Bro C. P.Wauchope was a well respected brother in the Adelaide Ecclesia and became editor of The Shield Magazine in 1928. In 1925 bro C. P. Wauchope visited the U.K. to pursue the “Peace endeavours put forth by The Adelaide Ecclesia” that proposed a reunion where both the Shield Clean Flesh and Central views on the Atonement could coexist together in fellowship. Bro C. P. Wauchopes views on fellowship are outlined in “Fellowship and Ecclesial Peace”.

Bro CC Walker described the proposal as “union without unity of mind” and “reunion on the basis of agreement to differ”. Bro CP Wauchope was not received into fellowship by the Central ecclesias because of his support of the Clean Flesh teachings of Bro John Bell

The Christadelphian, August 1925, C. C. Walker

“Union Without Unity of Mind”

This is what appears to be the state of things at which brother C. P. Wauchope is aiming in his visit to Britain. He has held two meetings in Birmingham, and we are informed proposes to hold a third. He deprecates “controversy,” in which we think he take a wrong course. According to Jude, “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). This cannot be done without “controversy.” As indicated in another place in this issue, the apostle John was very intolerant in the matter of the reception of any who proposed to improve upon the teaching of Christ. There is division upon this matter in brother Wauchope’s own country and we would be only too glad if he could scripturally heal it and then approach us. But to ask us to ignore it is useless. It is quite possible that such an agitation will produce further strife and division, but it is impossible that it can produce a scriptural reunion. For our own part we intend to “contend earnestly for the faith” as long as we live, regardless alike of extremes of hypercriticism and latitudinarianism, and with a single eye to the judgment seat of Christ.

The Christadelphian, September 1925, C. C. Walker

“Union and Unity”

We said a word or two last month about the place and functions of heresies and heretics. “There must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:18, 19). How so? By toleration of heresies and heretics and a policy of peace at any price? By no means. By “refusal,” “rejection,” “avoidance.” But in what spirit? In the Christ spirit surely. How did he behave in the midst of heresies and heretics. He sought and made no set quarrels with Pharisees and Sadducees, Scribes and Lawyers, but went about preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God and doing good, and at last as a human reward for such a course of life was “crucified dead and buried.” “Then said I, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God” (Isa. 49:4). But when divine principles were challenged by Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and Lawyers there was no hesitation on the part of Christ. He drew “the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God” and fought and vanquished them at once. Even among the twelve one was a Satan and another a devil who had to come under the sword, one only for the wounding the other for death. He did not contemplate unity in the days of the flesh but “division” that is among professors of his name in general. He looked to the end for unity when the sanctified by the word of God’s truth should be gathered together in him in glory (John 17.). In this imperfect state that is heavens high above us. The most we can hope for now, is that men and women like-minded in Christ, will to the best of their endeavours “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) by walking worthily of the vocation wherewith they are called (verse 1). “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). The language of the apostle sadly contemplates here a task of more than ordinary difficulty.

The Christadelphian, November 1925, C. C. Walker

“Union Without Unity of Mind”

We have received the following letter:—

Dear Brother Walker,—Peace and joy be to you in the name of Jesus. I am writing with regard to the effort for the unity of the brethren through brother Wauchope. I have had the privilege of listening to two addresses by him and have not been able to find any scriptural reason why we should not be one united body presenting a united front to the world in the cause of Christ.

We in — have never associated ourselves with the division which we all deeply deplore, feeling it is not in harmony with the spirit of Christ. We have no printed basis of faith; our basis of faith is the scriptures themselves, believing they are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. We endorse the statement on cover of The Christadelphian, “The Bible true, wholly inspired and infallible.”

Now, dear brother, as far as we know, all the brethren in association with the Suffolk Street meeting are in sympathy with brother Wauchope’s mission. We are anxious to know what stands in the way of unity. Will you make it plain in the next issue of The Christadelphian if there is any obstacle, or what are the difficulties in the way, for in keeping open this division we are not manifesting the spirit of our Master, who not only commanded we should love one another, but also prayed that the believers might be one as he and his Father.

In reply we have to say:—

Dear Brother, —I also wish you “peace and joy in the name of Jesus” if you observe the divine conditions which are indicated by James in his epistle, chapter 3.

“Where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure then peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality (without wrangling, variance or doubtfulness—see margin and R.V.) and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace” (verses 16–18).

While sympathising to a considerable degree with brother Wauchope, I have to complain that he is seeking a “peaceable” condition without sufficient regard to this apostolically enjoined “purity.” In a word, “union without unity of mind” (see The Christadelphian, Aug., p. 374; Sept., p. 414).

You say you in — “have never associated yourselves with the division.” What does this mean? Forty years ago a brother, now dead, who before his death left the Truth and relapsed into Spiritualism, introduced the doctrine of partial inspiration. And another supplemented it with the doctrine of erring inspiration; both of which doctrines are current to-day and considered quite respectable. I do not say where or by whom. Are you prepared to tolerate them?

You say, “We have no printed basis of faith, our basis is the scriptures themselves.” The Church of England says the same, quite beautifully and emphatically (Article VI.). Why should we be separated from it? We told brother Wauchope plainly that if we were of his mind we would not be separated from it, but would sit down in silence and enjoy the Truth to ourselves, and tolerate the falsities of fellow worshippers. Why did we do otherwise between forty and fifty years ago? Because we were not “of one mind” (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27) with our “parson” (whom we loved) and his flock. Therefore, although he said he “saw no reason why we should not worship with him”—notwithstanding our emphatically expressed unbelief in the doctrines of the immortality of the soul, heaven going, hell fire, the Trinity, the supernatural Devil, etc., etc.—we “came out” (2 Cor. 6:17; Isa. 52:11; Rev. 18:4; Gen. 12:1.—See Bible Finger Post, No. 12. We suffered pain and loss, and have been engaged in “controversy” ever since. How could it be otherwise?

You say, “We endorse the statement on the cover of The Christadelphian, ‘The Bible true, wholly inspired and infallible.’” I am glad to hear it. But there are those professing our name who are by no means prepared to endorse it. If you doubt this, try to secure the adoption of the first paragraph of our “Statement of the Faith forming our Basis of Fellowship,” entitled “The Foundation.” You will not find “one mind” concerning it, and according to brother Wauchope you need not. He proposed “silence for controversy; the Christ mind in place of that then existing; a truce instead of conflicts” (his own report of Midland Institute meeting of June 15th). Now the Christ mind was full of controversy—Light versus darkness—Truth versus lies. Our brother should not judge us un-Christlike because we are involved in controversy!

It is not only “the Inspiration Question” that is the trouble. There is the modified “Renunciationism” of fifty years ago; and the Non-Resurrectional Responsibility Question of thirty years ago. On these brother Wauchope (so we are credibly informed) positively refuses to commit himself. (If we are wrong we will gladly publish his denial. How can there be “Reunion” in such a case? If there were, it would lack the first requisites of apostolic stability: “Unity of mind,” “First Pure.” There is not “reunion.” There is continued strife and division. We will strive for “Unity of Mind,” but we will take no part in efforts for “Reunion” based upon agreed toleration of false doctrine. If brother Wauchope and the Adelaide ecclesia have definitely joined the tolerationists let them say so definitely, and we shall all know where we are.

The Christadelphian, March 1930, C. C. Walker

“Proposed Re-Union on the Basis of Agreement to Differ”

This is really and truly what is being advocated by some at the present time. Not many put it so plainly as does brother Wauchope, of Adelaide, who is on another world tour and is expected in England some time after the middle of April. He is in fellowship with the Suffolk Street Ecclesia, Birmingham. Giving particulars of his journey he says in The Shield for February, p. 44:—

“We learn that some will expect us to state which Statement of Faith we accept. There is no change since our former trip. The Australian ecclesias use the ‘Amended.’ But no Statement of Faith is a passport to the Kingdom, nor can it be a basis of fellowship. We are ‘determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.’ We decline contention over Statements of Faith all of which are good when not used arbitrarily.”

The practical outworking of such a profession will be the toleration of all sorts of error for the sake of peace. It this should seem to be too drastic a statement, we call attention to the following joint letter of four brethren, formerly of the Suffolk Street fellowship, who are moved by existing agitation “to draw attention to the difficulties which exist in the way of re-union.”

March, 1930.

The Christadelphian, August 1931, C. C. Walker

“The Late Bro Bell and Error”

Brother Wauchope errs in saying that we declared that brother Bell “did not hold error.” We declared the contrary. He printed and published the statement that Jesus in the days of his flesh was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners in every sense of the term.” This was and is error.

It was alleged that the deceased changed his mind, and we said that we would print and publish anything that might be produced from his papers to show that such was the case.

In the Shield, for June, 1931, p. 121, we are now referred to the issue for February, 1906, p. 28, whence the following extract from brother Bell’s writings is quoted:—

“We have said that we hold Jesus to have been clean ‘in every sense.’ Much exception has been taken to this by those who are resolved to make us heretic, even at the cost of misunderstanding wilfully or stupidly what we are contending for. Our contention was, and is, that in his [Jesus’s] make-up or constitution God used only clean material, so that he was in structure clean, and that he kept this cleanness undefiled by personal sin right till the end, being thus fitted for a perfect sacrifice. As against this it is held [by others], that an element called “sin in the flesh’ was worked into the make-up of Jesus by inheritance from Adam, into whom God implanted it as a punishment, so that he [Jesus] was involuntarily defiled. We say this is not only false in fact, but violates the requirements of reason . . . But if it be held that Jesus was defiled because of the imputation to him of all the national sins as prophesied in Isaiah 53., and that so he had to be cleansed, let it be clearly understood that we neither object to this, nor have we ever taught contrary to it. All that we ask is that men would discern between such an external imputative defilement and that of an unclean composition. Therefore we should perhaps not have said that we held Jesus undefiled ‘in every sense’ and modify our sayings to that extent.”

This, then (says brother Wauchope), is “chapter and verse,” in one instance, asked for by brother Walker, and we are pleased to be able to produce it to prevent further misrepresentation of our deceased brother Bell.

We have fulfilled our “promise”; but the extent of the late brother’s “modification” of his “sayings” must be left to the judgment of our readers. For ourselves the “modification” is as unsatisfactory as the original “sayings.

The Christadelphian, September 1931, C. C. Walker

“The Late Bro Bell and Error”

See the full article at John Bell and Clean Flesh Error

… It was because of brother Wauchope’s association with brother Bell’s thesis, above defined, that he was not received by the Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia. Whereupon he was immediately received by the Suffolk Street Ecclesia.

What is the use of talking about “one mind” under such conditions, and “the restoration of ecclesial unity”? Let us at least be honest with one another.

The Christadelphian, January 1933

“Not ‘Of One Mind’”

We are continually being blamed for “hindering reunion,” and especially at this time of year. We are sorry, but the real cause of disunion is the lack of unity of mind. A brother has written to the editor of the Fraternal Visitor the following letter, which illustrates the situation:—

Dear Brother Turner,

An article by a brother Lees in the September Fraternal Visitor concludes with the assertion that “all our divisions are really about nothing.”

The name recalls an incident at the Edinburgh Bible Class at which I was present in 1900. Commenting upon the words, “Blessed be the Lord which teacheth my hands to war and my fingers to fight,” a brother of the same name as your contributor said, “I do not like to think God inspired this, I rather like to think it out of David’s own heart.” Brother C. Smith objected to this.

Official brethren of the North London meeting in your fellowship assured me that there was no difference as to the Divine inspiration of the scriptures between the divided meetings. Coming among you I soon found that their statement was untrue.

In the North, North-west and South London meetings official brethren uttered denials of the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Writ.

Here are a few:—

• Some imprecatory Psalms are not inspired.

• Jeremiah erred in predicting that Zedekiah would “die in peace.”

• The Lord did not inspire Malachi to state, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.”

• Matthew erred in applying several prophecies to Christ, in his opening chapters.

• The inscriptions on the cross were inaccurate.

• All the records of the transfiguration cannot be right.

In short, what brother Nesbit wrote in 1913, I found to be the mind of many. He asserted that “It cannot intelligently be said that the Bible is the Word of God. It was written by penmen and partook of the disabilities of the writers.”

The scriptures exhort us to “be sincere” that we may be without offence unto the day of Christ.

I submit that this element is lacking in statements made by the present elder editor, the past editors and contributors to the Fraternal Visitor when they represent that “our divisions are about nothing,” and that there “has been no Inspiration question”; they befog the issue, mislead the inexperienced, and lay themselves open to rebuke in the day of judgment.

Your contributor says that love would heal divisions. True, but one element of love is that it rejoices in the Truth. It does not gloss over error and say it never existed.

Permit me also to remark upon reflections you uttered in the October issue against brother Walker because he did not receive brother Wauchope into fellowship. Brother Walker avers that “sincere” scruples so compelled. You imagine ill motives, and are not afraid to hold him up to your readers as being “unjust and knowing no shame” in so doing.

Here are the facts upon which brother Walker had to decide:—

(1) The brother came from a party whose foremost member had long and violently repudiated an element of belief contained in the Temperance Hall basis of fellowship.

(2) He had made affinity with yourselves knowing that this also would be a barrier to receiving him because of the partial Inspiration question.

(3) He contended that unsound members of the body could not be denied access to the Table, but only be struck off membership of the ecclesia.

He knew that unless brother Walker could change his views on these points he could not consent to receive him. He knew, moreover, that brother Walker and those with him regard a basis of fellowship as limiting one’s ecclesial associates to those who approve it.

Complaint on the score of injustice is more than unreasonable. Brother Walker could not conscientiously have done other than he regretfully did.

Pray remember when speaking injuriously against a faithful brother that a day of judgment impends. Then the thoughts and intents of all hearts will be revealed. Those will be blessed then who keep judgment now.

Yours fraternally,

R.H.F.

The Christadelphian, May 1932, C. C. Walker

“The Death of Brother Wauchope”

Brother C. P. Wauchope died suddenly at Adelaide, South Australia, on Saturday, March 26th. The news was conveyed in a cable message to brother T. Turner of the Fraternal Visitor, the same day.

Brother Wauchope’s obedience to the Truth in baptism is thus reported in The Christadelphian for December, 1894, p. 483:—

Adelaide.—We again rejoice to be able to report cases of obedience: Charles Wauchope (27), formerly Congregationalist, and Florence Mansfield (17), formerly neutral, daughter of brother Mansfield. . . . They were immersed by brother Mansfield at his residence, Parkside, on October 4th . . . H. Mansfield, Jun.

From this it would appear that at the time of his death brother Wauchope was about sixty-five years of age.

In his Diary of a Voyage, covering the year 21st August, 1895—19th August, 1896, the late brother Roberts tells how he was in Sydney on New Year’s Day, 1896, and thence departed on January 2nd, and went across to New Zealand, travelling through the islands, and then across to Tasmania, whence he returned to Melbourne. Thence he journeyed to Ballarat and had an interview with the late sister of the present editor of The Christadelphian, but without effect so far as the Truth was concerned. From Ballarat on April 9th he took the night train for Adelaide and ““arrived next morning in the midst of a terrific storm.”

He spent about ten days in Adelaide, leaving on April 20th.

In his Diary, ch. 26., we read:—

Sunday, April 19th.—Large and interesting meeting at the breaking of bread in the morning. In the afternoon brother Walkup (sic., there is a kind of fatality about the spelling of the name. In the above cited intelligence it is Wancope.—Ed., C., ) brother Wauchope (a tall, spruce, intelligent and engaging young man, not long married, and having the enthusiastic appreciation of the truth that belongs to “first love”), and sometimes continues to the very last love (may it be so with him, which I should say is probable, from the nature of the “soil”) drove me out to the seaside at Henley, with sister Wauchope and an interested and interesting young lady friend. (God grant her the wisdom to embrace heartily the hope of Israel.) The day was fine, the drive beautiful, and the conversation gratifying. In the evening there was a crowded meeting to hear a lecture on Jewish movements, and prospects betokening the near approach of the Kingdom of God . . .

“Sister Wauchope” of the above reference died; and brother Wauchope married sister Bell, the sister of the late brother John Bell, of Sydney. And about a year before the death of brother Bell in 1928, he took over The Shield, which he has edited ever since.

The present editor of The Christadelphian met brother Wauchope for the first time in 1925, on the occasion of his first visit to Britain, and was drawn to him as was the late editor some thirty years previously. But in view of the heresies and strifes current, it was quite impossible to fall in with his “peace at any price” campaign for the re-union of divided ecclesias. It was a grief of mind to have to say this to him, and to act accordingly. But it was only one more of many such griefs, and the end is near. For him it has come, and the “dwelling together in unity” in “life for evermore” is coming (Psa. 133.). If the Lord should “command this blessing” both for the deceased and the present writer they will both very readily pardon each other’s sincere scruples in the evil days of the flesh.—Ed.

The Christadelphian, September 1932, C. C. Walker

“A Letter From Adelaide”

June 17th, 1932.

Dear Brother Walker,

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ.

At our Arranging Brethren, meeting held on Monday evening last your notice in regard to our late brother Wauchope’s death was brought under review and the writer was instructed to forward the following resolution:—

“That having read the reference by the Editor of The Christadelphian (May, 1932) in respect to the death of brother C. P. Wauchope, we advise him that the phrase, ‘Peace at any price,’ applied to the campaign for the reunion of divided ecclesias conducted on behalf of this ecclesia by brother Wauchope is directly contrary to truth and therefore offensive to us, having been, we believe, repudiated before. That the unity movement is based on the principle of purity both in belief and practice and purity in either aspect is attainable only in the spirit of Christ and not by misrepresentation of facts. Our attitude is summarised in the resolution of July 17th, 1924. This ecclesia maintains that while upholding the purity of the Truth in doctrine and practice, we are also called as Christ’s brethren to be at peace among ourselves. That we request the early correction of the misstatement.”

On behalf of the Arranging Brethren,

Yours in Christ’s service,

J. Mansfield, Sen.

Reply

We have re-read our remarks on pp. 229–230 of the May issue, and find nothing to correct. We told the late brother Wauchope in the presence of witnesses that if we were of his mind we should still be found in “the church,” holding our own views of “the Truth.” We should be quite welcome there on these conditions. It does not pertain to the Adelaide ecclesia to “reunite the divided ecclesias” on any basis, least of all upon its virtual declaration to the very much older and larger Birmingham Temperance Hall Ecclesia that it does not know what it has been doing these seventy years past! For that is really what the “campaign” amounted to. Actions speak louder than words. Man proposes, but God disposes. We are all in His hands, and the Lord is coming to judge us all.—Ed.

Ecclesial Correspondence

The Christadelphian, September 1921

Perth.—We deeply regret having to report a division which has occurred in our midst, when the following brethren and sisters: Brethren C. H. Coops, D. F. Coops, J. Edward, E. Williams, W. Jones, R. Gee, S. Jewett, A. Edwards; sisters Adams, M. Adams, E. Coops, A. Coops, Gee, Edwards, Pilley, Williams, J. Jones, allied themselves with the meeting in fellowship with Regent Hall, represented by brother Bell, this being the outcome of a visit to this state of brethren Bell and Wauchope on a lecturing tour. The two meetings met in conference at the suggestion of brother Wauchope, at which they decided to amalgamate on the Amended Birmingham Basis. This we could not do, knowing the false doctrine which brother Bell and those in fellowship with him hold. We are grieved that they have departed from us, and pray that they may soon return to the Truth. Out of a meeting of 27 but 9 remain. We had a meeting later (at the close of one of their lectures) with brother Bell, who declared that there was no physical change in Adam’s nature after transgression. Since then we have been meeting in Maylands, at the home of sister Symington. We shall be pleased to meet any of the faith who are passing this way.—E. C. Foley.

The Christadelphian, August 1925

BRISTOL.—Christadelphian Hall, Backfields, York Street, Stokes Croft. Sundays, 11 a.m., 3 and 6.30 p.m. Wednesdays, 7.30 p.m.—Brother and sister C. Beake, formerly members of the Clevedon ecclesia, are now living at Rackwell, near Bristol, and are now members of this ecclesia. Brother H. Dearden (Swindon) visited us in the Truth’s service on July 5th, ministering to our spiritual upbuilding and lecturing to a good audience. Under favourable conditions our Sunday School outing took place on June 16th. The journey to Burnham-on-Sea was made by charabancs. Our party numbered 180, which included the Sunday School and brethren and sisters of the Bath ecclesia. A very enjoyable day was spent, crowded with incidents, including competitions and races on the sands, the prizes for which were distributed by brother A. Byrt, who also gave the accustomed address after tea. For the information of other ecclesias we report that we have been visited by brother and sister Wauchope (Adelaide, Australia). We were sorry to have to refuse them fellowship because of their association with others who hold unscriptural doctrines.—R. G. Bryant, Rec. Bro.

Buffalo.—Kingston Hall, 2,139, Seneca Street. Sundays: Lecture, 11 a.m.; Memorial Service, 12 noon; School, 10 a.m.—We greatly enjoyed a visit from brother and sister C. P. Wauchope (Adelaide, Australia), who stayed in Buffalo a few days in the early part of April. Our sympathies are with any effort to promote harmony in the brotherhood. Sister Annie Mayel (Hamilton, Ont.) was also a visitor in April.—Herbert A. Strickler, Sec.

[It should be noted that the Buffalo Ecclesia was the home of bro A. D. Strickler who’s booklet “Out of Darkness Into Light” 1921 was at this time causing much strife because of his Clean Flesh teachings. The Shield magazine endorsed bro A. D. Strickler’s views so it is no surprise to see that they received in fellowship bro C. P. Wauchope from the Shield Fellowship]

The Christadelphian, October 1934

VICTORIA (B.C.).—Orange Hall, Courtney Street. Sundays: 11 a.m. and 7.30 p.m.; School, 10. Thursdays, 7.45 p.m.—... I have been instructed to state our ecclesial position. Neither this ecclesia, nor any of its members, are responsible for the production of the Christadelphian Harbinger, published in this city anonymously. It is published by members of the Shrine Temple ecclesia. It has been brought to our notice that visitors have been induced to break bread with the Shrine Temple brethren on the plea that there is no difference between their position and ours. We would be glad if you would make known: First, The Shrine Hall has never accepted the Birmingham (Central) statement of faith, and basis of fellowship; second, It is in fellowship with the ecclesias represented by the Fraternal Visitor, The Shield, The Faith, and the Advocate, and is itself the source of the Harbinger.; third, It has accepted from the first the position of the late brother Wauchope, and preaches and practises the doctrine of open fellowship, a doctrine which the Orange Hall ecclesia has never accepted. We would ask visitors to bear these facts in mind.—Geo. Bone, Rec. Bro.