BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 26TH, 1937

BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 26TH, 1937

Mr. I——— .

My Dear Brother, — I have received copies of documents — mostly letters — signed principally by you, extending back to July, the last being dated October 21st, which came today.

I have been deeply concerned by their contents, especially those of the Report of the Assembly decision and the letter to of September 1st enlarging on and justifying it. In the letter you say the judgment was ‘reached in assembly, with the Lord in the midst based upon duly established facts as in the light of Scripture and in accord with the principles that are to control such matters and as led by the Spirit who is holy and who is the Spirit of truth, and we are told that no lie is of the truth. To this judgment all should bow’, etc., etc.

As matters stood before the judgment was reached ‘in assembly’ I felt I could leave matters, trusting that the Lord would in time clarify Mr. H————’s financial affairs; believing ^[p. 95] that the brethren in Columbus were sincerely assured that Mr. H——— was upright in his borrowings which I had no good ground for challenging and certainly had no wish to do so, indeed hoped, as I may say, against hope that this judgment was right, I maintained normal links with Mr. H——— .

But this ‘assembly judgment’ committing the Lord, the Holy Spirit and the assembly to unqualified approval of Mr. H———’s course of borrowings, changes — for me — the whole position. What has caused me anxiety as possibly involving dishonour to the Lord and His testimony has now been solemnly declared to be righteous ‘in assembly’ professedly with the Lord and the Holy Spirit in the midst. I might have written you earlier, but hesitated to do so, trusting what others had written might lead to the brethren reconsidering the matter, for, as Leviticus 4 shows, an assembly may err, and there is provision to adjust this. But your letter to Mr. H——— of the 21st inst. received today shows that you are thoroughly committed to the ‘judgment’, criticising those who do not accept it in very severe terms — terms which do not appear to me justifiable. You cite ‘information by one inside’ to incriminate Mr. M——— and his son. According to Scripture one witness is not enough in such matters.

Then Mr. A——— is said to be in ‘evident alliance with them and with other enemies’. Mr. A——— and other brethren are thus branded as enemies in a bad sense. This is not of God surely. And then Mr. A——— is spoken of as seeking illegal information. You do not show that what he did was illegal. If Mr. H——— owed Mr. A——— money the payment of which was long deferred on the ground that a certain asset was not yet turned into cash, it would not be illegal for the latter to make enquiry where he thought he could obtain information as to whether the supposed asset really existed, or was what it was said to be. Such a firm as Dun’s undertakes to supply such information and is regarded as perfectly legal in doing so.

The fact that Mr. H——— does not owe Mr. A——— money does not detract from what I write as to this matter. Mr. H——— owes money to several in fellowship and some not in fellowship, discrediting the testimony. This obligates Mr. A——— and all who are in fellowship, and surely it is not illegal to make ‘diligent inquisition’ for Scripture enjoins this.

Brethren should not be criticised for entertaining doubts as to what is alleged by Mr. H——— and his Toronto agent as to ^[p. 96] the value of the Fonetaire. The letters sent me from Mr. F——— were written on the stationery of the A.H. Institute. I certainly was influenced by this, for I assumed that such an Institution would write soberly on such a matter. But now I learn that the Institution is not handling the article, but that Mr. F——— is acting as Mr. H———’s agent or promoter, and, of course, it is to be expected that he would make much of what he was marketing. Then the fact that Mr. F——— , as he says, has not received remuneration for his work implies that this will be in the form of commission when the transaction is completed. If this be so it is exceedingly difficult to understand why he has allowed the Fonetaire to remain unsold for so many years. I have seen explanations, including the depression and illness, but good business conditions have existed since it was saleable and it would seem that such a large amount of money — according to Mr. F———’s own valuation — being involved he could find some way of disposing of an article so desirable. I mention all this to show that if brethren are sceptical about the matter, they have good reason to be, and Mr. H——— and all of you in Columbus should recognise this. In your letter of September 1st you assert in the strongest terms that the inventions were tangible, marketable assets. They were this according to you years ago and yet they have not been turned into money! Another thing is that if they are what you say, a bank should be ready to advance money on them. There are Institutions in this city more than ready to finance any commodity such as you and Mr. F——— describe. As I said, I write thus to show there is ground for doubt as to what is alleged of the Fonetaire. If, however, it yields as is professedly expected by its promoters, no one outside Mr. H———’s family will thank God more than I — both for our brother’s sake and that of the testimony.

As regards the use of Scripture in the Report, what is quoted bears mainly on the lender, whereas what Scripture enjoins directly or indirectly on the borrower should be also stressed. For in your deliberations the lenders were not present, the borrower was. Scripture enjoins that the believer is to owe no one anything except love. It says Israel should lend and not borrow. This would mean that as blessed of God they would not need to borrow; but it says that as not blessed (cursed indeed) of Him they would be obliged to borrow (Deuteronomy 28: 12, 44). Thus moral degradation attaches to one ^[p. 97] unable to pay his debts. If the Lord and the Holy Spirit had full place in the assembly meeting it seems to me that more emphasis would be placed on what Scripture teaches as to the borrower than what it says as to the lender, seeing, as I said, the latter were not present. In fact you could not reach a truly scriptural decision unless you had the direct testimony of all those who had claims against Mr. H——— .

I do urge therefore that you all reconsider this whole matter and see if you have not gone too far in your assembly judgment. Unless this is done brethren elsewhere, having such general facts and exercises based on them as they have, will be obliged to examine into the facts governing each borrowing transaction. It is certain that the ‘judgment’ cannot be accepted on its face value.

You may be assured that I write in the fear of God and for the good of the brethren at Columbus and for the good of the saints generally.

Faithfully yours in Christ,
James Taylor.