“Ecclesial Intelligence on The Sydney Division”

The Christadelphian December 1904, Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth Street, Sydney

Sydney.—Albert Hall, 413, Elizabeth Street.—It is with feelings of regret that we inform you that we have been compelled to withdraw our fellowship from a large number of brethren and sisters in this city for reasons hereafter stated. As you know, an amalgamation took place, about twelve months ago, between the body meeting in Pitt Street and the body in the Albert Hall, 413, Elizabeth Street. It was believed by the majority of us that they had renounced the erroneous views that had been the means of keeping the two bodies separate for years. Some of these views were: “No sin in the flesh”; “Adam mortal before the fall”; “Christ’s nature pure and undefiled in every sense”; “Christ did not need to die for himself”; “The present possession of eternal life.” It has since transpired that upon some of these questions they have not altered their views at all; and not only so, but they have succeeded in converting many of our old brethren and sisters to those views since their admittance to our body. When the amalgamation took place, the members of the Pitt Street body were not individually examined. The negotiations were conducted in camera, between the arranging brethren on both sides. No opportunity was given the members of our ecclesia to examine them, or object to their admission in any sense. All that the individual members knew of the transaction was that it was announced at a tea meeting held on Aug. 31st, 1903, that all barriers between the two bodies had been removed, and that they had accepted our Statement of Faith. Most of us believed that we had all along been working under the Birmingham Statement of Faith, and we have continued in that belief until the visit of brother Davies, from England, when we discovered that the 5th clause had been mysteriously altered some four years since. The words “defiled and” being replaced by “degraded him.” Some of us called a special meeting to consider the alteration in the Statement of Faith, and in the discussion which followed we found that our ecclesia was full of error as regards the condition of the human race and the nature of Christ. Brother Bell (Editor of The Shield), brother Adams (arranging brother), brother Sawell (Recorder), brother Wotton (Presider), and many of our leading brethren, with the members of the late body from Pitt Street, contending that the Birmingham Statement of Faith was untrue in in its statements in clause 5. We send you brother Bell’s speech, which was heartily endorsed by large numbers of the brethren and sisters. When we saw that matters had gone beyond a mere formal assent to a Statement of Faith, we decided to take a stand to uphold the purity of the faith. We issued a circular inviting all who held the Birmingham Statement as the basis of fellowship, to meet on Sunday, September 11th, 1904, in the Albert Hall, 413, Elizabeth Street. Since the amalgamation referred to previously, we have been meeting on Sundays, in I.O.O.F.Temple, in Elizabeth Street, and held Bible Class in Albert Hall. Those of us who have come out, have now secured the Albert Hall for our Sunday and week-day meetings, while the other brethren referred to retain the I.O.O.F. Temple. In response to our circular, about 130 brethren and sisters have come out; and we are determined to uphold the Bible and the teachings of Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts. Now that the brethren meeting in the Temple have seen the stand we have taken, and knowing that they were likely to be cut off from the different ecclesias, they have called a meeting, and have accepted the Birmingham Statement of Faith, saying that they will put their own construction upon the 5th clause. In future, any desiring our fellowship from the Temple body, must be prepared to give us a statement as to the views they hold upon the questions in dispute. Hoping that you will help us in our endeavour to uphold the truth in this city. With loving greetings in the one faith to the Birmingham ecclesia.—Joseph A. Sindel, Recorder (pro. tem.).

[Brother Bell’s speech referred to above is enclosed in brother Sindell’s letter. It is endorsed as being “From shorthand notes, corrected by brother Bell.” It shows that brother Bell has unhappily become confused by a doctrine that we can only describe as a modification of the “Renunciationism” of thirty years ago; some of the tenets of which brother Sindell correctly sets out above; and which have survived in various parts of the colonies down to this day. Speaking of “the condition of Adam before he fell, ” brother Bell says “He was made mortal, and therefore the sentence that was passed upon him did not defile him by making him mortal.” He emphasised this point, which he put forward “as a demonstration of scripture,” declaring in the same breath that “it is not necessary to give you passages of scripture”! As a matter of fact he gave, and could give, none. But, it must be explained, brother Bell puts a new meaning on “mortal.” It is not “subject to death,” but “capable of dying.” This, however, is altogether wrong, and would make the angels themselves mortal; for surely no one would dispute the power of the Eternal to terminate the life of any created being. Mortal is literally “deathful”; and man is deathful because of sin, as clause 5 of the Birmingham Statement clearly proves. Some extraordinary statements follow: “Man in his normal condition is not dying, but he is capable of death”! “The transgression . . . and sentence . . . did not defile (Adam’s) body, inasmuch as it did not change his body. . . . Adam’s conscience was defiled by transgression. His body was not changed.” Now what was his defiled conscience but the changed method of the thinking of his brain flesh? It almost sounds like immortalsoulism. Yet brother Bell struggles against the consequences of a wrong departure: “There was a moral or mental change in Adam when he transgressed. His flesh became sin’s flesh.” And yet (above) “it did not change his body,” and therefore, of course, he was no more “subject to death” after transgression than before! There is more and worse in the “speech” before us; but we prefer at present to regard the matter as, possibly, a temporary aberration which may, perhaps, be got over. At the same time, when division has actually taken place, we cannot but choose the side which stands at all costs for the unperverted truth. Brother Roberts’ lecture, The Slain Lamb, should be read by those who are not clear on the matter.—Ed. C.]

The Christadelphian January 1905, Albert Hall, 413 Elizabeth Street, Sydney

Sydney.—Christadelphian Hall, 413, Elizabeth Street.—Brother R. Worby supplements brother Sindel’s communication of last month. From a long letter we make the following extracts:—“To give the ecclesias a detailed account of the matter through the Christadelphian would be impossible; a few things, however, with the Editor’s permission, must be stated here, so that the brethren may be somewhat guided in their judgment. The heresies mentioned consisted principally of the following items:—1, Adam was created mortal; the sentence passed upon him did not defile Adam, nor did it introduce any physical law into his being; 2, There is no sin in the flesh. Man is not a dying creature in his normal condition; his flesh becomes sinful only through his individual act of transgression; 3, The Lord Jesus, having never sinned, had a body of flesh and blood that was pure and clean; he was undefiled in every sense; having kept the law, he could claim everlasting life without dying; he died not for himself, but manifested his love to us by giving his, purchased by the law, life for us. Night after night such heresies were boldly put forth by some of the apparently leading men in our midst, before large assemblies of our brethren and sisters, and what added to the bitterness of things, was the cunning craftiness of these men to show how badly our late esteemed brethren Dr. Thomas and Robert Roberts contradict themselves and each other in their writings. About a fortnight after we had withdrawn from them, they also adopted the Birmingham Statement of Faith (which, in the disputed details, does not express their views.—Ed. C.), and advertise themselves now largely as ‘The Sydney Christadelphian ecclesia.’ What are their feelings toward us can be gathered from the deplorable fact that we hear even from their little children’s lips that we teach ‘a dirty Jesus,’ while the charges levelled against us in the last (October) issue of the Shield show how its editor views us. But wisdom is judged of all her children, and our trust is that our Heavenly Father will soon enable all brethren to discern between the right and wrong of the matter. ‘Speak not evil one of another.’ The Shield has evidently overlooked or forgotten that this commandment of our Master applies ecclesially as well as individually. If, in so doing, the editor of the Shield has done wrong, how great is that wrong in the eyes of Him who knows that the charges are not true. We hope that brother Bell may not add to this his wrong, but that he may yet recover and obtain the favour of his Master, in whose vineyard he has for a long time past laboured apparently so well. We have to report to the household of faith that two more have comprehended the light of the gospel. They are Miss Louise Whyte, one of our Sunday School pupils from alien parents, and Mrs. Annie McCusker, formerly R.C. Their immersions took place in our hall on September 28th and October 6th respectively. Every Sunday morning since September 11th, one by one our misled brethren and sisters have been coming back to us, confessing that they have been misled by the ‘fair speeches’ of those whom we are now compelled to hold as heretics. Up to the time of writing this about thirty have so far applied for re-union with this ecclesia from the other camp. During the past month we have been visited by brethren Pearce, of Milthorpe; O. T. Morgan, of Christchurch, N.Z.; Fuller, from Roberton Park; Wood, of Fairfield; and sisters Barlow, from Melbourne; McAuley, of Thirroull. Brother and sister Morgan, late of Melbourne ecclesia, having come to reside in Sydney, have joined themselves to this ecclesia. On October 18th our old brother Robson was bereaved of his sister-wife. She died after a long illness, and was laid to her rest at the Waverley cemetery, in the presence of a goodly number of brethren and sisters, brethren R. McKinlay and J. Jackson officiating at the grave. The old couple embraced the truth but recently and in their good old age, and at their last leave-taking it was a pleasing thing to observe their strong faith in Jehovah’s promise that they shall meet again at the resurrection in the last day. By the death of Master Herbert Gooding, on Oct. 26th, our brother Gooding lost his only son and sister Mabel Gooding her only brother in the flesh. Our brother and sister Gooding also take their loss in the right spirit, being assured of the promise that ‘all things work together for good to them that love God.’ In conclusion we desire to notify the brethren, specially of Australasia, that the Sydney Christadelphian Book Depôt has not been shifted from its place as was announced by the Shield of October, but that it is still at 413, Elizabeth Street, Christadelphian Hall, and all Christadelphian literature can be got on application to either brethren J. Jackson or J. Burns, at the above address.”

The Christadelphian April 1905, Editors Note

[With reference to the situation in Sydney, we have naturally had considerable correspondence from many who dissent strongly from our remarks in the December issue of the Christadelphian. They think we are misinformed and cannot judge. It is not so. We are well informed concerning the history of the truth in Sydney for the past twenty years; and are not in the least concerned with personalities in the question. Brother Bell, editor of the Shield, in a private letter regrets our “premature denunciation” of him in the Christadelphian of December, and, on the merits of the question in dispute, hazards the conjecture that we “seem to be hampered with a burden of traditional expressions which may in the past have served their purpose well, but which are too inaccurate for further use.” We can only refer to the Christadelphian for December, and say that our expression is not rightly described as a “denunciation.” And as to the other, well, if we have been so “hampered” for so many years, we are willing to be set right, but it must be in the form of sound words to be found in the Holy Scriptures. If brother Bell can produce scripture saying that Adam was “mortal” before he sinned we will re-consider our doctrine of mortality with all speed, and all that hangs upon it. But we are informed by sister Mabel Jackson that the “speech” of brother Bell was not “corrected by him,” as was said by our correspondent. This we hasten to put on record; though it is not alleged that it was not a correct report of that speech. With reference to the parcel of “Questions and Questions” referred to by brother Worby above. It was not for a moment supposed that brother Bell and party believed all the doctrines of the “Renunciationism” of thirty years ago; and the emphatic repudiation of all of them by brother Sawell, in a letter just to hand from him, is the most hopeful sign in this controversy. But it does appear that through the unguarded re-fellowship of a body in which some of these views were held, this trouble has arisen; and we see no reason as yet to modify our statements of December last. We are only anxious for the truth to prevail; and are well aware that all these controversies are educational to those who are rightly exercised thereby. The Lord will deliver us out of them all presently.—Ed. C.]

The Christadelphian June 1905, I.O.O.F Temple, Elizabeth Street, Sydney

Sydney.—I.O.O.F. Temple, Elizabeth Street.—Dear brother Walker,—We observe that you have published reports from the brethren meeting at 413, Elizabeth Street, Sydney, in the December and January numbers of the Christadelphian, and have to express surprise and regret that you should have seen fit to insert in your magazine reports of such a character before making proper enquiry or investigation as to their correctness; especially do we deplore the seeming hastiness manifested in your supplementary remarks, by which you support those who have gone out from us in a manner alike contrary to the ecclesial constitution and the commandments of Christ. The least we expected was that you should have withheld “taking sides” until official communication from us should represent our views: as it is you have confirmed some in a position flagrantly at variance with the law of Christ as laid down by our Lord.

We are sorry to say that the letters above referred to are misleading in many respects, and have to advise that the Birmingham (Amended) Statement of Faith was adopted at a meeting of the whole ecclesia called prior to the division, and a large proportion of those who have left us were present and voted for the motion for its adoption; and the said statement is now in force in the ecclesia, and agreed to by every member of this body.

We also deny that there was anything improper in regard to the amalgamation of the two Sydney ecclesias some eighteen months ago; the negotiations were carried out by the executives of the two bodies, and the union effected on the basis of the Statement of Faith then existent in the Albert Hall ecclesia, and all the members of the Temperance Hall body affirmed their belief in the same; the arrangements were confirmed by the amalgamated body without any dissent at the next business meeting of the ecclesia; further, two of the leading brethren now meeting at 413, Elizabeth Street, were arranging brethren when the union took place, and assisted in bringing about the same.

In regard to the alteration in clause 5 of the Statement of Faith in the year 1900 we also deny that this was made in a “mysterious” way—the matter of amendment was brought forward at meetings of a committee of twenty brethren appointed “to revise the constitution and statement of faith,” and formed the subject of correspondence with other ecclesias, and was brought before the ecclesia in the report of the committee, and adopted by a ballot vote of the ecclesia three years prior to the amalgamation.

We also wish to explain that the copy of the report of brother Bell’s speech sent you was not corrected by him, and that it was not a complete report of his speech, as much that was said was omitted altogether and many of the sentences curtailed, the sister who furnished same not being a practised reporter, and the speech not having been taken down for publication, but merely for private use. We have further to add that on brother Bell’s speech as delivered and his subsequent statements we are satisfied that he has not departed in any way from the One Faith.

Respecting the use of the word “mortal” in the report of his speech, to which you take exception, we would draw attention to the fact that brother Bell has applied the word in a perfectly correct scriptural sense, as shown in such passages as these: 1 Cor. 15:53, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.” 2 Cor. 5:4, “That mortality might be swallowed up of life.” In these passages the body that is referred to as being operated on is the resurrected body, which, in the case of the faithful, will not return to the dust of the ground; but it is, nevertheless, described as “mortal”; and not then being under the sentence passed on Adam, it is the same as Adam’s was before he sinned, so that Adam must also have been “mortal” before he sinned, according to this Scriptural use of the word; that is, he was of a corruptible or earthy nature, although not subject to death until the passing of the sentence upon him. We refer you to Anastasis for a very full elaboration of this idea.

Our beliefs concerning Christ are expressed in clauses 8 to 12 of the Birmingham Statement of Faith, and as there has never been a suggestion to alter these clauses, this should be sufficient evidence to all that we have not erroneous views regarding the nature of Christ as reported of us, but we object to being branded as heretics because we cannot endorse the extraordinary teaching concerning Christ of some of the leading local brethren amongst those who have seceded from the ecclesia, of which the following are specimens: “The reason why he was holy, harmless, and undefiled was because he was the Son of God. The reason why he could do what you and I cannot do, was because God was operating in him. God said the things by a machine; God put forth his arm to help him when he could not help himself.”—(Brother Waite, in reply to brother Bell on August 31st.)

“Christ had this defiling weakness, but he overcame it. He could not have done it, only God did.” . . . “The natural chemical ingredients of the flesh were unclean. If you were to cut him open the same as you could cut open any other man, you would find he was unclean inside, and the same evil conditions prevailing.” — (Brother J. A. Sindel, in public lecture on “The sentence that Defiled Mankind,” on September 10th, 1904.)

When teaching like this is put forward in explanation of clause 5 of the Statement of Faith, and to show how Jesus was “holy, harmless, and undefiled,” and at the same time “defiled,” we think that you will agree with us that it is time to consider the advisability of using expressions that would not be susceptible of being twisted to support such teaching.

We trust that from the foregoing you will reconsider the attitude you have adopted towards us; and in any case we request that you will in all fairness insert this letter in extenso in the next issue after receipt, in refutation of the misleading reports which appeared in the December and January numbers reflecting on this ecclesia.

By direction of the Arranging Brethren, yours fraternally, E. Sawell, Recorder, The Sydney Christadelphian Ecclesia.

[We insert this, the first intelligence received from the I.O.O.F. Temple meeting, in extenso as desired, and add one or two remarks in reply. First as to “proper enquiry and investigation.” There was the report of the speech said to have been corrected by brother Bell. There was the fact of an unskilful modification of a proposition in the Statement of Faith. And there was the argument running in the Shield. And there was the fact of the division; beside testimony from various sources.

As to the Statement of Faith we may say frankly that we cannot reconcile the declaration that it is “agreed to by every member of the body” with brother Bell’s strenuous arguments in the Shield against some of its terms, particularly the definition of physical defilement to which Adam became subject by transgression.

Even this report illustrates the confusion that has arisen on the subject. As pointed out in a cover note last month, the resurrection body cannot be “the same as Adam’s was before he sinned.” The resurrected are all sinners who have died. Where is the comparison between such and a man who had not sinned, and who knew nothing of shame, fear, disease and death? The brethren refer us to Anastasis. It is better to refer to the Scriptures direct. It is written, “By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). To say that Adam was mortal before he sinned is really to contradict this, and to affirm that death did not come “by sin,” but only accelerated death; that the man would have died in any case, even apart from sin, being “mortal,” but that sin caused him to die quicker. But nevertheless it is objected that sin did not physically change his flesh—as though disease and death did not involve physical change! We have shown (Christadelphian, January, p. 24) the Bible usage of the term “mortal.” No brother has any authority to invent a new meaning under profession of superior enlightenment (Shield, February, p. 27). In the mouths of inspired men “mortal” means “obnoxious to death,” and they teach that man is “obnoxious to death” by sin. To say that man was mortal before transgression is therefore to speak not according to the oracles of God, whatever may be the mind of the speaker. We exceedingly regret the confusion that has arisen and that is now manifest in the pages of the Shield. We are not responsible for the division that has arisen; but we are responsible for our attitude towards the parties, and we are bound to say we have no sympathy with the doctrine that traverses Clause V. of the Statement of Faith, and denies that physical defilement followed Adam’s transgression. As to brother Bell’s allegation that the change in wording of this clause (about 1886, we believe) is due to the abandonment of the doctrine “that God implanted a principle of death in the body of Adam,” it is sufficient to point to brother Roberts’ words in answer to a correspondent as late as 1898 (Christadelphian, p. 343). “Sin, as disobedience, arose in their (Adam and Eve’s) case from a wrong opinion concerning a matter of lawful desire, and not from what Paul calls ‘sin in the flesh.’ It became sin in the flesh when it brought forth that sentence of death that made them mortal, and all their children with them; that is, this sentence passed because of sin, affected their bodily state and implanted in their flesh a law of dissolution that became the law of their being.” As to the facts connected with sin and death in relation to Adam and Eve we recommend those who are not clear on the matter to study Dr. Thomas’s exposition in Elpis Israel, chapter 3. It may be added that the letter of brother Walker to brother Bell, now being answered piecemeal in the Shield, was not written for publication, but only as a private expostulation. If it had been intended for publication, it would have been written in a different way. If we were in Sydney we should hope for some good by debating the cause with brother Bell face to face. As it is, we can do but little; and certainly cannot devote many pages of the Christadelphian to a nebulous controversy.—Ed. C.]

The Christadelphian December 1905, Paddington Ecclesia, Sydney

Sydney.—201, Sutherland Street, Paddington.—Under separate cover I am sending you a copy of booklet on “The Sydney Division,” which will possibly prove interesting. I will be glad if you can see your way clear to publish the portion of pamphlet “Tenets of the Sydney ecclesia,” in view of what has been written, re the ecclesia.—William G. Brown.

The following is the portion of the pamphlet indicated, given exactly as it stands:

TENETS OF THE SYDNEY ECCLESIA.

Concerning ADAM, the I.O.O.F. Temple Brethren believe:—

That he was made in the image of God, a natural body, from the dust of the ground and animated by the breath of life, and therefore of a corruptible nature, and mortal in constitution, but not subject to death until after he sinned. (See Gen. 2:7: 3:19; 1 Cor. 15:47. Compare Elpis Israel, page 28; Eureka, vol. 1, page 248; Apostacy Unveiled, page 74; Catechesis, Questions 5 and 9; and Christendom Astray, page 28, large edition).

That his destiny was not determined until he transgressed God’s law, when it was declared by God, on account of his disobedience, that he would return to the dust of the ground from whence he was taken, and that until such would eventuate he would eat bread in the sweat of his brow.

That he was precluded from eating of the tree of life after his disobedience by being driven from the garden of Eden.

That in consequence of Adam’s first transgression death passed upon all men.

They do not believe that the declaration of God to Adam changed his organism, or that he was corporeally defiled thereby, although he was physically affected by his changed conditions as a result of God’s decree.

Concerning JESUS, the I.O.O.F. Temple Brethren believe:—

That he was the seed of Abraham and David, of like nature to them, though miraculously begotten of the Virgin Mary, and was therefore in the days of his flesh, a mortal man, and a sufferer from all the effects that came by Adam’s transgression, including the death that passed upon all men.

That he was tempted in all points like unto us, having all the propensities or impulses to sin common to our nature, and consequently, though sinless, he required to be redeemed from his weak, corruptible, and mortal nature.

That on account of his personal holiness of character, and his perfect obedience to his Father’s will, he was an acceptable sacrifice for sin, and was raised from the dead, immortalised, and exalted to the right hand of God.

They do not believe that there is any warrant whatever for saying that he was “defiled,” “unclean,” “tainted,” or such-like, as no inspired apostle or prophet has applied such language to him.

[The foregoing is in the main sound, but is vitiated by the qualifications introduced, which are not “according to this Word,” which do not illustrate the necessary speaking “as the oracles of God.” The Word knows nothing of a “mortal constitution which is yet not subject to death”! It makes no such statement concerning Adam. The Word always uses the term “mortal” with the meaning “subject to death,” and we decline participation in the enterprise of putting another meaning on it. That is how the apostacy arose, which proclaims as its fundamental doctrine, that man is “mortal in constitution, but not subject to death,” i.e., in the inward part, the immortal soul.

But if the I.O.O.F. brethren, and brother Bell among them, we presume, now affirm that Adam was made “mortal in constitution, but not subject to death,” what are we to make of the Shield’s warm approval of the following:—“Now, I will give proof positive that it was a mortal body before he sinned. ‘Mortal’ means ‘subject to death.’ Proof that Adam was mortal before he sinned: Gen. 2:17—‘Thou shalt surely die.’” Thus a brother writes in the Shield for June last, p. 117, and brother Bell, on the same page, calls it shining truth! The grave fallacy of the statement is that it misrepresents God, for the statement of Gen. 2:17 is “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Death was contingent upon disobedience, as also says the apostle, “death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). How, then, does this brother say that Adam was subject to death before he sinned? How, also, do those who upheld him now affirm the very opposite? This is only one of many illustrations of the distressing confusions that have arisen. If Adam’s destiny “was not determined until he transgressed God’s law,” which is perfectly true, how could he be mortal, which means subject to death, before transgression? Let the I.O.O.F. brethren first tell us exactly what they understand by “mortal.” And then let them adhere to the definition given, and one step will be made towards re-union.

The statement of belief concerning Jesus is very good, but the qualifying clause added spoils it. If the nature of Jesus, which was human nature, as is truly stated, was “weak, corruptible, and mortal,” which it undoubtedly was, how can these brethren say they do not believe in calling it “unclean.” Is sin’s flesh clean? We are all agreed about the character of the Lord Jesus. In the Shield, September, p. 171, brother Bell rightly answers the question: “Does the Holy Spirit teach that flesh-nature is an unclean or evil thing?” He rightly says “Yes.” How, then, can he object to the term “unclean” and go on saying that Jesus was “by nature separate from sinners?” One of the prophets sees in vision Joshua, the high priest, “clothed with filthy garments” (Zech. 3:3). Does not this represent Jesus burdened with mortality? And does not the context figuratively represent the change of nature of which the Lord Jesus was the subject in resurrection to immortality? “Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.” A nature represented by “filthy garments” and “iniquity” is surely “defiled.” Let the brethren affirm the truth and withdraw their negative qualifications, and confidence will be restored.

Till then the Christadelphian will only undertake to speak for those who “speak as the oracles of God.” We will not be responsible for anything else.]