BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 8TH, 1937

BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 8TH, 1937

Mr. Herbert Gill.

Beloved Brother, — I received your two letters late Saturday night and they are very interesting to me. I have made the correction which you desired.

My wife and I are sympathetic with you in your feelings as regards what has happened in Westfield, knowing your long friendship with ——— . Our longer and more direct acquaintance with our brother, occasions a different viewpoint, much more different than you are aware of. During the past fifteen years or so ——— has occasioned me more genuine concern than any other brother. One sorrowful circumstance after another, which are now known to many, has occasioned conflict, as one felt before the Lord obliged to have to contend against doctrines and principles that tended to darken and divide the saints. The principal instances are his teaching many years ago as to the departed saints, which was unscriptural and tended to spiritism; then his view that we continue to grow after receiving our glorified bodies. Then his widely circulated paper on boundaries governing the meetings of the saints, also shown to be unscriptural; with this was his support of ——— in a movement that also was calculated to divide the saints; then the serious erroneous advice he furnished in Chicago, and now his course which has culminated so disastrously. After much conflict and heart burning, adjustments were reached as to most of these instances, in no case in an entirely satisfactory sense. There can be no doubt that all this is in mind in our brother being allowed of the Lord to pursue the refusal of what is right in a partisan way ending in the present sorrow. ——— is now said to be quite ill and I am ^[p. 67] certainly sympathetic with him in his bodily affliction. In the minds of some, his illness is effecting bias and endangering a clear view of the truth involved.

It is quite true, as you say, that the ‘crux of things is what has been said or done as against ———’. This is true. But the use of the name of a brother in the matter does not affect the truth involved in the course pursued. The brother could be easily left with the Lord and however much he might suffer from the opposition to him, would be turned to good account in the end. But in what has transpired the enemy has had a wider thought than to attack one brother, namely to legalise by precedent certain principles and methods that would lower the whole standard amongst us. Thus whilst the eyes of certain brethren were on this brother, the enemy was diverting them from the truth in the methods they employed against him. This is what led to the exercise in which, I suppose, I had a leading part. I conveyed it in letters from England, as the false procedure began in the summer of 1935, and spoke of it to the leading brothers in New York and Westfield, as I returned to New York in August 1935. I pointed out then the unsupported charges made by the New York brethren and received by the Westfield brethren. If these charges had been withdrawn then, I should have been more than thankful to leave all else in the Lord’s hands, but they were allowed to stand for a whole year. Nothing whatever was done in either meeting to meet my exercise. Still I left the matter, placing it in His hands, trusting that the Lord would overrule and indeed bring all the brethren around to the truth.

But after the whole primary matter of the New York letters to Westfield and Knoxville was adjusted and ——— was formally owned all around to be free among the brethren, an effort was made of restriction at Westfield. This was by a group of brothers who fully admitted to me that ——— had the same status as they had. Again, perhaps, I took the lead in inquiring from Westfield as to this matter. There was no question of ——— but of dealing with the condition there which was trenching on the Lord’s rights and which if allowed to proceed would establish a precedent in the Lord’s service, namely that a group of brothers can legitimately interfere with a brother in his service because of their feeling. The leading brother with ——— said they expected to be inquired of before ——— should be allowed to preach. This was occasioned by an invitation ^[p. 68] to him to go to Manchester, Connecticut In spite of the truth being brought to bear upon them, this group of brothers continued interference in this way for many months.

The New York letter of withdrawal to Westfield accentuated all this and also the error in Westfield of procedure founded on false information. Shortly after the withdrawal of the New York letter some brothers in Westfield who had taken strong part in the whole proceedings, owned their error, making a full, open confession with contrition. This was further testimony to the consciences of the others, but they refused to heed it and disregarded all entreaties to own their part as well and clear the meeting, and they continued, up to the time of withdrawal from them by their brethren at Westfield, in this attitude.

Thus you will see that nothing was precipitated in the action of withdrawal, but the contrary, for the evil in which these brothers had part began to be laid on their consciences more than a year and a half ago. In view of all these things the truth is apparent, the brethren in these parts generally recognise it, so that fellowship is extended by the nearby meetings to the brethren continuing on at Westfield.

Instead of sending you copies of letters and statements, I thought well to write you as above, so that you might have the position as it stands before God and the consciences of the saints clearly before you.

My wife unites in love in Christ to Mrs. Gill and you all.

Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.