BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 20TH, 1936
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 20TH, 1936
Mr. O. Gresswell.
Beloved Brother, — Many thanks for your letter and renewed invitation. I am glad to have the items of information you furnish including what you mention of London.
I am sorry we shall be unable to spend a week-end with you at Hazellville. There are so few at our disposal in England this year that they were used up all too quickly, at Croydon, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Coventry and Peterborough. We ask [p. 30] your dear sister and you to forgive us. After Peterborough, whit Monday, we could come to you, if the Lord will, say on the Tuesday. I should not, however, be equal to a meeting on that evening but could we not stay over the Wednesday evening and attend a local reading, whichever is nearest, or as you may suggest? May we not leave the matter thus until we meet?
The news you send of Newcastle grieves me for I had heard of the purposed meeting of February 29th, and had hoped Wallsend was moving in the right direction. The reason for the cancellation of the meeting which you understood, namely, that Wesley Street brethren could not break bread with Mr. P——— and Mr. D——— , is, if correct, MOST distressing.
It is quite invalid as a cause for the abandonment of a meeting of brethren to consider a matter of such solemnity and extensive importance. The proposal would be the outcome of serious exercise before the Lord, not only at Wallsend but wherever the matter was known by brethren, and there would be solemn urgent waiting on God about it in the gatherings invited to attend. I cannot conceive of such a meeting without such exercises preceding it, and hence the abandonment of it causes deep concern. It seems wanting of priestly gravity and balance.
The fact that Wesley Street would not at the time break bread with Mr. P——— and Mr. D——— would, of course, be the occasion of enquiry at the meeting, but this is now a matter properly belonging to Wesley Street. Those at Wesley Street (formerly Eastwood) have proved themselves clear of the evil exposed in the old meeting, having consistently stood against it from the outset of its exposure, and are recognised, even by Wallsend, as clear in the matter, certainly by brethren generally who know the facts. The Lord owns them on this ground and would help them as to matters within their local responsibility, hence the reception of those two brothers should be left with them. The history of those brothers in relation to the whole difficulty makes this clearer. They identified themselves with those now at Pilgrim Street among whom the evil was exposed, later they left them, returning to those at Wesley Street (then at Eastwood), formally owning them as right; and then withdrew from them without scriptural warrant. They attacked them jointly in a circulated letter, and later again returned, at least P——— did, I am not sure whether D——— did. That such [p. 31] a meeting as was arranged should be cancelled because brethren who are directly responsible to the Lord in Newcastle cannot break bread with them is certainly beyond my understanding of priestly uprightness and humble recognition of the rights and responsibilities of others.
We all appreciate your sympathy in our bereavement.
My wife unites in love in Christ to your sister and you, also to the brethren.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.