro. Roberts. All in this type by others. All in this type by Bro. G.V. Growcott.
May 1894, Pages 203-204: North London Ecclesial News
“After a long series of controversial meetings on the new doctrine introduced by Bro. Andrew, the ecclesia was
invited to re-affirm the basis of fellowship heretofore in vogue among them, in which the doctrine of light being the basis
of resurrectional responsibility was avowed. A majority refused to do so, in consequence of which Bro. Lake issued a
circular, of which the following is the principal portion—
“Dear brethren and sisters, You are aware that at the business meeting on Sunday last, when the ecclesia was asked
to re-affirm its basis of fellowship against the false theories introduced by Bro. Andrew, it refused to do so. We, therefore,
who maintain the Truth as it has always hitherto been held and taught in the London meeting, have withdrawn from the
meeting at Barnsbury Hall. Our first meeting will be held on Sunday morning next, at the Temperance Hall, Islington.
We meet at 11 o’clock for the breaking of bread, when all who uphold the Truth in its purity, as hitherto taught among us,
are cordially invited to attend.” [End N. London]
“The refusal to affirm a doctrine is equivalent to its repudiation: which is a much more serious thing than
inability to see it, especially when combined with avowed antagonism to it, as in the present case. The
decision of the assembly left Bro. Lake and those who act with him NO ALTERNATIVE BUT THE COURSE
THEY HAVE ADOPTED”—Editor.
This was the beginning of the separation from Resurrectional Responsibility error, and the re-affirmed sound
fellowship stand for the Truth, that culminated (in 1898) in the clarification by amendment of Clause 24 of the Basis of
Fellowship, and of the consequent necessary separation from all who did not accept that amendment (these becoming
what was thereafter known as the “Unamended” or “Advocate” group. It appears conclusive from the above that they are
wrong who claim that Bro. Roberts would not have withdrawn from Bro. Andrew. He says the withdrawers in London had
“NO ALTERNATIVE.” His later statements confirm this.
This was only the beginning. The problem was not settled. The Advocate Magazine took issue with the withdrawal
from Bro. Andrew. There was, in the Body, a wide range of view as to the question of where to draw the line in fellowship,
apparently even to the extent of some insisting—as an enforced First Principle—that all who ever heard the Truth
preached would be raised and judged. It would appear that the majority (or at least a large and very active number) in
Britain leaned in the direction of an over-strong fellowship stand—considerably beyond what Bro. Roberts believed
necessary or scriptural.
He sought to avoid, or at least postpone, further fragmentation; and to defend the Body, by his deterring influence and
persuasion, against the trend to an extreme stand.
He will be seen to consistently (though perhaps not always entirely clearly and obviously) take the stand that the
absolute minimum fellowship requirements is what later became the clarified (NOT changed in meaning) Clause 24. This
was indeed already the basis of FELLOWSHIP agreed on from the beginning, and he had been instrumental in its first
formulation. He says its ORIGINAL WORDING was meant to state what the amendment merely reworded more
specifically in a way that could not be misconstrued or evaded.
Bro. Roberts will be seen, through these difficult years, to be leading the Body toward this clarified and re-affirmed
position, fending off and toning down the extremists. Any who insisted on a stronger stand than this he allowed to depart,
and would not print their Ecclesial News. But he did print the Ecclesial News of the increasing number of ecclesias who
individually took a fellowship stand that coincided with what later became the Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith.
Finally, as the issues became clear, and the position of the Body gradually took shape, the Birmingham ecclesia
amended its Statement of Faith, which (in practical effect) set the fellowship position for the whole Body (as Bro. Roberts
realized it would).

We are convinced from the evidence that Bro. Roberts, as of 1898, would accept no fellowship position weaker than
the clarified Clause 24. It was adopted before his death and with his concurrence. It was unavoidable, to end the confusion
and preserve the Truth. The issue had been forced by vociferous error. It had to be faced and dealt with. A clear minimum
position had to be taken and faithfully defended and maintained. To go back now is unfaithfulness. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
June, 1894, Page 242, Christadelphian Magazine
“The circular [by the Andrew side] points out that ‘the ecclesia has not hitherto made this a test of
fellowship.’ That is true. And if it is now becoming such, it is not because of any changed attitude on the part
of those who believed it, but because some who believed it are now repudiating it...
“PERHAPS WE HAVE BEEN WRONG in winking at the denial of a truth that has always been recognized
as a PART OF THE GOSPEL from the beginning. And it may be that God in His providence is forcing us into a
MORE PROMINENT ASSERTION of the fact that He will not be mocked by any of the sons of men to whom
the knowledge of His sovereign will is allowed to come, but that He will require it of their hands in the Great
Day of wrath.
“We were invited 10 years ago to unite in the attitude now being taken by the London brethren, on the
occasion of an Australian ecclesia having withdrawn from some on this very subject. Our answer (April 1884,
Christadelphian, page 190) was as follows:
“It seems a pity to make the fate of the rejected a cause of rupture, where First Principles are not
compromised. It is the Glad Tidings of salvation...that is the basis of union in Christ, and not the details as to
how the disobedient are to be dealt with—so long as it is recognized that death is the upshot of disobedience.
Granted that responsibility should be preached. But it is a point on which there should be patience with those
who do not see the full extent of the responsibility. No one can say where, among the rejectors of the Word,
responsibility exists. We can only recognize the GENERAL AND REASONABLE PRINCIPLE THAT LIGHT,
WHEN SEEN, MAKES RESPONSIBLE.”
“The Sydney brethren answered—
“The discussion had lasted three months. A continuation of the proceedings would have been destructive of the unity
and peace that ought to prevail in every ecclesia. Hence the action, which proceeded from no animus, but from a simple
desire for a scriptural state of things; and to maintain the wholesome rule of responsibility laid down by the Lord, that—
light having come into the world—if men knowingly refuse subjection they come under its condemnation.” [End
Sydney quote]
“The question has now been raised in a way that defies accommodation. We kept back Bro. Andrew’s
name until he himself published it to the world. Having done all we could to keep the controversy at bay, we
can but sorrowfully accept the situation created, believing at the same time that the hand of God may be in it,
compelling the assertion and proclamation of the WHOLE TRUTH: concerning the day of His anger as well
as the day of His favor”—Editor.
From the publication of the Sydney letter, coupled with the endorsement of the London action, it would appear that
Bro. Roberts was recognizing that in light of developments, a stronger stand than in the past was becoming necessary,
and that it was PROVIDENTIAL. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
August, 1894, Page 302, Christadelphian Magazine
“The Advocate [Magazine] presentment of the matter is inaccurate and inconsistent...If the question of the
fate of the enlightened rejector of the Truth has not been allowed to ‘remain where it was for 30 years,’ it is
because a public denial has been made of what for 30 years has been accepted as PART AND PARCEL OF THE
PROFESSED SYSTEM OF TRUTH on the question of what constitutes the ground of human responsibility to
God. Such a question is naturally an INTEGRAL PORTION OF THE TRUTH.
“We have for 40 years been believing and preaching that the light of knowledge is the ground on which
God holds man accountable IN THE GREAT DAY OF JUDGMENT... This has now been publicly repudiated...
The fact that Bro. Andrew has veered round to the doctrine which Bro. Williams holds, explains why his
sympathy should be with him, and why the action of the brethren here who differ with him should appear in
the tragic aspect [he presents].
“Bro. Williams does not sufficiently appreciate the significance of differing with Dr. Thomas on the
question at issue. It is one thing to differ with Dr. Thomas as to the meaning of a particular passage, and

another thing to differ with him as to a PRINCIPLE OF DIVINE TRUTH.
“The question of what makes men responsible to the judgment of God IS A QUESTION OF DIVINE
TRUTH... Dr. Thomas has taught that the ground of man’s responsibility to God is the knowledge of His will.
If this IS the truth, then differing with Dr. Thomas is differing with the truth” (Bro. Roberts)
* * *
December, 1896, Page 474, Christadelphian Magazine
“Bro. MacDougall of Cumnock, and the ecclesia of Kilmarnock, think the time has come for the reaffirmation
of the truth that knowledge makes a man responsible to the judgment seat of Christ. Bro. MacDougall
says its denial has gone outside of London, and that there is a necessity for a firm and decisive attitude on the
question AS AFFECTING FELLOWSHIP. Bro. G.C. Harvey writes in the same sense: ...[Bro. Harvey’s letter
follows here in the Christadelphian Magazine]...
“REMARKS: There is a good deal of force in this view of matters. We have for years felt
uncertain—not as to the doctrine that men who knowingly refuse to submit to Christ are responsible
to his judgment seat at the resurrection—but as to how those ought to be regarded who deny it... Dr.
Thomas was against making it a ground of fellowship... We admit it makes a difference when this
error becomes aggressive... This is from my last letter to Bro. Williams (Sept. 1, 1896)—
“A NEW SITUATION has created new difficulties. A reserved and doubtful attitude has been
changed into a public and aggressive denial of light as the ground of resurrectional responsibility. The
remarks you quote from the Christadelphian WERE suited to a time when that denial was a doubtful
thing. They are NOT applicable to the situation created by an organized attack. Circumstances always
alter cases, as you know.
“The present difficulty has not been created by me, and IF I AM FORCED TO APPEAR TO TAKE
A MORE DEFINITE ATTITUDE, it has not been my choice...If Bro. Andrew’s tactics have forced a
more definite attitude on me, it may be that in this I am coerced into a COURSE OF DUTY NOT BEFORE
SUFFICIENTLY RECOGNIZED”. (Bro. Roberts)
* * *
January, 1897, Page 32, Christadelphian Magazine
[This note follows the publication of two more strong letters urging more positive action.]
“Bro. Walker endorses the foregoing. He thinks we ought not to countenance any doctrine which obscures
or weakens the moral claims of the Gospel on those who come within the sound of its hearing. The Editor
cannot add anything to what he said last month, except that he MAY HAVE ERRED IN THE LENIENCY with
which he has acted in reference to this departure from truth.”
* * *
February , 1897, Page 78, Christadelphian Magazine
“The question begins to appear in a MORE SERIOUS LIGHT as it comes to be considered thoroughly in all
its bearings”—Editor.
Several had written pointing out the dangers of not taking a clear, strong fellowship stand. These letters Bro. Roberts
published in full, with this editorial note at the end of them. Brethren who actively preached the Truth on the matter were
being publicly opposed by those who disagreed, or who did not think it important, or who viewed fellowship more loosely.
* * *
April, 1897, Page 166, Christadelphian Magazine
—G.V. Growcott
“When men agree that light brings resurrectional responsibility, apart from the question of obedience,
there ought to be no division”. (Bro. Roberts)

This irreducible minimum for sound fellowship crops up repeatedly in Bro. Roberts’ comments. It should be carefully
borne in mind. It finally led to the necessary clarification of Clause 24 as a basis of fellowship. Most of the statements
quoted from Bro. Roberts cautioning patience and restraint and toleration were directed at those who would force the
issue beyond this point, in trying to define just WHO is responsible, and what DEGREE of knowledge creates
responsibility. He adamantly opposed this. This was the big problem he faced: going too far.
—G.V. Growcott
* * *
May, 1897, Page 206, Christadelphian Magazine
[Commenting on another strong letter he published.]
“This is the right doctrine, undoubtedly. And when men oppose it, as is now done in London, there cannot
be the unity of mind which is ESSENTIAL to walking together IN FELLOWSHIP. [This is crystal-clear as to
whether he would fellowship Andrewism.]
“But it is altogether different when we are dealing with men who—ADMITTING THE PRINCIPLE OF
LIGHT BRINGING RESURRECTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY—are doubtful whether the degree of light appertaining
to our own particular day (where there is no open vision, and no visible authentication of the written
Word of the Lord) is sufficient to attach that responsibility to the disobedient.
“A man believes the truth on this question who believes that LIGHT MAKES A MAN
RESURRECTIONALLY RESPONSIBLE, but who may at the same time maintain that the great majority of
unbelievers in our day are non-responsible, because of absence of conditions that in the apostolic age created
this responsibility.
“We think there ought to be no hesitation in recognizing responsibility where conviction exists; because
such a state of mind brings the subjects of it into the same position as those who saw the works. They ‘see’ in
another way, and the moral principle involved is the same.
“The full application of responsibility no man can know. For who can tell the degree of light necessary to
bring condemnation; or where that degree exists? So long as the principle above IS RECOGNIZED, the ground
of fellowship exists so far as this question is concerned.
“WE ARE ALL AGREED THAT THE POSITION TAKEN BY BRO. ANDREW IS NOT AN ‘OPEN
QUESTION,’ BUT ONE THAT INTERFERES WITH FELLOWSHIP. What we require to further agree about
is that where PRIVILEGE IS ADMITTED to be the ground of RESURRECTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it ought
not to be an objection to any man’s fellowship that he is unable to say (what NO man can say) what amount of
privilege is necessary before that responsibility begins to be operative. This may not suit those who advocate
an extreme course, but it is a limitation which the calm exercise of reason will sanction.
How dare anyone say, in the light of this, that Bro. Roberts would have fellowshipped Bro. Andrew’s doctrines? And
surely it is becoming clearer and clearer just where Bro. Roberts drew the unyielding fellowship line; and the extremes he
was contending with which went beyond that line. These latter were his great concern. By patience he nursed the Body
through this turmoil. Some very sincere extremists left, but he was able to prevent them rending the Body to pieces.
A fair consideration of all the evidence gives a very different picture of Bro. Roberts from the stumbling, hesitant,
reluctant, having-to-be-prodded caricature that some—both then and now—have drawn of him. He could see aspects
they could not, and dangers they were blind to. — G.V. Growcott
* * *
June, 1897, Inside FrontCover: Christadelphian Magazine
“A community that would refuse to confess that though God ‘winks at’ times of ignorance, He will NOT
wink at times of knowledge, but WILL hold men answerable IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT for knowingly
refusing to submit to the demands of the Gospel, is a community that in that particular would refuse to
consent to ‘the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Timothy 6:3). It might be necessary that you should
SEPARATE from a community persevering in that attitude; only it would be necessary to be sure that such
was really their attitude.”
Again we see clearly where Bro. Roberts draws the fellowship line. And note the signification of the quotation he uses.
It deals with withdrawal. — G.V. Growcott
* * *

July, 1897, Page 294, Christadelphian Magazine (From Plymouth)
“We sorrow at losing two such able and zealous brethren as Bre. Sleep and Williams, who take extreme ground on the
right side of the Responsibility Question...We have passed the following resolution—
“Our ecclesia affirms its belief that light brings responsibility to judgment. If this is admitted by those seeking our
fellowship, we will not judge a brother’s doubtful thoughts as to the EXTENT of the enlightenment creating such
responsibility, and—consequently—WHEN such responsibility commences.”...
“We were willing to pass the resolution you advised Bro. Sleep to submit to us, but he did not think it went far
enough.” End Plymouth...Bro. Roberts comments:
“If we recollect, the resolution was to this effect: ‘That though God winks at times of ignorance, He does
NOT wink at times of knowledge, but WILL hold men answerable in the day of judgment for a knowing refusal
to submit to the claims of the Gospel’—Editor.
Again, the basic issue is clear, and the “extremist” problem Bro. Roberts faced is manifest. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
October, 1897, Page 419, Christadelphian Magazine
[Someone asks:]
... “Is it true that the Birmingham ecclesia teaches or permits to be taught, that ‘Resurrection only affects those who
have been baptized into Christ’? Or would it countenance in its midst those who OPPOSED the doctrine that knowledge
of God’s will is in itself sufficient to bring resurrectional responsibility? Or those who maintain that Prop. 24 of the
Birmingham Basis permits the members to teach what they like on the question of Responsibility?
“I put this question because we are asked fellowship by some who openly disavow the resurrection of enlightened
rebels on the plea of having now adopted the Birmingham Basis in its entirety.”
Bro. Roberts replies: “The Birmingham ecclesia has from the very first taught the very opposite of what is
above stated; and doubtless would NOT COUNTENANCE THE OPPOSITION OF THE TRUTH. Prop. 24 did
not define the ‘responsible’ because it was not necessary. The current understanding of the term is exemplified
in Finger Post 45, of which the ecclesia circulated thousands. It warns the reader—
“Take care, while denying the responsibility of the UNenlightened, that you do not ignore the scripturally-inculcated
responsibility of the WILFUL REJECTORS of the light. Some do this, with the result of
reaching the demoralizing conclusion that those sinners ONLY who try to obey Christ in baptism will rise to
punishment; while sinners who resolve to have nothing to do with him will be left to pass away with their
ungodly deeds unrequited. Such a conclusion is CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE.”
“ ‘Open disavowers’ of this doctrine ought not to seek fellowship under cover of the Birmingham Constitution”.
(Bro. Roberts)
It is apparent why a clarification of Clause 24 became necessary, and why it is essential TODAY to faithfully maintain
that clarification IN FELLOWSHIP without compromise. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
November, 1897, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
“The thing at issue is the PRINCIPLE of light being the ground of responsibility. There are various classes in
the controversy—
1. Those who out and out deny that God CAN raise knowing rebels to judgment, consistently with His
law.
2. Those who admit that He can AND WILL, but who hesitate as to the degree of knowledge necessary
to make a man a knowing rebel.
3. Those who are content with the broad principle that ‘To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it
not, to him it is sin’—and who therefore believe that ALL who know the Gospel to be the Truth and
refuse submission to it, WILL rise to condemnation at the appearance of Christ.
4. Those who think that mere contact with the Truth in its public or private proclamation, or the
possession of a Bible, is enough to make a man responsible.
“The second and third positions are consistent with each other, and represent the attitude of enlightened

and prudent men. The first is inadmissible, and the fourth is unwarranted” (Bro. Roberts)
This shows the labyrinth he was working through, and the educational job he was attempting. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
December, 1897, Page 506, Christadelphian Magazine
Bro. Walker writes:
“The continuation of controversy concerning the Responsibility Question and the widespread circulation of grave
charges against the Birmingham ecclesia of sheltering error and suppressing or hindering the Truth, have induced the
arranging brethren to recommend the ecclesia to define its position on the matter. Their recommendation will come before
the ecclesia at the quarterly meeting. The Birmingham ecclesia has never ceased to warn men to flee from the wrath to
come. There is no cause for the fears of some and censure of others.”
Bro. Roberts was in Australia, but—according to his own testimony—very much in touch, and in charge of the
magazine. He still held ecclesial office in Birmingham. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
February, 1898, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
“We regret our inability to share the extreme attitude that some are taking on the Responsibility Question.
Though the RULE of responsibility is clear enough, its application is impossible for man, because no man can
say where knowledge and privilege exist to a sufficient degree to bring a man within its operation. We should
therefore be content, as heretofore, with the RECOGNITION OF LIGHT AS THE GROUND OF CONDEM-
NATION.
“If a man comes openly denying—as some have recently done—that knowing rebels against the light will
be brought to judgment, and insisting upon their view as a condition of fellowship, there is no alternative but
to accept the breach that he creates. But there is no need for the retaliation implied in extreme action on the
other side...
“We ought not to insist on uncertain details as a question of fellowship. Who can tell which of the rebels
and unbelievers will be raised to judgment? ...
“If they contended that non-baptism shields a deliberate rebel from the results of his rebellion, a principle
would be at stake... But it is different where God’s untrammeled prerogative to deal with the enlightened
rejector is admitted, AND THE CERTAINTY OF THE RESURRECTION OF SOME AMONG THEM TO
PUNISHMENT RECOGNIZED... Men in THIS POSITION, believing the Gospel with all their hearts, are men
entitled to our fellowship” (Bro. Roberts)
He again insists, for fellowship, on acceptance of the principle that light brings Resurrectional Responsibility.
- G.V. Growcott
* * *
February, 1898, Page 79, Christadelphian Magazine
“On the question of the Responsibility to Resurrection and Condemnation of Enlightened Rejectors of the Truth, the
[Birmingham] ecclesia adopted the recommendation of the Arranging Brethren, which ran as follows:
“Seeing that this doctrine is contained in the Statement of Faith which forms our Basis of Fellowship; and that
organized and active denial of it in London and elsewhere has taken place; also that the matter has been thoroughly
discussed in our literature for more than three years past; and seeing further controversy concerning it resulting in
division in certain ecclesias is still current; and that it is widely and publicly alleged that we are fellowshipping or
sheltering error on the matter, it is
“RESOLVED: That we reaffirm Prop. 24 of the Statement of Faith in the following amplified terms, and that we
FELLOWSHIP THOSE ONLY WHO HOLD THE SAME DOCTRINE:
“Prop. 24: ‘That at the appearance of Christ prior to the establishment of the Kingdom, the responsible (namely, those
who KNOW THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD, AND HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO SUBMIT TO IT), dead and
living, obedient and disobedient, WILL be summoned before his judgment seat ‘to be judged according to their works’ and

‘receive in body according to what they have done, whether it be good or bad’ (2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rom. 2:5, 6, 16; 1
Cor. 4:5; Rev. 11:18).”
Note that FELLOWSHIP IS LIMITED to those who HOLD this doctrine. As we shall see, Bro. Roberts defends this;
calls it a First Principle; calls it “our” resolution, and denies the possibility of its rescindment. We believe Bro. Roberts’
position is the only faithful one to hold. Any attempt to quote him to undermine this so frequently stated position MUST be
a perversion of his words. The totality of these extracts demonstrates that. — G.V. Growcott
* * *
March, 1898, Page 128, Christadelphian Magazine
“We cannot join in [this pamphlet’s] judgment of what should be done in the case of brethren who ADMIT
the LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE as the GROUND of responsibility, but who are not clear as to the amount of light
necessary to create this responsibility. These brethren say, ‘Withdraw.’ And not only so, but ‘Insist on it that
all in fellowship should withdraw from all in a like uncertainty’ ... We cannot go to the extremes for which some
are contending...
“In the present case, it is not a principle that is at stake, but a question as to the detached application of a
principle. The PRINCIPLE is that light brings responsibility. THIS PRINCIPLE IS ADMITTED IN THE CASES
IN QUESTION. But there is a lack of agreement as to how this principle will work out in an age like our own,
when the light burns so low.
“Some dispose of the point by saying, ‘Knowledge that is equal to saving men is equal to condemning
them.’ This does not dispose of it. ALL will agree that the knowledge in a man which is sufficient to make him
wise unto salvation, is sufficient to bring that same man into condemnation at the resurrection if he refuse
submission to the commandments of God.
“But the question is—not as to that same man—but other men of whom no man can say they are sufficiently
illuminated to become the subjects of saving faith, or sufficiently acquainted with the evidence of the Truth as
to be resurrectionally responsible for rejecting it.
“This is a question which it is not in ANY man’s power to settle. Who can tell where the light shines
sufficiently to make a man responsible? For ourselves, we confess our entire inability to settle such a question.
It would require the power of ‘discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart’ which God alone possesses.
“If we cannot settle such a question, why should we insist upon a man assenting to some particular
definition of it before we will receive him as a brother? And, still worse, insist on his disowning all others who
will not do likewise? ‘Purity of fellowship’ is a laudable cry, but it requires to be carried out with the
discrimination of wisdom”. (Bro. Roberts)
Surely we can see what Bro. Roberts was driving at, and contending with, when he appears (to some) to be “weak”
on fellowship. He perceived the matter, and its pitfalls, more deeply and clearly than most. The GENERAL PRINCIPLE
is crystal clear, and MUST be insisted on in fellowship, for faithfulness and for the welfare of the Body and the Truth.
But none of us has the discernment or ability to apply it specifically to any particular individual. We can be almost
certain in some cases, and must urgently warn them so, but we cannot say for SURE in ANY case, and less so in cases
of total rejection. And we cannot cumber fellowship requirements with such determinations. This is obviously what some
in “zeal” wanted to do, and insist on others accepting. Bro. Roberts knew it would tear the Body apart. — G.V. Growcott
* * *
April , 1898, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
“Intelligence [Ecclesial News] communications from Partick, Barrmill and Beith, Heckmondwike, Newbury, and
Radstock are referred to the Editor in Australia, the cause being embarrassments created by the Responsibility Question.”
This (by Bro. Walker) shows that Bro. Roberts was in touch and in control, and decided what Ecclesial News on the
subject appeared. For confirmation, see July, inside cover, below. — G.V. Growcott
* * *
April, 1898, Page 160, Christadelphian Magazine
To S.B.: “The extremes you are going to on the Responsibility Question are not justified by wisdom. The

statements you quote with such emphasis (‘He that rejecteth me’ ... ‘He that believeth not’, etc.) have to be
taken with the qualifications belonging to them. If not, do you not see that all Mahometans and all the
benighted millions of Christendom will be raised?— for the first class ‘reject,’ and the second ‘believe not.’
You surely are not prepared for this! What are the ‘qualifications’? Jesus supplies them—
“If I had not come and spoken unto them...if I had not done among them works which none other
man did, they had not had sin [to answer for]. But now have they both SEEN and hated both me and
my Father” (John 15:22-24).
“The statements in question must always be understood with the qualifications supplied in these words.
The effect is to deprive them of the indiscriminate application which some are giving them...To apply these
statements in their unabated force to circumstances where the same ground of responsibility does not exist is, in
my judgment, a mistake. They apply where a man knows and believes the Truth, and refuses submission,
because the PRINCIPLE is the same: sin against the light.
“But who can tell when such a knowledge exists? The question necessarily stands in the ‘hazy’ form which
offends some...Where the GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS ADMITTED—that the light of knowledge IS the ground of
responsibility—all is admitted that we can lawfully demand...It would be a wrong against Christ to refuse men
who ADMIT THE SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLE, but are dim as to its application, for the reasons hinted at”. (Bro.
Roberts)
Bro. Roberts does not always insert “resurrectional” before “responsibility” when defining the “scriptural principle”
whose acceptance is the MINIMAL fellowship requirement for soundness and faithfulness. But he does it often enough
to make it undeniable what he means. See “General Principle” below, May 1898. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
August, 1898, Page 176, Christadelphian Magazine, Ystrad Ecclesial News
“The distressing effect of the Resurrectional Responsibility trouble has made its appearance among us, preventing the
hearty cooperation so necessary among the brethren, and jeopardizing the position of those who manifest interest in the
things of the Kingdom and Name.
“Bre. Jones, Fox and Green—having adopted the ‘extremist’ view—have seceded from us; their attitude on this
matter appearing to be one of denying the possibility of salvation to those who know the Lord’s will and do it, unless they
can define the DEGREE of knowledge necessary, and the present day application of a few texts that condemn those
without.
“We hope now to resume our duty to the Truth in its application to ourselves and others, fully endorsing the
POSITION HELD BY BRO. ROBERTS AND THAT OF THE TEMPERANCE HALL ECCLESIA, as reported in the
‘Christadelphian’ of last month.”
They refer to the Clause 24 clarification appearing in the February issue. We see again the basic minimal position,
and the “extremist” problem. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
May, 1898, Pages 182-186, Christadelphian Magazine
“True Principles and Uncertain Details: The Danger of Going Too Far:— It has pleased God to save men
by the belief and obedience of a system of Truth briefly described as ‘the Gospel of our Salvation,’ and also
spoken of by Jesus and John and Paul as ‘the Truth’: ‘Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you
free’ (Jesus).
“For this reason it is necessary for believers to be particular in REQUIRING THE FULL RECOGNITION OF
THIS TRUTH at the hands of one another, as the basis of their mutual association; and generally to ‘contend
for the Faith once delivered to the saints.’ Those men are to be commended who faithfully exact this recognition
both at the hands of applicants for baptism and claimants for fellowship.
“But there is a danger of going too far... There are General Principles as to which there can be NO
COMPROMISE. But there are also unrevealed applications of these principles in detail which cannot be
determined with certainty, and which every man must be allowed to judge for himself...An exception would,
of course, be naturally made in the case of the construction of a detail that would destroy the General Principle
involved...

“Responsibility: GENERAL PRINCIPLE—That men ARE responsible to the RESURRECTION OF CON-
DEMNATION who refuse subjection to the will of God when their circumstances are such as to leave them no
excuse for such refusal.
“Uncertain Detail: But when, in our age, are men in such circumstances? Who can tell but God alone?
Some think it is enough if a man have a Bible. Some think that is not enough unless the man have capacity to
understand the explanation. Some think even that is not enough unless the hand of God is openly shown in
certification of the divinity of the Bible, as in the apostolic age, when ‘the Lord worked with them, and
confirmed the Word with signs.’
“What are we to do? Are we to insist on a precise shade of opinion on a point which no judicious man can
be absolutely clear about? All we can be sure about is that when men are ‘without excuse’ knowing the
judgment of God (Rom. 1:20, 32; 2:1); when they have ‘no cloak for their sin,’ like the men who saw the
miracles of Christ and yet both ‘saw and hated both him and his Father’ (John 15:22-24)—that they WILL come
forth at the resurrection to receive punishment according to the righteous judgment of God.
“When men admit THIS, they admit enough for purposes of fellowship as regards this particular point. To
insist on MORE than this is to go too far, and to inflict needless distress and cause unnecessary division...
“Where men ADMIT that rebels and unbelievers who deserve punishment WILL RISE AT THE RESUR-
RECTION TO RECEIVE THAT PUNISHMENT, without reference to the question whether they are baptized
or not, they admit all that can righteously be exacted of them.” (Bro. Roberts)
Many, in quoting from this article, completely miss the General Principle that Bro. Roberts lays down as VITAL TO
SOUND FELLOWSHIP, and try to use the article to justify loose fellowship—the very opposite of Bro. Roberts’ purposes.
Get the whole article and read it carefully, and you will find it is no support for loose fellowship, which Bro. Roberts was
dead set against.
Hold fast to this “General Principle” OF FELLOWSHIP that responsible rebels WILL RISE to judgment. Bro. Roberts
says it cannot faithfully be compromised. Nothing quoted from him, in this long, patient struggle against the extremists,
can be interpreted to contradict this basic and oft-repeated MINIMAL fellowship requirement. Hold it high aloft. Keep it
crystal clear.
But we are very unwise to go ANY FURTHER, and to say of any rejecting individual that he certainly WILL rise—
though we can and must vehemently warn him of its probability.
And we are certainly wrong to force on others as a required fellowship principle this position of judging specific
individuals. Individual judging is always dangerous. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
May, 1898, Page 203, Christadelphian Magazine
“The Scriptures teach the resurrection of some rejectors—not all. The benighted multitudes of Christendom
are ‘rejectors’ of the Gospel. You don’t imagine they are to be raised? So with the Jews and Mahometans. Why
are they not to be raised? When this is answered, a principle comes into view that creates the uncertainty with
which you are so impatient with regard to others. This borderland of uncertainty undoubtedly exists, whether
we recognize it or not...
“But you misunderstand if you suppose the uncertainty has any reference to those who reject the Gospel
knowing it to be the Gospel, because of the human inconvenience of conforming to its demands. Preach ‘wrath
to come’ as strenuously as you may concerning THIS class. But bear with your brethren who cannot say in
what particular cases this class is to be found.” (Bro. Roberts)
Any merciful person will be among those who desire that the roster of the resurrected rejectors will be less rather than
more. It betrays unChrist-like vindictiveness to desire otherwise, or to glory in the expectation, especially as to particular
individuals.
Certainly, deliberate wilful rejectors WILL be raised: God is not mocked. It is a dreadful thought, and none should
delude themselves they are immune to that terrible Day. The very presumption that they are immune betrays the
realization that creates responsibility.
And it doesn’t need a full knowledge of the Gospel. It just needs a realized but rejected opportunity to learn the
Gospel. But we personally lean to the conviction that the vast majority who even may appear responsible are really below
the level of being called to account. God is jealous for His honor, and none can flout Him with impunity. But He is also well
aware of man’s pitiful weaknesses and limitations at best. This, we believe, is Bro. Roberts’ point. —G.V. Growcott
* * *

June, 1898, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
To D.J.H.: “There is no question of ‘cumbering’ the Responsibility agitation with the question of the degree of
knowledge needful to create said responsibility. The cumbering was done for us at the start. In at least three
cases, the parties proposed to be withdrawn from were prepared to admit the light of knowledge as the
ground of responsibility, but were not prepared to cast off some others who—while RECOGNIZING THE
PRINCIPLE—were in doubt how far it might extend to unbelievers in a dark age like our own.
“That was the BEGINNING of the difficulty, and REMAINS the difficulty. It is NOT a question of rejecting the
Truth [the General Principle], but of rejecting many who are not clear HOW FAR this particular truth applies
in particular circumstances. Needless distress is being caused by the insistence of a ruthless rule of incision.”
(Bro. Roberts)
Surely THAT makes the issue clear! —G.V. Growcott
* * *
July, 1898, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
[To several] “If we do not publish your Intelligence, it is not that we differ from you in doctrine, but because we
cannot share what we consider the unrighteous action of rejecting righteous men who believe and obey the
Gospel, but are not as clear as you as to the extent of the operation of the law of responsibility in an age lacking
some of the grounds of it... We cannot, in the name of ‘staunchness and trueness,’ be guilty of the injustice of
rejecting obedient believers of the Gospel who may happen to be uncertain as to how far the Lord will hold
men responsible in this dark and deserted age.” (Bro. Roberts)
Bro. Roberts refused to print some Ecclesial News because it went too far, and he could not conscientiously be a party
to the stand taken. This fact gives deep significance to those he DID print. And he DID print (and thus endorse) many
VERY strong fellowship stands that restricted themselves to the vital PRINCIPLE involved (in line with the Clause 24
clarification) and did not get into its specific application to cases, or the degree of knowledge necessary. See several at
the end of this article. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
July, 1898, Inside Back Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
To Y.R.: “There is a difference between those who are uncertain as to the application of the rule of
responsibility, and those who deny it altogether. You are in the latter position in denying that responsibility to
judgment is created by knowledge and that ground of it is rebellion against the light—a position aggravated by the
virtual contention that a man must obey God a little before He can bring him to resurrectional punishment for
disobeying Him much.
“Under this contention, it follows that the way for a sinner to keep clear of judgment would be to disobey
God entirely from the start, and set Him at defiance by keeping out of the water. This would reduce the moral
procedure of God to a monstrosity for which we CANNOT MAKE OURSELVES RESPONSIBLE IN FELLOW-
SHIP.” (Bro. Roberts)
We point out in all kindness, and not as judgment but as simple fact, that the Unamended (Advocate) group has been
quite content for nearly 100 years to fellowship this error, and still DOES currently fellowship this error, which is still
actively promoted among them—this “reducing the moral procedure of God to a monstrosity” that Bro. Roberts dare not
fellowship.
There are today those in this group actively loyal to Bro. Andrew’s views, and to his book, “The Blood of the
Covenant.” Have those among them who claim NOT to hold this error ever—in the whole past 85 years—made any move
to separate from it? —G.V. Growcott
* * *
August, 1898, Page 356, Christadelphian Magazine
“Resolutions in reference to this question have recently been omitted from Intelligence communications
from various places. They were forwarded to the Editor in Australia, who cannot (for reasons already given)
join in refusing the fellowship of obedient believers of the Gospel who may happen to be unclear as to the

amount of punishment God will mete out to those who refuse submission in these times of darkness, so long as
they are prepared to admit that THE GROUND OF RESURRECTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THE LIGHT OF
KNOWLEDGE...
“There are subtle shades in the question which call for careful discrimination. The men who ADMIT that
light is the ground of responsibility—but who are uncertain whether (yet do NOT deny that) the amount of light
on earth in an age so unlike the apostolic age as ours is sufficient to subject rejectors to resurrectional
condemnation—are not men to be branded by withdrawal as though they denied the Truth.” (Bro. Roberts)
Can we demand a universal agreement, on pain of disfellowship, that there WILL be rejectors from this age at the
judgment seat? Bro. Roberts had very strong convictions that there WOULD be such, and we believe most discerning
brethren will share those convictions. And we must in our preaching urgently warn men of that strong probability
concerning their wilful neglect or rejection of the Gospel command. And we cannot have a fellowship relation where this
is in any way obscured.
But, in the ultimate, case by case, can we demand agreement they WILL be there? No, we cannot. This was the
sticking point beyond which Bro. Roberts would not go. Some could not perceive the implications of this aspect. Bro.
Roberts could. He could see where it was leading. Therefore his “General Principle” that could not be compromised, the
clarification of Clause 24: an essential minimum for sound fellowship. But do not pry beyond this into detailed applications,
especially as to insisted-upon First Principles.
It may conceivably be that there are no rejectors in this pitiful, benighted generation that God feels necessary to raise
for judgment and condemnation. We can only hope that this is the case. We can have no pleasure in desiring the suffering
of any.
But, sadly, we have very strong convictions (and so did Bro. Roberts) that this is NOT the case, and that there are
many of this generation who will be called to that dreadful account, and we must warn such of the peril they stand in by
treading under foot the extended hand of Divine love and mercy.
But we cannot make it a first principle, enforced in fellowship, that any certain ones, or any at all today, WILL
UNQUESTIONABLY be raised and judged. We can only stand where Bro. Roberts stood, and in faithfulness require, as
a fellowship condition, recognition and belief and robust defence of the vital principle that LIGHT BRINGS RESURREC-
TIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and WILFUL REJECTORS WILL BE RAISED AND PUNISHED. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
October, 1898, Inside Front Cover: Christadelphian Magazine
To J.B.: “We CANNOT publish the rescindment of OUR resolution on Responsibility [the Clause 24 clarification]
on the understanding that it means the fellowshipping of those who deny that disobedient knowledge of the
will of God renders a man liable to resurrectional condemnation.
“THIS IS A FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE REVEALED SYSTEM OF TRUTH. Its rejection places a man in a
totally different position from those who recognize perceived light as the ground of responsibility, but are
uncertain ONLY as to its application.” (Bro. Roberts)
This was directly from Bro. Roberts in Australia. It was published in the same issue that announced his sudden death
in San Francisco. Following are a few of the many individual ecclesial resolutions in line with the Clause 24 clarification
that Bro. Roberts DID print. —G.V. Growcott
* * *
Individual Ecclesial Resolutions in Line with Clause 24 -
Printed by Bro. Roberts
January, 1898
Milnsbridge: “On Dec. 1 we unanimously adopted the following resolution: ‘That it is our earnest conviction that a
knowledge of God’s revealed will (irrespective of submission to it) is the ground of responsibility to the judgment seat of
Christ at his second appearing, as taught by Christ and his apostles.
‘This being so, we feel it to be our duty to withhold fellowship from any who believe the contrary. Neither can we
fellowship any who are in doubt on the matter, and who therefore have not arrived at the same convictions as ourselves.
We shall also feel it to be our duty to refrain from fellowship with any who, while believing as we do, yet—by their
fellowship—tolerate those who believe otherwise.”

Plymouth: “We believe the Scriptures plainly teach that a knowledge of the Gospel is the ground of Resurrectional
Responsibility, even though not followed by obedience. We therefore feel it our painful duty to stand aside from any
ecclesia or individual who—while believing the doctrine—yet tolerates the error in other ecclesias by refusing to stand
aside from those who do not make it a test of fellowship.”
Swansea: “On Dec. 8 the ecclesia passed this resolution: ‘We believe that the Gospel has claims upon those who hear and
understand it; and that knowledge of the Gospel, even though not followed by baptism, makes a man responsible to the
resurrection and judgment of the last day. We believe this to be a truth taught in the Scriptures, and we consequently
refuse our fellowship to any who are unable to assent to it, or to any ecclesia which—while assenting to it itself—tolerates
in its fellowship any who do not believe this truth.
“We repudiate any desire to pronounce arbitrarily WHERE the needful knowledge exists in individual cases, that
being a matter beyond our jurisdiction, and one that must be left for the Judge himself to determine.”
* * *
February, 1898
Bristol: “The following resolution was adopted Dec. 29: ‘That we believe that the first principles of the Oracles of God
include the doctrine that knowledge, irrespective of baptism, attaches (to all whom it may reach in our time, as in former
days) amenability to the judgment seat of Christ. That we are, therefore, under the painful duty of withholding fellowship
from unbelievers and doubters of this doctrine, and also from those who extend fellowship to them.”
As in many other places, this was not strong enough for some, and they left the meeting. This illustrates the delicacy
of the problem. Some very earnest brethren were leaving, not from under-zealousness, but from over-zealousness for an
unwarranted extreme. Bro. Roberts was acutely conscious of this ongoing tragedy, and strove mightily to keep it to a
minimum, by patience and persuasion.
Feelings were very high, because the destructiveness of the Andrew error shocked and troubled many, and it was
backed by a name that had been high in the esteem of the Body for many, many years. They feared its danger because
of Bro. Andrew’s prominence and popularity, and they consequently desired very strong and clear bulwarks against it.
Bro. Roberts did not want to frustrate or destroy this zeal, but to restrain its excesses, and rechannel its enthusiasm
in a sound path. He repeatedly told them he agreed wholeheartedly with them on doctrine, but could not go to the extent
of the course they took in its defense. —G.V. Growcott
Colne: “This resolution was adopted Jan. 8: ‘We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that a knowledge of the Gospel
is the ground of Resurrectional Responsibility, even though not followed by obedience. We therefore feel it our painful
duty to stand aside from any ecclesia or individual who denies or doubts this doctrine. Neither can we fellowship an
ecclesia or individual who, while believing the doctrine, yet tolerates the error in other ecclesias by refusing to stand aside
from those who do not make it a test a fellowship.”
These Bro. Roberts-accepted stands may seem harsh to lax modern ears, but this is the only way the Truth was
soundly preserved and passed on to us in the past. And abandonment of such a firm fellowship attitude, and the invention
and popularization of the scare-bogey and straw-man called “bloc disfellowship,” is the cause of conditions in many areas
today. —G.V. Growcott
Merthyr: “We cannot but express our sorrowful astonishment that brethren and sisters expressing faith in the inspired
Word should be skeptical or unbelieving as to the ‘sorer punishment’ awaiting rebels who know the will of God and will
not do it—especially as the Bible clearly teaches that all souls belong to God (though alienated by wicked works); and
should He condescend to speak to any who have ears to hear, COMMANDING them by His Word to ‘Repent and be
baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,’ we believe it is at their peril they disobey. Consequently
we place on record the following resolutions, unanimously passed by us:
1. That we refuse our fellowship to any brother or sister who shall deny, or say that ‘Those who have attained
to a knowledge of the Truth will NOT come to the resurrection of condemnation because they were not
baptized.’
2. That we will not fellowship any brother or sister who is in DOUBT as to whether a knowledge of the Truth
makes responsible, irrespective of baptism.
3. Neither will we fellowship with any brother, sister or ecclesia—though believing in a wholly-inspired Bible
themselves, and acknowledging that ‘light’ makes responsible irrespective of baptism—if they fellowship any
who do not so believe.”

This is the kind of robust declaration on the PRINCIPLE itself that is essential as the official ecclesial stand, if the Truth
is to be preserved in soundness. —G.V. Growcott
Pontypool: “We refuse association with any ecclesia, or individual member thereof, who either decline to affirm that the
entrance of ‘light’ into the minds of unbaptized persons brings responsibility to resurrectional judgment and condemnation;
or have any doubts about it; or tolerate those who are in doubt.
“We consider that the Scriptures are VERY PLAIN on the subject of responsibility, and that the matter has been
sufficiently argued and proved from that source during the last two or three years.
“The AMOUNT of knowledge necessary to make a man responsible to resurrectional judgment is not for us to
determine, but must be left to the ‘Judge of all the earth’ at the judgement seat of Christ.”
To which we add a hearty “AMEN”! —G.V. Growcott
* * *
Moving the Body gently forward to a clear, sound, unified basis, with the least loss and damage, was a slow, painful
task. There were many hotheads, and many laggards. It was not a clear-cut black-and-white issue as former divisions.
There were so many degrees of perspective and conviction. A line had to be drawn, and a sound MINIMUM POSITION,
that would preserve the basic truth of the issue, had to be fixed and resolutely insisted upon.
Those who were dim to see this necessity had to be persuaded, if possible. Those who demanded quick and extreme
action had to be deterred, or sorrowfully allowed to depart with a minimum of damage to the Body.
Bro. Roberts seems to have been somewhat alone in his full and balanced grasp of the situation. The extremists
appear to have been the greatest problem and danger, and on these Bro. Roberts concentrated his effort.
The sea was very rough, but the boat did not capsize and sink. One by one the ecclesias lined up for the Truth, taking
a robust but not extreme stand. At the appropriate time the Birmingham ecclesia clarified its Statement of Faith (which
was, in a practical sense, the basic Statement for many), to terminate its misinterpretation, and to fence off the error more
clearly.
THIS IS CERTAIN: Bro. Roberts at the end of his life endorsed and defended the clarified Clause 24 as a necessary
and vital Basis of Fellowship. On the PRINCIPLE itself he was adamant—but he drew the line at any personal or specific
APPLICATION of it. That is GOD’S prerogative (through Christ).
Any attempt to set any of Bro. Roberts’ words against this clear, oft-repeated position is obviously unsound and
unjustified. He frankly admits to a gradual and increasing realization of the necessity (due to ALTERED CIRCUM-
STANCES) of a more diligent insistence—as to fellowship—upon the sound position the Body had always as a whole
vigorously held.
His General Principle (“uncompromisable”), and the Clause 24 clarification, represent his final and MINIMAL
FELLOWSHIP STAND. And this was the faithful stand of the Body thereafter until the modern trend toward compromise
and relaxation of the principles of sound fellowship set in. For proof of this, read the later magazines, even well into this
present century.
To relax in one iota Bro. Roberts’ minimal stand in the clarified Clause 24 is to return to the chaos and turmoil he
carefully and painfully led the Body out of, as seen in the above.
There will always be those who wish to broaden and loosen the standards of sound fellowship, and to abandon the
gains for the Truth won by our pioneers in the sad but necessary battles of the past. “When the Son of Man cometh, shall
he find the Faith on the earth?”
This issue is a VITAL PART OF THE GOSPEL, and it has been under tolerated attack in parts of Christadelphia for
nearly 100 years. It calls for a POSITIVE, unequivocal, robust declaration—like Bro. Roberts’ General Principle and the
clarified Clause 24. All who realize the value of sound doctrine and sound fellowship will be MORE THAN EAGER to give
such.
In the light of the history of the matter, hesitant, timid, negative concessions do not fill the requirements of the case.
If there has truly been a change of heart, from error to truth, let such be frankly proclaimed, for the strength and glory of
the Truth. The Body’s appointed role is a “City set on a hill”: a shining, unhesitating beacon of Truth for mankind.
In any return to fellowship after separation, Bro. Roberts insisted on the sound scriptural principle of INDIVIDUAL
acceptance, not the surreptitious cloak of a mere majority vote. So did his successors, well into this century—see Berean,
May, 1980, page 159. Surely this is OBVIOUSLY the only sound and faithful way.
From their own remarks, at the time and later, it would appear that Bro. Roberts’ closest associates and contemporaries
did not understand the situation as well as he did. —G.V. Growcott
◆

Contentiousness Is Not Faithfulness
BY BRO. ROBERT ROBERTS
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels...though I have the gift of prophecy,
and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and have all faith so I could remove mountains—and
have not love, I am nothing. Love suffereth long, and is kind. Love envieth not,
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not
easily provoked, thinketh no evil” —I Cor. 13:1-5.
* * *
These words will measure us at the last. The law of love and long-suffering is the law of God. The universe
is constructed and worked on this principle, in nature and revelation. If we omit it from our spiritual operations,
we are out of harmony with the scheme of things, however contentious we may be for points of truth.
“He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for GOD IS LOVE” (1 John 4:8).
“He shall have judgment without mercy that showeth no mercy” (James 2:13).
“He that saith he is in the Light, and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now” (1 John 2:9).
Contentiousness is not faithfulness, though faithfulness has more or less the element of contentiousness,
in the sense of contending for the right. Faithfulness is espousing and doing and adhering to the right at all
hazards; but in genuine cases it is always in love and patience. When it is allied with “bitterness and anger and
wrath and evil-speaking,” it is not acceptable to God or any of His children.
When men easily slide into accusation and condemnation of others, especially in their absence, they prove
themselves the children of the flesh, whatever their knowledge may be. The angels are models to whom Peter
points. He contrasts them with a certain class in his day, whom he describes as “presumptuous and selfwilled”—
“Who are not afraid to speak evil of dignities, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation against them (sinners)”—2 Peter 2:10-11.
If angels, with such powers of penetration and correct reading, indulge in no railing accusations against
undoubtedly wicked men, where should the sons of God—in this mortal, erring state—be found in the matter?
In the very attitude commanded by Christ: “Judge not, condemn not.” Contend for the Faith, but indulge in
no personal railing. Be faithful to the claims, obligations, and injunctions of the Truth, but leave all personal
recriminations to the children of the flesh.
Wherever men are prone to rancor and severity of personal judgment, you may be sure the Spirit of Christ
is not there, and you know what is written: “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom.
8:9).
—November, 1888
FELLOWSHIP
Bro. Roberts
Consider the messages to the seven ecclesias of Asia Minor, and we shall find that it is particularly
important that we shall be careful in regard to matters of fellowship.
A loose fellowship is convenient and easily becomes popular with inexperienced believers, or with
blunted believers of long standing. It is agreeable to human feelings, but it is out of harmony with the
apostolic standard which demands the whole counsel of God and unity of the Faith.
The loose basis admits of larger cooperation with man and a little more friendship with the 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.

“From Such Withdraw Thyself”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
QUESTION:
“You say we should withdraw ourselves from disobedient believers. Does not this involve judging them?
How do you reconcile this with Paul’s words: ‘Who art thou that judgest another’s servant’?”
ANSWER:
It is a rule in the interpretation of all consistent documents, that no construction is to be put on one part that
destroys the sense of another. If this rule is ever to be applied, surely it is in the understanding of Paul. Now,
though Paul has said—
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall
be holden up; for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4).
—we are not to understand his words in a sense that would forbid us to obey his commandment two chapters
further on in the same letter, where, describing a certain class, he says, “Avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
And again (1 Cor. 5:6-8): “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (See also 2 Thess. 3:16;
1 Tim. 6:3-5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-10).
Paul, in Romans 14:4, is not inconsistent with Paul in these other places. In Romans 14:4, as the context
shows, he has before his mind an obedient servant of Christ, who has a weakness on the subject of herbs versus
animal food, on which we have no guidance by Christ’s law.
In such a matter, “judgment” by fellow-believers would obviously be presumptuous. It is an “untaught”
matter; and we have no authority to be wise above what is written. Let those who have a weakness for a
particular sort of food be indulged in brotherly love.
But the case is very different when a brother walks in open disobedience of what is commanded.
—1873
Fellowship and Breaking of Bread
“Is it scriptural to teach that breaking of bread has nothing to do with fellowship?”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
To have fellowship is to be fellow with, to be one with—therefore, to have communion, or “union together.” To say
that the breaking of bread has nothing to do with this is to go against the meaning of the ordinance and the express terms
of apostolic affirmation. The institution is not only memorial, but spiritually significative. Paul says (1 Cor. 10:16): “The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” If the bread signifies the body of Christ, then our
partaking of the same bread is an act of joining together, or communion, with fellowship in that body. So Paul says, and
reason requires:
“We being many are one bread and one body: FOR we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).
To break bread is to “partake of the Lord’s table,” and all who do so are fellows one with another in the act and meaning
of the act. The breaking of bread together is, therefore, the HIGHEST ACT OF FELLOWSHIP POSSIBLE in the present
state.
Christadelphian, March 1891, page 105
Some, in the hopeless dilemma of trying to reconcile sound doctrine with loose fellowship, are trying to revive this
ancient crotchet that we are not really “in fellowship” with errorists with whom we break bread (and therefore not violating
the laws of fellowship) as long as we do not condone their works, or consider ourselves in “fellowship” with them. This
demeans the breaking of bread—which Bro. Roberts correctly calls the “HIGHEST act of fellowship”—to a mere cold,
meaningless ritual. —G.V. Growcott

The Apocalypse and Fellowship
“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those
things that are written therein.”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
November 1897
This question is raised by dissensions in some quarters leading to division. An ecclesia tolerates wrong
teaching: a few men of understanding cannot bear it, and retire. Those who remain think the matter
unimportant, and are inclined to find fault with the others as sticklers. How stands the matter?
When a professed brother avows the belief that the visions of the Apocalypse have no application to the accomplished
history of Europe but are of a future significance, he raises a question of more serious moment than may at first sight be
apparent.
A man confessing ignorance of the meaning of the Apocalypse is a man who might grow in knowledge,
and therefore a man to be borne with and helped; but a man denying its meaning is a man to be antagonized
on the following serious grounds:
Over a dozen times, it is written in the Apocalypse: “He that hath ears, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the churches.”
Jesus says: “My sheep hear my voice.”
He identifies the Apocalypse with his voice in saying in it— “I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify these things
in the churches” (22:16).
Thus the Apocalypse is an important part of the Shepherd’s voice which Jesus says the sheep will hear. He
goes further than this. He says (22:19): “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.”
On the other hand, he says (1:3): “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy,
and keep those things that are written therein.”
Among the “words of the book of this prophecy” is a heavy warning against participation with a system
described under the symbol of a beast and his image (14:9-10): “If any man worship the beast and his image,
and receive his mark on his forehead or on his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation.”
Now, if these things relate to institutions now current among men, which they undoubtedly do, as can be
and has been many times shown), how serious is the doctrine which would say they do not relate to anything
now upon earth, but to something in some future age with which we have nothing to do. Such a doctrine,
where received, would prevent a man from:
“...hearing what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
It would prevent him from:
“...keeping those things which are written in this book.”
And worse than all, it would practically cause him to:
“...take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.”
—since to take away the meaning is to take away the words in making them of none effect.
It is impossible, therefore, to agree with those who would make light of the subject, and it is impossible not to
sympathize with faithful men who cannot remain in any community where such nullifying doctrines are tolerated.
FELLOWSHIP
He that bids a denier of the Truth “God-speed” by receiving him in approving co-operation is “partaker
of his evil deeds.” This is John’s doctrine (2 John 10-11) and John’s doctrine is Christ’s, and Christ’s is God’s
(Luke 10:16; John 12:49). It is very inconvenient for the present world, but the law of God was never given
as a rule of convenience now. Its convenience and joy will be unutterable at the last.
—October 1891

Fellowship
and the Nature and Sacrifice of Christ
“Receive him not into the house” —2 John 10
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
The Lord Jesus said (John 17:9, 19-23)— “I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou has given me,
that they may be one...being sanctified through the Truth; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me
and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us...as we are one, made perfect in One.”
This unity of spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3) is what John styles “our fellowship” (1 John 1:3), the
fellowship of the apostles, resulting from sanctification through the Truth. Hence all who are sanctified
through the Truth are sanctified by the second will, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (Heb.
10:10)— “For by one offering he hath perfected for a continuance them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).
—which one offering of the body was the annulling and condemnation of sin, by the sacrifice thereof (Heb.
11:26). This body, which descended from David “according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), was the sacrificial victim
offered by the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14). If David’s flesh were immaculate, this victim descended from him
might be spotless. But in that event it would not have answered for the annulling and condemnation of sin in
the flesh that sinned (Rom. 8:4). If it were an immaculate body that was crucified, it could not have borne our
sins in it, while hanging on the tree (1 Peter 2:24).
To affirm, therefore, that it was immaculate (as do all Papists and sectarian Daughters of the Roman
Mother) is to render of none effect the truth which is only sanctifying for us by virtue of the principle that Jesus
Christ came “IN THE FLESH,” in that sort of flesh with which Paul was afflicted when he exclaimed (Rom.
7:11, 24)— “O, wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?”
It is not my province to issue bulls of excommunication, but simply to show what the Truth teaches and
commands. I have to do with principles, not men. If anyone say that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh
common to us all, the apostle John saith that that spirit or teacher is not of God; is the deceiver and the anti-
Christ, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ; and is, therefore, NOT TO BE RECEIVED INTO THE HOUSE,
NEITHER TO BE BIDDEN GODSPEED (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7-10). I have nothing to add to or take from this.
It is the sanctifying truth of the things concerning the Name of Jesus Christ. All whom the apostles
fellowshipped, believed it. And all in the apostolic ecclesias who believed it not—and there were such—had not
fellowship with the apostles, but opposed their teachings. And when they found they could not have their
own way, John says:
“They went out from us, but they (the anti-Christ) were not of us; for if they had been of us (of our
fellowship), they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be made manifest that they
were not all of us” (1 John 2:19).
The apostles did not cast them out, but they went out of their own accord, not being able to endure sound
doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3).
Then preach the Word, etc., and exhort with all long-suffering and teaching. This is the purifying agency.
Ignore brother this or brother that in said teaching; for personalities do not help the argument. Declare what
you as a body believe to be the apostles’ doctrines. Invite fellowship upon this basis ALONE.
If upon that declaration, any take the bread and wine, NOT BEING OFFERED BY YOU, they do so upon
their own responsibility, not on yours. If they help themselves to the elements, they endorse your declaration
of doctrine, and eat condemnation to themselves.
For myself, I am not in fellowship with the dogma that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, or that he
died as a substitute to appease the fury and wrath of God. The love of God is manifest in all that He has done
for man.
When all wish to do what is right, the right surely is within their grasp. I trust you will be able to see it, from
what is now before you. And may the Truth preside over all your deliberations, for Christ Jesus is the Truth,
and dwells with those with whom the Truth is.

Where this is, I desire to be. If I believe the Truth as it is in the Jesus Paul preached, and fellowship the
doctrine of an immaculate Jesus Paul did not preach, in celebrating the death of the latter with those who
repudiate the maculate body set forth by God for a propitiation, it is affirming one thing and practicing
another.
THOSE WHO HOLD PAUL’S DOCTRINE OUGHT NOT WORSHIP WITH A BODY THAT DOES NOT.
That is holding with the hare, and running with the hounds—a position of extraordinary difficulty. When the
hounds come upon the hare, where will he be?
No; if I agree with you in doctrine, I will forsake the assembling of myself with a body that opposes your
doctrine, although it might require me to separate from the nearest and dearest. No good is effected by
compromising the principles of the Truth; and to deny that Jesus came in sinful flesh is to destroy the sacrifice of
Christ.
—Christadelphian, July 1873, from a letter written in 1869
This letter of Bro. Thomas’ was published by Bro. Roberts in 1873 to support his doctrinal stand (and subsequent very
forthright and decisive fellowship action) at the time of separation from Renunciationism. It is therefore (in Bro. Roberts’
view at least) in harmony with that stand and action. We can be sure Bro. Roberts well knew the mind of Bro. Thomas.
In spite of this, extracted parts of it have been quoted by some in support of a concept of fellowship differing from that
which Bro. Roberts taught and exemplified. His action in the Renunciationist crisis, and again in the Inspiration crisis, was
certainly what is today in some circles deprecatingly styled “block disfellowship”.
We suggest it ALL be carefully studied as a whole. The emphasis is ours.
Bro. Thomas rightly disclaimed the province of issuing “bulls of excommunication.” His authority in the Brotherhood—
as the one whose labors had brought the Truth to light—was great, and some appealed to him to do this, but he wisely
chose rather to point out the scriptural commands concerning fellowship (as 2 John 9-10 above) for those faced with the
issue. It is not legitimate, however, to use Bro. Thomas’ words about “bulls of excommunication” to infer that he did not
believe in withdrawal for scriptural reasons. He very strongly pressed upon Bro. Roberts the necessity, in faithfulness, to
withdraw from the Dowieite faction of the Body, though Bro. Roberts had been intimately connected with them in
association and fellowship in his early days in the Truth in Scotland.
Bro. Thomas mentions that in the case to which John refers, the errorists went out of their own accord, and were not
cast out. This is a desirable solution. If by earnest and aggressive contention for the Truth (without working out a
“compromise” with the error), the errorists can be induced to leave the Body (not just be quiet), all well and good. This
should always be tried first. But errorists are not always so obliging. What then is our duty?
The Spirit in the apostles (and Christ) both commanded and exemplified the putting out of such, when they did not
leave of their own accord (1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:5, 7, 13; Matt. 18:17; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10;
2 Tim. 2:17-21; 2 John 9-10, etc.). We cannot therefore use 1 John 2:19 to cancel out and obliterate all these (and other
passages). Rather must we give all due weight, and reconcile all.
It will be noted that Bro. Thomas makes two points of his conception of the scriptural doctrine of fellowship very clear:
1. Bread and wine should not be offered to errorists.
2. To “break bread with” is to “fellowship with,” for he says: “If I...fellowship...IN CELEBRATING THE DEATH (of
Christ) WITH...”
There is a present move to arbitrarily separate “fellowship” from the breaking of bread, so that some, while breaking
bread with errorists, can console themselves they are not fellowshipping them. We have not so learned fellowship from
Bre. Thomas and Roberts.
Neither Bro. Thomas, nor Bro. Roberts, nor Paul in his epistles, nor Christ in his teaching or in the Asian messages,
contemplate endless turmoil in the ecclesias with the same errorists, never taking cleansing action. Paul teaches they
must be “put away,” “withdrawn from,” “avoided,” “rejected,” “turned over to satan,” etc. Christ defines a procedure for their
removal, and his rebuke was that “thou hast there” certain errorists, warning the lightstand would be removed if the
condition were permitted to continue. The lightstand is removed when his presence and approval is removed: the removal
may not be obvious to the natural eye. —G.V. Growcott
◆

The Apocalypse and Fellowship
“If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life.”
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Another clear and strong item on this subject by Bro. Roberts, 25 years before the one that appeared in our April 1975
issue. [See page 72 of this book.] There are no really new crotchets; all seem to have their perpetual cycles. And Bro.
Roberts seems to have faced them all in his long and arduous career, and faithfully defended the Truth against them. Let
us not, at this late date, betray his labors. —G.V. Growcott
August 1872
A CORRECT interpretation of the Apocalypse is of more importance than may at first sight appear.
1. It was given “that his servants MIGHT KNOW” (1:1) the things it treats of, and if a wrong view of it
prevails, the object of its communication is to that extent frustrated.
2. The Spirit pronounces a blessing on those who understand it (1:3), from which it follows that a wrong
apprehension of its import deprives the wrong apprehender of the blessing.
3. Jesus pronounces a curse on those who take away from its words (22:19), and no one takes away from
its words more effectually than the man who misrepresents its meaning. That misrepresentation of its meaning
which asserts its inapplicability to the present constitution of things in the world, and teaches that it has no fulfillment
till the saints are removed at the coming of Christ, is especially mischievous in its effects, for it interferes with a
scriptural attitude in relation to things and systems which are therein condemned, and participation in which
is declared to implicate the participators in the doom awaiting those things and systems.
The ecclesiastical systems and practices of Europe are exhibited under symbols perfectly intelligible to the
students of God’s Word. A Beast and its Image, a 10-horned Monster, and a Woman are introduced as
representatives of the constitution of things in Papal Europe. And a peculiarity of the Saints therein described
is that they—
“Worship not the Beast neither his Image, nor receive his mark upon their foreheads, nor in their hands”
(20:4).
That they— “obtain the victory over the Beast, and over his Image, and over the number of his name” (15:2).
That (unlike those dwelling on the earth “whose names are not written in the Book of Life,” and who worship
the Beast who makes war upon the Saints) they (the Saints)— “Keep the sayings of the prophecy of this book”
—which declare— “If any man worship the Beast and his Image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his
hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God” (14:9-10).
Now, if you regard the whole matter as future to the Lord’s coming, do you not loosen and undermine the
terrible obligations arising from these sayings? Certainly; you place these obligations beyond the circle of a
saint’s duties, and you leave him at liberty to imagine that he may safely take part with any system extant in
his own day.
Such views are a serious impediment to the co-operation which you [he is answering a correspondent] are
disposed to ask on the part of the Christadelphians. They could not admit such an element of corruption among
them. They could not identify themselves with so complete a neutralization of the last message of Jesus, sent to his
servants. They could not make themselves responsible for such a departure from his testimony which he
himself has fenced with special imprecations. With such a state of mind with regard to the important
directions he has given for the guidance of his servants in the Apocalypse, it is impossible they could enter upon
that co-operation which has for its basis an intelligent apprehension of the mind and will of Christ.
The idea that the Revelation is future in its fulfillment would be dispelled by the effectual realization of
one or two points which we mention by way of conclusion. The angel interpreting to John the meaning of the
seven heads of the scarlet-colored Beast, says— “There are seven kings; FIVE ARE FALLEN, one is, and the
other is not yet come” (17:10).
Here is a proof that in the day when these words were addressed to John—nearly 1800 years ago—part of
the symbolism had been realized in history. In connection with its developments (11:18), the “time of the dead
comes that they should be judged,” which is inconsistent with the theory that those developments do not take

place till after the resurrection of the saints.
A similar argument arises in the fact that the Beast makes war upon the Saints and overcomes them (13:7).
Surely this is not after the Saints are raised from the dead! So also with the fact that Saints, under the 6th Seal,
are seen in a state of death, and allowed to rest (6:9). And that the Scarlet Woman is drunk with the blood of
Saints (Surely she is not to kill them after they are made immortal)— “In her was found the blood of prophets and
saints) (18:24).
The apostles were slain by her (Rome under the pagan constitution) (18:20). Surely the apostles are not to
be killed a second time.
In addition to these and many other points that might be mentioned, the general character of the book as
to things said about to “shortly come to pass,” and as to “keeping the things written in the book,” conclusively
show the fallacy of a theory which futurizes everything except the messages to the churches, and reduces it to
a thing of no practical consequence whatever.
Union Without Unity
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
Union without unity is worse than worthless; it is pernicious; it tends to frustrate the objects of fellowship.
The Ecclesia is not the place at all for discussing the Principles of the One Faith. That belongs altogether to the
outside.
The plea of “looking at both sides” is plausible, and looks candid; but it belongs only to those who are
uncertain of the Faith; and certainly is no feature of the “full assurance of faith” without which it is impossible
to please God. It is all very well for those who do not know the Truth to talk in such a style. Such are in no state
to form constituents of a community whose function is to be the “Pillar and Ground of THE TRUTH” (1 Tim.
3:15).
Agreement in the things of the Spirit is the first condition of ecclesial unity. The “unity of the Spirit” may be kept
in the bond of peace. But the schism of the Spirit—disagreement in the things of the Spirit—renders peace
impossible.
Those who are indifferent can easily afford to ignore disagreement, and to preach cordially of the virtue
of “agreeing to differ.” This is no characteristic of the Ecclesia of the Living God. It contends for the Faith once
delivered to the saints, and obeys Paul’s command to “turn away” from the perverse disputings of men of
corrupt minds (1 Tim. 6:5).
The first characteristic of true saintship is zeal for the things of God. He is not content to cultivate friendship on
the basis of adhesiveness or any other merely fleshly instinct. He stands “in God”; God’s ways and principles
are the rules of his life, the measure of his aspirations, the standard of his friendship, the foundation of all his
doings.
The Laodicean attitude of indifference—the readiness to agree to differ within the precincts of the
Ecclesia—is impossible with him. He must have the Faith first pure, knowing that peace will follow, and from
peace, edification and the growth of every good thing that shall prepare the brethren for the coming of the
Lord. A contrary condition produces every evil work.
Unity in the Spirit will admit of growth to the stature of the perfect man in Christ. It will help us to dwell
together in love and hope, striving together for the Faith of the Gospel, abounding in the whole work of the
Lord with thanksgiving.
—February, 1874
◆

A Guide To The Formation and Conduct of
Christadelphian Ecclesias
BY BROTHER ROBERT ROBERTS
32. — Cases of Sin and Withdrawal
Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not to be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and
inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of
procedure have been exhausted.
The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Matt. 18:15-17) is doubtless applicable
to sin in general. Sin of any kind on the part of a brother, becoming known to another brother, is a sin against
that brother—more heinous, indeed, when Scripturally estimated, than a mere offence against himself. He is,
therefore, bound to take the course Jesus prescribes, as John plainly indicates in the words, “If any man see his
brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask,” etc. It is usual with some not to act upon this rule at all.
The usual way is to speak of the fault, whatever it is, to a third party. This itself is sin. A brother’s part (if the
case be serious enough to speak of at all), is to be silent to all but the brother himself; first, to go himself and
discuss the matter between the two alone. If this is successful, a brother is gained and saved, and the matter
is not to be mentioned to anyone else. If not successful, Christ commands the interview to be repeated with the
assistance of one or two others; and only in the event of these failing is the matter to be mentioned to the
ecclesia, or those representing it. It is then the ecclesia’s part to bring their whole influence to bear upon the
offender to forsake his evil ways. Only when this has failed are we at liberty to withdraw. Nothing is so
effectual as this rule for stopping evil speaking and ensuring merciful help to those who stumble, or the
proper and timely treatment of incorrigible sin. Each brother then becomes a seeing eye and protecting hand
of the ecclesia. There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning any one until the reporter
has taken the Scriptural course.
Withdrawal, too, when it comes (it must be noted), is not expulsion. It is the apostolic form of separation
which, though practically equivalent to expulsion in its effects on the separated, is more in harmony with the
spirit enjoined by Christ upon his house than the form in vogue among professing bodies of all sorts.
Withdrawal means that those withdrawing do modestly and sorrowfully step aside from the offender for fear
of implication in his offence. Explusion means thrusting out, which is a different thing, and implies and
generates the arrogant attitude of ecclesiastical excommunication. The careful preservation of right forms in
these things is a help to the preservation of the right spirit.
34. — Basis of Fellowship
Examination implies a recognized basis of fellowship; that is, a definition of the doctrines that are
recognized as the truth. Examination would be objectless if there were no such definition recognized, whether
written or understood. It is necessary to have the truth defined. It is not enough for an applicant to say he
believes the Bible, or the testimony of the apostles. Multitudes would profess belief in this form who we know
are ignorant or unbelieving of the truth, and, therefore, unqualified for union with the brethren of Christ. The
question for applicants is, do they believe what the Scriptures teach? To test this, the teaching requires
definition. This definition agreed to forms the basis of fellowship among believers, whether expressed in
spoken or written words.
The history of creeds, which have supplanted the Scriptures in past ages, naturally leads some to feel an
objection to this basis in a written form, but it is obvious that there are advantages in connection with a written
form that outweigh the sentimental repugnance inspired by ecclesiastical precedents. A mere understanding
as to the definitions of truth to be received is apt to become dim and indefinite, and the way is open to the
gradual setting in of corruption. So long as it is understood that the written definition is not an authority, but
merely the written expression of our identical convictions, there is not only no disadvantage, but the reverse,
in reducing the faith to a form that shuts the door against misunderstanding.
Such a basis of faith will be found at the end of this book. [Ecclesial Guide]

35. — Disputes
There ought to be no murmurings and disputings among the brethren of Christ. It is forbidden.
Nevertheless, in the mixed state allowed to prevail in all ecclesias during probation, they are sure to arise.
Wisdom, therefore, requires that we be prepared to deal with them in a proper manner when they arise. There
is a way of dealing with them that heals them, and a way that has just the opposite effect. There is no more
dangerous and prolific cause of distress and ruin in an ecclesia than the wrong treatment of causes of dispute.
This must be the excuse for giving the subject lengthy attention.
There are two sorts, both different, and yet both related as regards the spirit and aim with which they
ought to be treated. 1. Individual offences; 2. Ecclesial differences.
No time ought to be lost in dealing with either one or the other. The longer time that elapses in the
application of a remedy, the more difficult does the application of the remedy become. Individual misunderstandings
spread coldness beyond the persons affected; and ecclesial differences are liable to settle into
chronic alienations, which blight every good work.
36. — Individual Offenses
Christ has laid down the law very plainly for the curing of these; and it is the duty of the brethren
everywhere to see it obeyed. They ought to refuse to countenance those who disobey it. If a brother takes
offense at what another has said or done, he is bound to meet that other brother in private interview for the
discussion of the grievance between the two alone. In most cases, this course stops alienation at its first stage;
it either removes misconception, if that has been the cause of the trouble, or it leads to the admission of wrong
on the part of the offender, followed by forgiveness on the part of the offended. Of course, there are many
matters too trifling to be made the subject of such a process. The man who recognizes the infirmity of human
nature all around, and the evil nature of the few days we have to live, is able to exercise that magnanimous
charity that covers a multitude of sins, heeding not all words that are spoken, and even practising the habit of
returning good for evil—blessing always—cursing never, either directly or by implication—as the commandments
of the house of Christ require.
But supposing an offense arise which a brother cannot thus overlook, but which he feels to be a barrier
between himself and the offender, then he is bound to take the course indicated. He is not at liberty to mention
the matter to a third party, and he is not at liberty to stand aside in a state of alienation. If he do either the one
or the other, he makes himself as much an offender as he may imagine the cause of his injured feelings to be.
A man who disobeys the commandment of Christ on one point is as much a transgressor as the man who
disobeys it on another. Consequently, an ecclesia knowing of such a case is bound to persuade the offended
brother to see the offender in private, or to withdraw from him in case of refusal.
There is everything to be said in favor of Christ’s commandment in this matter. It is humbling to the
offended to have to go and see the man who has offended him (and if he is too proud to submit to this, he is
self-condemned; for the proud are an abomination to God); and it gives to the offender the best chance he
could possibly have of making any amends the case may call for. The act of the offended brother in coming
and seeing him has a conciliatory effect on him; and his personal presence gives him the opportunity of
thoroughly discussing every point on the spot.
A communication through a third party (or still worse, a letter) is no fulfillment of the law of Christ; offers
none of its opportunities of reconciliation; is rather calculated to prolong and aggravate the irritations of the
case; and ought not to be received as a compliance with the law of the case. The brethren, refusing to listen to
the merits of the case one way or other, ought to insist upon the offended seeing the offender, or, if he refuses,
to dissociate themselves from his company.
The plea that it is of no use ought not to be entertained for one moment. Such an impression ought not to
be made a reason for disobeying a plain commandment. Whether of use or of no use, an offended brother is
bound either to drop the quarrel or see the offending brother. It is not as if the failure of the interview left him
without remedy.
His next step (in case of failure) is to take two or three other brethren with him. Where the interview
between the two parties fails, this may succeed, because further influence is brought to bear with fresh and
conciliatory minds. The offended brother is bound to take this step, as well as the other: otherwise he is
disobedient. It may be of no use, but it must be done. If it succeed, he has his reward. If it fail, he has his

emedy: he is to bring the matter before the whole ecclesia. The ecclesia is then to admonish the offender if he
be found in the fault. If the offender refuse to hear them, it is their duty to separate him from their fellowship
by withdrawal.
Unless individual offenses are strictly treated in this way, the community will constantly be in danger of
disturbance and even disruption. An offended man, allowed to ventilate his grievance among others, is liable
to enlist the feelings of others on his behalf, and the brother against whom the grievance is entertained is liable,
in self-defense, to urge his side of the case: and thus bad feeling is diffused, and a state of mind generated that
easily leads to division. Let Christ’s wise rule be insisted on and the mischief is stopped at its beginning.
Even in the interests of self-defense, Christ’s rule ought to be insisted on. Who is safe from slander if a
brother may pour his evil thoughts into the ear of a third person? What righteous man would suffer if every
complainer were first compelled to make known his complaints to the person against whom they were
directed? Nothing will more effectually secure peace in a community than the maintenance of Christ’s rule for
dealing with offenses, personal or otherwise.
37. — Ecclesial Differences
These are different from individual offenses, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt
with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them. They require most careful treatment, otherwise
the peace and well-being of an ecclesia is liable to be destroyed by unwise steps inspired by motives
commendable enough. They are of two classes—internal and external.
38. — Dissatisfied Minority
In this case, they arise from the dissatisfaction of a minority with something that is done by the majority,
or with something that is in the power of the majority to alter. The minority feel strongly. Perhaps the majority
have appointed some brother to an office for which the minority consider him unfitted; or some proposal of
the minority may have been rejected by the majority, or some measure resolved on by the majority that the
minority greatly disapprove of. The impulse of the minority in such a case is to stay away from the meeting,
or worse still, form a meeting of their own. Now it is obvious there must be some rule of collective action,
permitting of the co-operation of those who differ in judgment on practical details. The law of Christ yields
such a rule.
39. — Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful
It is, in the first place, an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and that they must submit one
to another. It is a law of the house that each brother and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first
day of the week for the breaking of bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt
disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother or sister in absenting himself or
herself from the breaking of bread. Such will deceive themselves if they think a private breaking of bread will
be accepted in lieu of breaking of bread with the assembly. It is the latter the Lord has required of us, and it is
the latter we must render. What is true of one is true of more. Nothing but rejection of the faith or the law of
Christ by the assembly can justify the formation of a separate assembly. If the matters of difference inclining
to this course do not affect the question of the truth or the commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit
to the greater number. There is no other practicable rule of action. In such a case the minority will bear their
disappointment and conform to the decision of the majority. It is their duty to do so by every law of
association—human and divine. They will be enabled to do it the more easily if they remember that it is a
matter of apostolic command to submit one to another; to give place to disadvantage; to overcome evil with
good; to bless, and curse not. Men of the apostolic stamp will not retort that this is equally binding on the
others. Men of the apostolic stamp will be more bent on subjecting themselves to the apostolic law than
imposing it on others.
If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a false position from which
worse things than those they objected to will come. Their action means that the greater number ought to
submit to the lesser, or that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a disappointed
minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with
confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent with the most elementary commandments of Christ.

40. — A Time to Separate, and How to go about it
Suppose, however, the case is more serious than this. Suppose the majority decide upon something that
involves the denial of the truth, or the violation of the commandments, the minority might have to consider
whether continued fellowship with the majority would not be inconsistent with their duty to Christ. There is
a time to separate, as well as a time to hold together. Suppose such a time come, great care must be taken in the
mode of action, otherwise the right side may get into the wrong picture, or put it into the power of the wrong
to appear the right, to the embarrassment of relations with other ecclesias.
It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true
of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an
individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on—suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart,
without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either
justifying or removing the causes of offense, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as
regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a
correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias will not have in their power to decide upon the issue. The
only thing they can have officially before them is the fact that a discontented minority have left, which, prima
facie, is itself an offense.
The minority may feel that formality is superfluous in view of the controversy that may have caused the
secession. This feeling may be natural to them, but ought to be set aside; there are others to be considered, and
their own subsequent relation to them requires correct action. A course must be taken which will secure the
right form of those relations. The course to be taken is undoubtedly this: let the minority reduce their charges
to writing, and hand the same to the recording brother, and ask a meeting for the discussion of them,
intimating that a question of the continuance of fellowship is involved. If the meeting is refused (and the
charges be of a sort justifying withdrawal), the minority have no alternative but to withdraw; and let them
inform other ecclesias of their act, and send to them a copy of the charges, which will put it into their power
to consider whether the minority are entitled to their recognition and sympathy. If, on the other hand, the
meeting is granted, as probably it will be, the discussion of the charges may lead to their disproof or to the
acknowledgment and the removal of the grounds of them. If the discussion have no such result, but the
charges are established and owned to by the majority, and the grounds of them persisted in, the course of the
minority is clear: let them withdraw (if the case warrant it) and announce their action to all whom it may
concern.
41. — Involved in another Ecclesia’s Trouble
An ecclesia may be at peace in itself, but may get involved in the troubles of other ecclesias, through an
incorrect mode of action. The simple law of Christ, to do to others as we would be done by, will greatly help
us to take the right and wholesome course. Let us suppose, then, that some other ecclesia has withdrawn from
a brother on grounds that have seemed just to the majority thereof; is it right that the brother so withdrawn
from should be received by you? You can settle this by considering: How would you like the said ecclesia to
act towards a brother or sister you have withdrawn from? Should you like them to receive such? There is only
one answer—No. And this yields this general rule that no ecclesia ought to receive into fellowship a brother
or sister that has been withdrawn from elsewhere.
If you say “perhaps the brother or sister is unjustly withdrawn from,” such a case is possible; and the door
ought not to be shut against the consideration of such a possibility. But there is a right way of dealing with
such a supposition. And the simple rule of Christ aforesaid will again be an all-sufficient help. Should you not
like your decision in the case of a brother withdrawn from to be held good until it is proved a wrong one?
There is only one answer—Yes. We ought, therefore, to respect the withdrawals of other ecclesias until we
have proved them unjustifiable.
But here again we must be careful. There is a right way and a wrong way of trying such a case. Would you
like the case of a brother you have withdrawn from to be tried behind your back? There is only one answer—
You would not. Therefore you ought not to hear the case of a brother who has been withdrawn from, without
the presence of those, either actually or by representation, who have withdrawn from him. If a withdrawnfrom
brother comes to your ecclesia and alleges the injustice of the withdrawal, if you are disposed to listen to
the case, your duty is (meanwhile withholding fellowship) to apprise the ecclesia that has withdrawn from

him, that he applies for your fellowship on the ground of the withdrawal being unjust, and that you wish to
investigate the case concurrently with them. If the withdrawing ecclesia refuse to grant such an investigation,
they place themselves in the wrong, and justify you in examining the case for yourselves in their absence. But
an enlightened ecclesia would not refuse. They would act on Christ’s rule. They would do as they would like
to be done by. If they were the withdrawn-from but demurring brother, or the doubtful ecclesia applying for
re-examination, they would like to have the opportunity of judging for themselves, and would, therefore,
grant that opportunity thus respectfully applied for. The result would tend to peace. The concurrent reexamination
would either manifest the righteousness of the withdrawal, or the uncertainty and perhaps
unjustifiableness of it. In either case, the course to be taken by the applying ecclesia would be freed from
doubt.
42. — Ecclesias in Relation One to Another
If a careful attention is given to these reasonable rules of procedure between one ecclesia and another,
there will be little danger of disagreement. The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission
to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in,
where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere.
There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal
rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence
to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the
first ecclesia, and challenges their judgment, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already
discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia
is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it
should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own
independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until
it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its co-operation,
as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and
investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake
if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence. Such a view would, in reality, be a
trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had
the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by
another ecclesia. The judgment of one would thus be set up as a rule for all. An ecclesia has no right to judge
except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be
conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend
an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the
withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation
would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second
ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that
are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact?
This would be a lamentable result—a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative
of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can
fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery
and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person?
What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying
each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or
speech of perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ.
An ecclesia acting otherwise—demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall
endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both—is in reality infringing that principle of
ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in their own case. It would be to impose what
might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren; for suppose it were to happen, as it might happen, that a
deserving brother or sister were withdrawn from on insufficient grounds by an assembly that might happen
to be composed of persons not remarkable for breadth of judgment, to what hopeless injustice such a brother
or sister would be subjected if other ecclesias were to be debarred from forming their own judgment in the
event of application for their fellowship.

43. — The True Secret of Success
This lies in the rich indwelling of the word of Christ in each individual member of an ecclesia—a state to
be attained in our day only by the daily and systematic reading of the Scriptures. When every mind is
influenced by the word, the worst rules work smoothly. When it is otherwise, the best will miscarry. The
system of daily reading, laid out in The Bible Companion, has for years been followed by thousands with
increasing benefit. The brethren ought, above all things, to help one another in its observance. It is with a view
to this that in more than one ecclesia each new brother and sister is presented with a copy of The Bible
Companion on their entrance.
In one ecclesia a copy of The Commandments of Christ is also given to each new member. When the
commandments of Christ are remembered and acted on (and Jesus says none who fail to do so are his
brethren), it will be easy to carry out any system of rules. In fact, a small company where Christ is in the heart
ascendant can get on best without set rules. It is only because this is not universal, and when members
increase, that rules become necessary.
44. — Fraternal Gatherings from Various Places
These are beneficial when restricted to purely spiritual objects (i.e., let the brethren assemble anywhere
from anywhere, and exhort, or worship, or have social intercourse together); but they become sources of evil
if allowed to acquire a legislative character in the least degree. Ecclesial independence should be guarded with
great jealousy, with the qualifications indicated in the foregoing sections. To form “unions” or “societies” of
ecclesias, in which delegates should frame laws for the individual ecclesias, would be to lay the foundation of
a collective despotism which would interfere with the free growth and the true objects of ecclesial life. Such
collective machineries create fictitious importances, which tend to suffocate the truth. All ecclesiastical history
illustrates this.
No Peace Without Purity
Christadelphian, 1892
Search the Scriptures and see if the thoughts in these paragraphs are in harmony with the Truth. If so, then
search thine own heart and see if thou art in harmony therewith.
The Truth can beget and bring forth only love and obedience in and from the heart, if permitted to do its
perfect work. False views may abide in an ecclesia under concealment, but no ecclesia can harbor them when
once they become known, or are open, without becoming a partaker therewith.
The Lord is the cleanser of his own Household, it is true, but it is in the matter of secret sins and doctrines
and personal character, since the ecclesia must purge itself of OPEN sins whether in doctrine or practice; for
if the ecclesia fails to purge itself thereof, it is living in sin before the Lord. Whoever sees his brother walking
in sinful ways and hideth the matter in his heart, hath sin lying at the door of his own heart.
The character formed in this life must be in complete harmony with the order of things in the eternal
world, else unalloyed love and joy and peace could not fill the heart and mind in the presence of a pure God.
The Lord looks at the heart, and the heart that is right in His sight can rejoice before Him: for—
“A broken and contrite heart the Lord will not despise.” —since He— “...looks to him who is poor, and of
a contrite spirit, and trembleth at His Word” (Isa. 66:2).
There can be no contrition of heart where chastisement is not patiently borne, and evil ways forsaken.
Whoever rebels at the chastisement of the Lord may well tremble when called to the judgment of His
Household.
There can be no ecclesial peace where purity does not precede the peace. There can be no ecclesial purity
where the bond of love does not bind every heart with sound doctrine and fellowship.

Fellowship
“That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; (for the life was manifested,
and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with
the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto
you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly, our fellowship (is) with the Father,
and with his Son Jesus Christ.” —(1 John 1:1-3)
BY BROTHER JOHN THOMAS
Thus writes one of the Apostles, showing the true ground and importance of christian fellowship, or
partnership. We ought, therefore, to understand the things declared by the Apostles, in order to enjoy society
with them, and with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ.
Let us attend to a primitive and a well instructed disciple, expressing himself very emphatically and
summarily, with reference to the same things. Thus he writes:
“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely
believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the
Word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou has been instructed”
(Luke 1:1-4).
From this passage of Luke, in connection with his account of the things testified concerning the Kingdom
of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, it is clearly of vast importance, that we labor for a perfect understanding
of all things as from the first, as things delivered by eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word. It is this perfect
understanding, which is symbolically styled light, and in which when we walk, we have fellowship with God.
“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no
darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we
walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son,
cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:5-7).
The Apostles, and the Holy Spirit and the Father, all witness concerning Jesus, all have partnership or
society in him and with all his.
Now in view of these high and holy associations, can they who enjoy them get their own consent to pollute
such associations by seeking communion with darkness?
Let us hear an Apostle, on this point, speaking thus:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the living God;
as God hath said, I will dwell in them, etc.” (2 Cor. 6:14-16).
Surely, with these promises, we must advocate purity, individually and congregationally. Indeed, the
apostle says—
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean; and I will
receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Truly, such as have obeyed this injunction, are placed under the highest obligations to avoid all
corruptions, and to contend, with all fidelity and boldness, for the faith, as formerly delivered to the Saints.
It is not the approbation of any number of uninspired men, although called a church or congregation,
which satisfies the enlightened man. He seeks the approbation of the High and Holy One, whether in regard
to individuals or to congregations. It is evident that the first congregations were composed of individuals who
had all submitted to baptism for the remission of sins in obedience to the Gospel of the Kingdom, divinely
authorized. Even John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And certainly
the Apostles were plain upon this point, as exemplified in Peter on the day of Pentecost. It is of the greatest
importance to build according to divine injunction.

If I have received that which was from the beginning, as reported by the witnesses and the ministers of the
Word, I am in society with the most illustrious personages in the universe. Shall I mingle myself with the
congregations or collections of men and women partly purified and partly not purified, some of them not
having obeyed? Are they not all defiled?
The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable; God is pure, and He will not dwell with the impure.
I would, ten thousand times rather be in society with the few purified ones than with the many impure ones.
It is the truth obeyed which makes pure; let us then persevere in the doctrine of Jesus and know the truth and
be purified or freed from sin by it. Let us study all the truth in the scriptures of inspiration, as being profitable,
or able to profit, in doctrine, in conviction, in correction, in instruction, or training in righteousness.
When fully enlightened by these sacred studies, we shall in the ration of this light, enjoy fellowship, or
society with all the enlightened sons of God, and with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. We shall then
joyfully wait for the hope, which is predicated upon the righteousness by faith. We shall contemplate the
future, as rendered unspeakably resplendent with the glory of God, in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus we shall be animated and strengthened unto all patience and all long suffering, and shall conquer
through him, who has loved us, and more than conquered—being made stronger than all enemies—and shall
obtain a triumph in honor of being conquerors—and enter abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our
Lord and Savious Jesus Christ.
I am, I humbly trust, one of the sons of that liberty with which Christ makes his people free—the liberty of
the truth.
Brethren, let us do or die.
—Herald, 1847
Clause No. 16 — Statement of Faith
16. That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the Name
and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the observance
of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do what he has
commanded.
PROGRESS and FELLOWSHIP
“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 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?
Do you say we cannot be certain? Then we differ. There is an ever-learning and never-attaining class—
ever debating and never settling. They were extant in Paul’s day. They have not ceased since. They are active
now. If you cannot recognize them, we do not quarrel with you; but we cannot deny our own senses. We
must exercise the prerogative of discrimination, and—knowing the right road in the dark, take it.
December 1890

1. That we are a Christadelphian ecclesia.
The Common Constitution
2. That we accept and profess the doctrines and precepts of Christ, as taught in the apostolic writings, and
defined (positively and negatively) in the annexed ”Statement of Faith” and epitome of “The Commandments
of Christ.”
3. That we recognize as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship, all who have been immersed (by
whomsoever) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts.
30. That any brother departing from any element of the One Faith, as defined by us in our Statement of Faith
appended, shall, on proof of the fact being given to the satisfaction of the arranging brethren, cease to be
in fellowship, without a formal vote of withdrawal, on the fact being announced to the ecclesia.
31. That no accusation or matter of evil report against any brother shall be listened to in public or private,
until the brother bringing or reporting the accusation shall have taken the course prescribed in Matthew
18:15-18; and any brother refusing to take this course while persisting in his accusations, or in alienation
on account of it, shall himself be considered and dealt with as an offender against the law of Christ.
32. That absence from the established assembly of the brethren for the breaking of bread, except from illness
or other lawful reason, is an offense against the law of Christ; unless the said assembly shall tolerate the
rejection of any element of the Truth of the Gospel, or shall sanction doctrines or practices inconsistent
with the commandments of Christ.
33. That none shall, even for a legitimate cause, separate themselves from the assembly, without first
stating, in writing, to be addressed to the recording brother, the cause or causes of impending
separation; and asking the same to be considered, with a view to their removal at a special meeting at
which they consent to be present and take part.
34. That no brother or sister withdrawn from by, or out of fellowship with, another ecclesia, shall be
received in fellowship until the cause shall have been investigated and found such as to warrant the
reception of the said brother or sister; but that this investigation shall not take place without first asking
the said other ecclesia to take part in the proposed investigation; that if the said other ecclesia shall refuse
their cooperation in the said investigation, the matters in question shall be investigated without them;
that if, on the other hand, they consent to take part in it, they shall, after the re-investigation conducted
in their presence, have equal voting power with the first ecclesia, and that no decision shall be valid
without the concurrence of a majority of the assembly so constituted of the two ecclesias fused together
in equality of numbers; if one ecclesia exceeds the other in number, the equality to be obtained by
arrangement.
35. That in case of another ecclesia, after either of these processes, receiving into their fellowship any brother
or sister from whom we have withdrawn, or who may have separated from us, we shall not consider it
a cause of separation from them, regarding the case as one of difference of judgment as to facts merely.
We shall be content in that case to maintain our own withdrawal from the brother or sister in question.
Should they, on the other hand, receive such without re-investigation or without asking our concurrence
in any re-investigation that may take place, we ourselves shall apply to the said ecclesia for reinvestigation
in the form defined by the last rule, and only in the case of their refusal, shall we consider
that their action in the case has furnished a cause of separation.
[Note: Bro. Roberts wrote, “Rule 35 of the Birmingham Constitution has no reference to cases where first principles
are in question. The rule relates solely to disputed questions of personal action and character, as to which it is
possible for even two men to be righteously disagreed in their opinion concerning a third person”—Christadelphian,
April 1887.]
36. That marriage with the alien is an offense against the law of Christ. That those who maintain the contrary
are unfit for fellowship with those who “consent to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus.” [1 Tim.
6:3 1 ]. That when offense takes place in the matter, the ecclesia shall signify their disapproval by
resolution sent to the offending brother or sister; after which the brother or sister shall only retain their
places among the brethren by admitting their offense. ◆
1 Added by publisher.

FROM THE
POCKET EPITOME OF
The Commandments of Christ
IN FORCE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
“Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you.” —Jesus
“Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded.” —Jesus
“If ye know these things, happy are ye, if ye do them.” —Jesus
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom, but he that doeth
the will of my Father.” —Jesus
“Be doers of the Word, not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” —James
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar.” —John
Commandment No. 10
Come out from the world and be separate unto Him, as His sons and daughters.
2 Cor. 6:14-17
Commandment No. 29
Be of one mind, and follow the things that make for peace.
1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Peter 3:8; Rom. 14:19
Commandment No. 39
Walk not as other Gentiles walk. —Eph. 4:17; have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness— Eph. 5:7-11; be not conformed to this world. — Rom. 12:2;
come out from among them and be ye separate.— 2 Cor. 6:17
Commandment No. 91
If any man obey not the apostolic commands, the brethren to have no company with him.
2 Thess. 3:14
Commandment No. 92
To avoid those causing divisions.— Rom. 16:17
Commandment No. 93
To withdraw from everyone walking disorderly, or not in accordance with apostolic precept.
2 Thess. 3:6
Commandment No. 94
To put away wicked persons.— 1 Cor. 5:11
Commandment No. 95
To reject or receive not into fellowship those who consent not to the doctrine or
the commandments of the Lord Jesus.
2 John verses 8-10; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; Titus 3:10

Excerpts from
A Matter of Fellowship
It has been stated that none of our pioneer writings give any support to the necessity of understanding the
doctrine of fellowship prior to baptism. Such a statement is clearly FALSE! In the booklet entitled, “The
Good Confession Elaborated in A Conversation between a Christadelphian and a Believing Stranger Desiring to be
Immersed into The Name of Christ” by Bro. Robert Roberts, we find the following:
171.—Should they on such or any occasion fellowship those who deny the truth in any of its material
particulars or who, professing the truth, walk disobediently in their daily life?
No; I believe they should have no fellowship with those who either reject the truth or behave in opposition to the
commandments of Christ.
It is quite clear that the whole of the doctrine of fellowship is understood in this question and answer. There
is no artificial limiting of this to just separation from the world and taking care of problems in your own local
Ecclesia. Furthermore, it is quite clear from the title of the booklet that we are looking at an imaginary
examination of a candidate for baptism. Thus, a very safe conclusion is that Bro. Roberts and the brethren of
his day and age considered the doctrine of fellowship something that had to be properly understood prior to
baptism. What better evidence can be offered in regards to the vital importance of this subject than the fact that
Bro. Roberts has put on record for all times that we must question all candidates for baptism on this subject?
Obviously, no better evidence can be provided on this subject than that of an imaginary examination of a
candidate for baptism. We should have expected to have found it this way from the degree of importance that
the pioneer brethren have placed upon this subject in their other writing.
A Matter of Fellowship booklet is available free of charge to any desiring it.
Pages 4-5
Julio B. Scaramastro
March 23, 1990
At this point it might be asked that if it is so important (doctrine of fellowship), why is it not in our
Statement of Faith Forming Our Basis of Fellowship? However, in regards to those who ask such a question,
has the true significance of the title of this section been considered? In other words, in this title, we have
expressed a definition of the teachings we are to believe which produces the relationship known as fellowship
amongst those who have believed them. Hence, a thoughtful consideration of the meaning of the title of this
section of the Basis answers such a question. Besides this point, the importance of this doctrine is brought to
our attention in Clause 16 of this section. It says:
16. That the way to obtain this salvation is to believe the Gospel they preached, and to take on the
Name and service of Christ, by being thereupon immersed in water, and continuing patiently in the
observance of all things he has commanded, none being recognized as his friends except those who do
what he has commanded.
How many times have we read this Clause and not really paid attention to the significance of the last part? It
is a pity that what Brother Roberts and those brethren with him wrote has gone unnoticed by so many for so
long. In fact, if its true significance had been realized, then this document would not have been needed to be
written. May its true meaning put an end to this controversy from this point on for its forming a part of Clause
16 elevates it to first principle status.
Pages 5-6
Julio B. Scaramastro
March 23, 1990