Below are a series of extracts from bro Roberts Diaries of his voyages to Australia and some Ecclesial Intelligence reports that illustrate the Clean Flesh teaching of George Cornish, which was the precursor to the Clean Flesh teachings of John Bell and the Shield fellowship. Bro Roberts drew up the eleven points of the Melbourne Synopsis on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” in response to George Cornish’s teachings.

“George Cornish and Clean Flesh Error”

“A Voyage to Australia, New Zealand, and Other Lands”

Robert Roberts

The Christadelphian May 1896

Tuesday, October 8th.—… At six o’clock brother Gamble fetched me to a meeting of the brethren at the house of brother Kenny. They are not a numerous company at Ballarat, and they have been made fewer, I understand, through the proselytising activity of one Cornish, who has a hurtful hobby on the origin of death, which changes the death of Christ from God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh into a human tragedy: in which Christ “died because he was killed,” and not because it was necessary to the forgiveness of sin. We had pleasant intercourse together on the things of the Spirit for two hours—dispersing about ten o’clock.

The Christadelphian June 1896

Saturday, October 12th.—Before leaving I had an interview, by request, with several who have been smitten with the Cornish mystification, and are standing apart from the brethren. It takes various shapes in various places. Here it was “no sinful flesh: the flesh containing good, as well as evil, requiring but to be evoked.” I pointed out that the idea was contrary both to experience, and to the apostolic testimony. That testimony declared that in the flesh dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18): that the works of the flesh are evil (Gal. 5:19): that by natural constitution sin dwells there (Ib. 20): and that its appropriate generic description is flesh of sin, or sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3). Experience proved the correctness of these descriptions. A child left without training unfolded evil and not good. Cut off absolutely from contact with man, it grew up a savage. All good in man came from without, not from within. It was only in proportion as men came within the power of enlightenment from without that they rose above the animation natural to flesh and blood. Well-meaning minds, sharp but short of sight, judged this question by what they found man to be in circumstances of civilisation, of more or less Biblical origin. In this they judged wrongly. To judge of human nature rightly, it had to be looked at away from all such circumstances. It had to be looked at as it was when left entirely to its own resources. Such minds also thought to honour Christ by clothing him with a nature to which these terms could not apply. To do this, they either had to give him a nature different to ours, or else make ours different from what the Scriptures and experience declare it to be. The subject was of some subtlety and some profundity. Its elucidation had been one of the greatest victories of the truth in our age over the intellectual fogs and anomalies connected with the whole subject of Christ as a sacrifice: and well-meaning minds, thinking to mend Dr. Thomas’s work, would drag us back to the old quagmire. The brethren did well to resist their encroachments. It might seem a small thing to quarrel over the phrase, “Sinful flesh,” but the phrase, which was an apostolic one, touched a truth which had a deeper and more widely-ramifying bearing than those who where tampering with it were aware. Whether the interview was of any use I know not. As regards one worthy old man it was utterly useless, notwithstanding the self-stultification of his answers. He had a set philosophy of his own, to which he clung in spite of admissions that destroyed it. A wrong view of human nature seemed to be at the bottom of his difficulty.

Saturday, October 19th.—In the morning I called on brother Unsworth, who had emigrated from Warrington, England, some few years back, and was now separated from the brethren through the influence of one Cornish. Found this man at his place. First saw brother Unsworth alone, and ascertained the cause of the separation. Then saw the man Cornish, who is deaf and has to use an ear horn, into which any one conversing with him has to shout. Cornish professed a great desire for truth and much humble readiness to acknowledge himself in error if it can be shown. But, in fact, I found him a tenacious, impetuous, domineering and abusive crochetarian of dangerous type, one of those men on whom no sort of impression can be made by argument, but who has the power of impressing others by dogmatism, which, armed with a superficial cleverness, takes the unwary at a disadvantage. I did not find out his true character in this respect at the first interview. He humbly implored the favour of a conference with me in the presence of the Melbourne ecclesia, who, he said, refused to give him a hearing, and with whom he was anxious to agree if he could. To this I would not consent, as the ecclesia had already suffered disturbance enough from the contentions he had raised. I said I had no objection to converse with him in the presence of those whom he had misled. It was arranged that a meeting for this purpose should take place on the following Tuesday, in the workshop of brother Unsworth. That evening had been left blank for rest in the programme of my work drawn by the brethren, and I afterwards suffered for not letting it remain so: but it seemed as if I could not, in common kindness, refuse the request for a meeting under the circumstances.

Sunday, October 20th.—A large muster of brethren and sisters in the M.U. Hall, Swanston Street, their accustomed place of meeting; a commodious hall, capable of seating about 400 people. Brother Barlow, originally of Birmingham, presided. At the right moment I was called on to address the meeting, which I did for the best part of an hour. The object of my remarks was to fix attention on God himself, as the ultimate climax of the truth and all its institutions. I dwelt especially on the sacrifice of Christ as an event without a meaning apart from this. That sacrifice, though apparently a human accident, was a Divine pre-arrangement, as Jesus showed, not only by foretelling it several times, but by declaring that no man should take his life from him, that he should lay it down of himself, in harmony with commandment received from the Father (Jno. 10:18). The apostles showed it in their public allusions to the crucifixion after its occurrence, saying that Jesus had been delivered to death “by the determinate counsel and fore knowledge of God, ” and that the rulers in putting him to death, had done “whatsoever God’s hand and God’s counsel had determined before to be done” (Acts 2:23: 4:28). The object of this pre-arrangement was that sin might be put away—(Heb. 9:26)—that sin might be condemned (Rom. 8:3) that the righteousness of God might be declared (Rom. 3:25–26).

All these phrases probed to their root meant that God must be exalted and man humbled in the way appointed before there could be remission of sins for any in a world of sinners. There were many to whom this conception was a foreign one, and who, therefore, sought to harmonise the crucifixion with merely human events and sentiments. They either struck above or below the mark of Divine wisdom in the matter. They either made the crucified Christ a substitute for sinners or a mere martyr to his own faithfulness and no sacrifice at all, such as had been Mosaically prefigured for a hundred generations. And they patched and tinkered with his nature to suit it to their unscriptural thought. They either made him immaculate, like the Roman Catholics; life-free, like the Renuuciationists; or Adamically-untainted, like the man Cornish. All these were forms of error that undermined the wisdom of God in the sacrifice of Christ. They were well meant in a human sense: but none the less subversive of the great and simple fact that Christ was “made in all points like” ourselves, as to flesh nature, that through death and resurrection he might do that which no other man could do, “destroy him (or that) having the power of death, that is, the devil”—(Heb. 2:14). This truth had been extricated from the obscuration of many ages, and delivered from the intellectual embarrassments which had beset the question of atonement for generations. And the brethren had done rightly in resisting those who, with whatever motive, would drag us back to the old difficulties and the old obscurations. These active superficial minds were not aware of the mischief inherent in the work they would like to do. They were like children interfering in a delicate chemical process, or a piece of mechanism which they did not understand. Leaving them, our business was to fix our minds on those conditions and actions which were pleasing to God, and which would prepare us for incorporation with his happy family in the day of harmony and glory. I followed out this idea at some length.

Tuesday, October 22nd.—Met Mr. Cornish according to agreement, in the presence of a number of brethren and sisters whom he had subverted. Up to this time, I had spoken of him as “brother Cornish,” but I now discovered that his estrangement from the truth was so serious as to disentitle him to that mode of address. It was not only the “good flesh” doctrine which I had encountered among those in sympathy with him at Bendigo (see earlier part of diary), it was now no condemnation in Adam at all, and no sacrifice of Christ for sin at all, though in words confessing both.

First of all, there was an endeavour on the part of Mr. Cornish to prove that I had changed from my original position. He tried to prove this by citing an article written in 1869, in which I said that no change of nature was effected in Adam by his condemnation: that the only difference between the fore and after state, was a difference of relation to the dissolution process lying head. I now said I adhered to what was written in the article, and could wish no better exposition of the matter when taken as a whole. What Mr. Cornish had omitted to consider was, how—according to the said article—the difference of relation was established. I afterward pointed out that in the early part of the article it was laid down that the altered relation became a law of his nature “running in the blood,” and that thus only was the sentence transmissible to posterity. This was no alteration of nature, but the introduction of the law of death into it, leaving it the same nature still. But Mr. Cornish called this “evasion” the common rejoinder of perplexed antagonism in the presence of an unanswerable explanation.

I discovered Mr. Cornish’s denial of the sacrifice of Christ when putting his answers to the test. I asked him why Christ died. He said “Because he was killed.” Yes, but what was God’s object in allowing him to be killed? The answer was:—“To wean men from their sins; it was not necessary for their forgiveness.” At this point I refused to go further, because of the impassable gulf of divergence thus suddenly revealed. 2. Because in my weak state of health, I found the work of shouting logical niceties into an ear trumpet an impossible work to continue. I said the case was far worse than I had any idea of, and that I should refuse to have anything to do as a brother with a man holding such views. I rose to go, but the company (20 persons or so) implored me to remain for their sakes. They, in fact, in a friendly manner, prevented me from going, and I remained to please them, listening to Mr. Cornish’s remarks, in which he denounced Dr. Thomas as anti-Christ, and dared me to appear before the judgment seat of Christ. At the close, several of the company asked me to meet them by themselves and answer their questions, as they desired only to be in the right. I consented to meet them on the following Saturday afternoon for the purpose expressed; and they all signified their intention to be present.

Saturday, October 26th.—Kept my appointment in Mr. Cornish’s meeting-place with the few who came, out of the number who covenanted. Was informed for the first time, that after my departure Mr. Cornish had demanded them not to attend unless he were present, and that they passed a resolution to that effect: which would have been reasonable enough if the issue had been a question of accusation against him, but which had no reasonableness at all as relating to a meeting to question me on matters of Divine truth, and which had no defensibility at all after agreement to come. It is the most elementary principle of righteousness that covenants must be kept. Even if one “swear to his own hurt” he must “change not.” In younger days, such a flagrant breach of decorum would have caused wrath and world-rousing efforts at rectification. But after a life time of weary fight with things that cannot be mended, I could but acquiesce with pity, and make the best of a bad job. In a large and silent room, I sat down with about six persons round a table and talked over the matters that had been brought into dispute. I answered a number of questions put in all candour and meekness by one brother Stephens. They principally related to the results accomplished by the death of Christ, and to the nature inherited from his mother as fitting him to accomplish those results. That nature, as pointed out, was human nature inheriting death from Adam for the very purpose of destroying the death that was destroying it. It was so testified: he took part of our identical flesh and blood “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil” (Heb. 2:14). “He died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10), or in other words, “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). The result at first was limited to himself. Death was certainly not vanquished outside of himself; hence it is that we must become united with him to obtain the benefit.

But the Cornish view, which is the Roman Catholic in a modified form, repudiates this arrangement of divine wisdom, and from feelings of mistaken reverence (presumably) revolts at the very idea of Jesus having been in any way related to sin. This is a zealous antipathy not inspired by knowledge. The statement that Christ will “appear the second time without sin unto salvation” looks back upon the fact that at his first coming he was “made sin for us who knew no sin” and “died unto sin once.” Feeling might just as well revolt as the idea of his having been related to man at all, for it was nothing but humilating and defiling to be born of woman, which was part of the Edenic penalty (that Eve should have children in sorrow). It is a mistake to allow sentiment to have place in the matter at all. It is truth and fact that we want, and in this matter, it is only by testimony that we can get at them. The testimony is plain: that Jesus was our very nature “in all points,” but a divine form of that nature for its redemption from death by death in righteousness. It is impossible to improve upon the definition of Paul that Christ died, that He (God) might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus (Rom. 3:26). The sacrifice of Christ shows us the justice of God working under the inspiration of the love of God, that the way might be open for forgiveness “through the forbearance of God” unto life eternal.

All this is twisted out of shape by the Cornish view, which says—“Christ died because he was killed: it was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins.” We cannot better demonstrate the serious nature of this departure from Gospel truth than by the exhibition of the following:—

Synopsis of the Spirit’s Teaching Concerning the Death of Christ.

1.—That death entered the World of mankind by Adam’s disobedience. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom. 5:12). “In (by or through) Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). “Through the offence of one many are dead” Rom. 5:15).

2.—That death came by decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence. “God made man in his own image . . a living soul (a body of life) . . very good” (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 1:31). “Because thou has harkened unto the voice of thy wife . . . unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:17, 19).

3.—Since that time, death has been a bodily law. “The body is dead because of sin” (Rom. 7:10). “The law of sin in my members . . . the body of this death” (Rom. 7:23, 24) “This mortal . . . . we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened” (1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Cor. 5:4). “Having the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead” (2 Cor. 1:9).

4.—The human body is therefore a body of death requiring redemption. “Waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). “He shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His own glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom 6:24). “This mortal (body) must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53)

5.—That the flesh resulting from the condemnation of human nature of death because of sin, has no good in itself, but requires to be illuminated from the outside.—“In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). “Sin dwelleth in me” (Ib. 7:20). “The law of sin which is in my members” (Ib. 23). Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights”—(James 1:17). “Out of the heart proceed proceed evil thoughts” (Matt. 15:19). “He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). “Put off the old man which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22).

(To be continued).

(See this synopsis in full in “The Melbourne Synopsis” below)

The Christadelphian September 1896

“The Melbourne Synopsis - The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” by Robert Roberts

The Christadelphian September 1896

Monday, December 30th. — To Manly Beach, at the bottom end of the harbour, in the morning. In the evening, to a festive meeting of the Sunday School, where I was called upon to make a speech and distribute the prizes. Several of the children recited poetical Scriptural pieces very nicely. At the close, I had proof handed to me of the tract which the brethren had decided to present (extract from my diary) in neutralisation of the false account Mr. Cornish was circulating of my meeting with him; also a copy of his scandalous pamphlet, noticed earlier in the Diary. The very title is an absurdity. How can a man be “unmasked,” who, however odious his personality may be to some people, always, in Scriptural relations, acts his own transparent character? But there are times when reason is as powerless as a whisper in the wind.

The Christadelphian September 1897

Tuesday, April 7th.—Devoting the morning to writing, I lectured in the evening to a very poor audience in a small and sombre hall: brother Gamble, from Leonard’s Hill, presiding, took off some of the gloom. I had been invited to debate with Cornish sympathisers, but considered the effort at Melbourne quite sufficient in that line.

“A Second Voyage to Australia”

Robert Roberts

The Christadelphian September 1898

The Ballarat brethren asked me to their city with two objects—to present the truth to the public in two lectures, and to make an effort to promote re-union with the few who had gone out on the Cornish heresy. The latter was attended to first. A meeting of both sides took place in the house of brother Close (16, Bond Street) on the evening of my arrival (Tuesday, May 3rd). The meeting took a conversational form. The difficulty was wholly doctrinal—that is, there was no personal misunderstanding or incompatibility to get over. It was wholly a question of how we were to regard the nature of Christ in the days of his flesh. The brethren with brother Close accepted the testimony of the apostles that Christ was the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). and of the same flesh and blood as his brethren (Heb 2:14), and tempted in all points like to them, though without sin (Heb. 4:15); that he was sent forth in this nature that the power of death in it might be destroyed in his person (Heb. 2:14) by sacrifice (Heb. 2:14; 9:26), God requiring first that that sin might thus be condemned in its own flesh, and the right-eousness of God declared in the shedding of his blood be as a basis for forgiveness (Rom. 8:3; 3:25). The separated brethren, while also accepting this testimony, could not bring themselves to apply the term “sinful flesh” to the flesh of Christ, seeing he “did no sin.” They admitted that human nature was sinful flesh, and that the body of Jesus was human nature; but, by some unaccountable flaw of logic, they objected to the application of the same description. So far as their scruple was due to feelings of reverence for the Lord Jesus, I told them, it was to be respected; but that these feelings in this case misled them—and misled them to their hurt—seeing the thing denied was the very thing that qualified the Lord Jesus to be an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world. His sacrifice was putting of condemned and sinful human nature out of the way—“that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Rom. 6:6, 10); and if he did not possess that nature, the very thing aimed at was not done.

The relation of the death of Christ to the removal of the curse of the law illustrates this. He took the curse of the law out of the way—not by being put to death substitutionally for others, but by coming under it in his own person (see Gal. 3:13; Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:22), “Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” So he took away the curse of death by bearing it in his own person. It was “for us,” but that was how it was done—in himself. But when it is said the curse was not there, and that his flesh was not sinful flesh, it deprives the death of Christ of its divine meaning.

I pointed out that with such a view they could not give a reason for the death of Christ. To say that “Christ died because he was killed,” was to deal only with the physical exterior of the event; there was a spiritual meaning to it, which was its all-important essence—a spiritual meaning fore-shadowed in all the law, namely: That God must be glorified before man can be saved. Man is to be saved through forgiveness; but this forgiveness He (God) requires to be preceded by the effectual assertion of His supremacy in the death of man in the person of one with whom He is well pleased and whom He can raise in harmony with the law which makes death the wages of sin. Such an one he had to provide himself, for all others had “sinned and come short of the glory of God.” He did provide him in the generation of a Son of his own in the Adamic nature of Mary. The Son resulting from the operation of the Spirit of God upon a human mother exhibited the combination, otherwise impossible—a combination essential to the salvation of man—the combination of spotless character with sinful flesh. The separated brethren did not discriminate sufficiently between character and nature. They seemed to think that sinless character must have had sinless flesh; where-as the very glory of the triumph lay in the perfect subjection to righteousness of a nature inherently sinful. There could have been no victory if no enemy; no “overcome” if there was nothing to overcome. If it is thought more honouring to Christ to say that his flesh was free from stain, it ought to be considered more honouring to say he was free from weakness, notwithstanding that weakness is affirmed (2 Cor. 13:4). But in fact, it is not a question of what we may consider “honouring.” It is a question of what is true and what the wisdom of God has appointed.

Ecclesial Intelligence Reports

The Christadelphian February 1891

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

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

The Christadelphian April 1894

Melbourne.—“… We would warn the Colonial brethren and sisters against the doctrines promulgated by Mr. George Cornish, late of Bristol, England, but now resident in Melbourne. The report of ecclesial withdrawal from him will be found on page 73 Christadelphian for February, 1891. Some of the doctrines enumerated there he professes to have abandoned, but his doctrines still are negations of the Truth. They are the echoes of Renunciationism.—[Ed.]

The Christadelphian October 1894

Melbourne.—... Some have forsaken the right way, having been assured by the error of anti-Christ, promulgated by George Cornish.

The Christadelphian December 1894

Melbourne.—... “The ecclesia throughout the world is being severely tried and sifted. The truth is being attacked at various points, and quite a number in Melbourne have been carried away by the sophistry of Mr. G. Cornish, late of Bristol. We have, however, cause for thankfulness to our Father in heaven that a large majority have remained faithful to the truth, as doubtless you will have been informed (ere this reaches you) through our recording brother. You have our fullest sympathy in the position you have been obliged to occupy in reference to the Responsibility Question.

The Christadelphian October 1895

Melbourne.—… By the mutual consent of the Bendigo and Melbourne ecclesia, three brethren were sent from Melbourne to Bendigo to compass an interview on the matter of fellowship between the two ecclesias. It was found that the majority of the Bendigo ecclesia had either embraced or were content to fellowship the Babylonish heresy of Geo. Cornish. Only five now meet together on the truth’s basis in Bendigo. Their names are brother and sister Packwood, sister S. Patey, and brother and sister Hardinge. The last-mentioned brother and sister are the same brother and sister Hardinge belonging to the Windsor ecclesia ten years ago, and who, after an absence from the brotherhood for some time, were recently received into fellowship by the Bendigo ecclesia.

The Christadelphian March 1896

Books, Pamphlets, MSS., &c., received during the Month

A pamphlet of some 100 pages by George Cornish, of Melbourne, entitled, “The Editor of the Christadelphian unmasked.” The most flagrant case of the “beating of a fellow-servant” that it has ever been brother Walker’s misfortune to witness. The Editor has never worn a mask; he may be trusted not to return “railing for railing.” The matter in dispute between Mr. Cornish and the brethren is the Nature of Christ. The Editor had some interviews with those who have been misled on the subject in Melbourne, and before leaving Australia managed to issue a short paper on “The Meaning of the Sacrifice of Christ.”—Bible Shield and Reflector for December, 1895.

The Christadelphian June 1897

BRISTOL.—(Oddfellows’ Hall, Rupert Street, near Christmas Steps. Sundays, 11 a.m., 3 p.m., and 6.30 p.m.; Wednesdays, Bible Study. 7.30 p.m.)—“… Sister S. Miles has also left our fellowship and joined those who hold the Cornish theory of the nature of Christ.

The Christadelphian July 1905

Coburg (Vic.).—Oddfellows’ Hall, Sydney Road.—… We wish to place on record that we have no sympathy with the new departure in doctrine initiated by the Shield, in its endeavour to unite to the truth the spuriousness of Turney and Cornish. Paul’s injunction to Timothy suits the Australian ecclesias at present, “Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).—H. Robertson.

The Christadelphian March 1909

KELSO.—Forrester’s Hall. Breaking of Bread, 11 a.m.—… We are sorry to begin the new year with having to withdraw from brother Scott, through his holding the Cornish ideas on free life and the nature of man.