BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 11TH, 1935
BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 11TH, 1935
Mr. H. E. Sargent.
Beloved Brother, — Thanks for yours of the 26th ult. Items 1 and 2 are indeed good news and I thank God for them. E.R., as you will know, is coming to America, the brethren in Los Angeles having invited him to go for their New Year Meetings. A.E.M. suggested him. We are looking to the Lord for our brother.
Your remarks as to Newcastle cause me some distress, for they are not in keeping with the facts of the case and the principles governing it. I note, however, that you say you should ‘hear the other side’. I hope you will, for as ‘knowing law’ you will surely be calling for ‘the law and the testimony’ as well as the facts of any matter requiring judgment. Without these, impressions received even from ‘sober brethren’ are not to be trusted. Mr. H. Peart, Newcastle, would, I believe,
[p. 19] furnish you with a fair statement of facts, and I advise you to write him.
Briefly, the facts are that a state came about in the Newcastle meeting hardly describable for badness through accusations of criminality being made against Mr. M——— and others by Mr. W——— in relation to a partnership between Mr. D——— and Mr. M——— . I attended a meeting of brothers in Newcastle some three and a half years ago when the matter was discussed and the state disclosed was, as I said, beyond words to describe. I pointed out to the brethren present that assembly conditions did not exist.
Later three brothers — Messrs. Davidson, Biggs and Malpas — by arrangement, both sides of the controversy agreeing, went to Newcastle and investigated the data involved. Their investigation brought out that the evil — false accusation of the most serious kind — was on the side of W——— . He owned his error, but afterwards refused to stand by this. Most of the meeting refused ‘the report’ of the three brothers, the leader at the time, Mr. T———l, writing against it; and it was later said to be ‘dead’.
As ‘the report’ — being accredited testimony, and proving evil in the meeting — was refused, nearly half of the saints withdrew and met at Eastwood, Mr. T———’s house. They thus proved themselves ‘clear in the matter’ of proved evil, and have maintained this. The course of the others, on the other hand, was confused and inconsistent. Acceptance of ‘the report’ began to be asserted by them; W——— was put under a kind of discipline; T———l withdrew, apparently judging his own course and that of those he had been associated with; although not long before this he had sought to incriminate me as refusing ‘assembly action’ because I had questioned the fairness of Wallsend’s placing both sides on the same ground.
Later a large proportion of those with B——— , W——— , etc., withdrew, and 13 brothers of them signed a paper condemning their previous position and justifying those at Eastwood in primarily withdrawing. P——— was one of these brothers. These, with those at Eastwood, now began to meet at the old room, as the others had vacated it. Afterwards P——— and those who had signed the paper above mentioned withdrew, speaking generally, each giving a different reason from the other. I saw all their letters and none of them, as far as I could see, afforded valid ground for withdrawing from their [p. 20] brethren. Since, some of those who left have returned, I understand, but not P——— ; he and a brother named D——— have been seeking to show that the testimony of two or three witnesses is refused by those now in the old room.
As regards the judgment of Wallsend, ‘the adjoining meeting’ to which you refer, what has marked their part in the whole matter does not inspire confidence. First, they designated all at Newcastle on the same level as leprous, or words to this effect. The unfairness of this being pointed out, they modified their judgment, and later owned that those with Messrs. T——— and P———t were technically right, but that their moral condition was not right. Mr. K——— sent me two lengthy memoranda, one dealing with those at Eastwood and the other with those at that time at the old room, and the trend was to justify the latter and condemn the former, and last summer he wrote to Mr. T———t (the latter showed me the letter) saying they at Wallsend were not going to open the flood-gates of evil in recognising those with Messrs. T——— and P———t — words to this effect. T———t, who has throughout supported Wallsend’s attitude, told me last summer that those with Mr. T——— had long been opposers of the truth. I told him I had been visiting Newcastle, staying with Mr. T——— , for 25 years and that I could not accept such a charge.
In view of above, Wallsend’s judgment cannot rightly be taken unquestioningly; nor is it supported generally by other adjacent meetings, including (as I understand) Jarrow, Sunderland, Darlington, W. Hartlepool. At a meeting in Wallsend of representative brothers from meetings in the district last August it was agreed ( ‘one or two prejudiced persons dissenting’ ) that ‘our brethren at Wesley Street are standing on right ground, that we ask them to do all possible to get some of the difficulties which have been advanced solved ... but further that we must be prepared, if it is not possible to remove these difficulties to accept the judgment of our brethren at Wesley Street as to these matters’. This was written by Mr. W——— , Darlington, and confirmed substantially to me by a letter from Mr. C——— , Glasgow, who was also present at the said meeting. If the brethren at Wesley Street are standing on right ground, and nothing tangible is advanced to prove that they are unfit for christian fellowship, they have a moral right (Revelation 22: 14) to take up their privileges which the judgment of Wallsend cannot deprive them of.
[p. 21] I have written more than intended primarily, but one thing after another seemed to need mentioning.
With love in Christ to Mrs. Sargent and you all,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.
I was glad to meet your brother-in-law at Vancouver in September. I cannot speak of definite interest in him, but it is encouraging that he came as far.