CHRISTADELPHIANISM.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2027, 23 August 1880, Page 3

CHRISTADELPHIANISM.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sib, —Without going into the merits or demerits of Ohristadelphianism, but for the sake of honesty and consistency, and for the prevention of confusion arising in the mind of the public, will you allow mo to call attention to a few facts respecting the community advertising themselves under that name ? and whoso recognised leader is Mr F. M. Lester, of the Forester’s Hall, I am a “ New Chum,” and a Ohristadelphian of some years standing, and, like all religionists, sought for tho people whose sympathies and objects were in harmony with my own.

Now, sir, if there is ono thing that Christadelphians boast of, it is, “ that they all speak tho same thing.” And in all well-ordered Bcdesias their faith is drawn up in clear, definite, and sharp terms, what they believe, and what they deny. You may guess, then, my surprise, when at my first meeting with them I found them jangling and disputing among themselves concerning “ the first principles of the Oracles of God.” I did not consider it my place to take part in the confusion, but simply to observe and “ keep my powder dry.” “ Some of them said, that Jesus came under tho condemnation incurred in Eden, in order to bear it away for us; others emphatically denied this. Some declared that there was ‘ ein in the flesh’; others said no. Some contended that an understanding and belief of these doctrines were necessary to Baptism ; others not. I also found that some did not believe that tho rejectors of the Gospel would be raised from the dead, and some that they would. Some said that one class were the rejectors, and others said they were another class. Some said sin was one thing ; no, said others, it is this, and so on.” From ;the remarks made by most of them I was led to suspect that they could not be Ohristadelphians, but a parly palming upon tho public a spurious article under the name of the genuine. After a time I found my suspicions too well founded ; and that I had been beguiled into the camp of the most bitter enemies to that which is, of all doctrines, most Ohristadol phian. I at once demanded some tangible proof that they were what they professed to be. The replies were all evasive ; and, from the literature put into my hands, I found them to be—not Ohristadelphians —hut a body under tho leadership and tuition of one of a party who had been expelled from us on account of their renouncing some vital elements of our faith, and who are, on that account, known in the Ohristadelphian world as “ Renunciationists.”

My duty was clear, viz,, to withdraw. Now, sir, I do not wish to name a people in any way repugnant to themselves; but to name them with our name would be to deceive them, to belie ourselves, and confuse the public, and, also, to put new arrivals on a wrong scent. It would also be misrepresenting them and lay them unjustly open to the charge of holding “God dishonouring and blaspheming doctrines.” May I, then, advise them, through your columns, to name themselves and prevent mistakes ?

The Ohristadelphians of Christchurch and neighbourhood are nine in number, and, being nearly all new arrivals, are not yet in a position to bring themselves prominently before the public; but, when they do, how about Messrs Lester, Morgan, and Co. ? Yours, &e., ALEX. McEILLOP, Russel street, Colombo road South, Christchurch.