MEETING, JANUARY 19TH, 1906 - PLAINFIELD.

^[p. 34] MEETING, JANUARY 19TH, 1906 — PLAINFIELD.

Present: James Boyd, James Taylor, B. T. Fawcett, A. R. Steven, W. L. Perrin, Frank Lock. Notes made subsequently within the next few days by B.T.F., A.R.S., W.L.P., F.L., and initialled by them.

JB was asked if his mind had changed since the matters were inquired into in the house of J.T. in Brooklyn. He replied that certain explanations had been given there regarding the meaning of statements which had been made and that it was then claimed the meaning was not that which the words had been taken to convey but that he found on going over the country that the meaning charged had been accepted by saints in some parts and that the acceptance of them amounted to a system of heresy. He was asked had he any proof to furnish that what he had just stated was correct? He admitted that he had no proof and in the absence of proof J.T. claimed that the charge should be set aside and not considered. J.T. then enquired if J.B. still admitted that the gospel referred not only to Christ but to things down here? After considerable discussion and questioning it was eventually made clear that there was a distinction made between the term ‘gospel’ as ordinarily used for the proclamation to the heathen or the unconverted and the gospel as embracing all that was in the mind of God as blessing for man. J.T claimed that this was in his mind from the outset as evidenced in his first letter to J.B. when he had made the point of the kingdom, the church, the house and the Holy Spirit being down here and this in itself was proof that the full scope of the gospel was in J.T.’s mind from the outset.

The Notes themselves were referred to, to substantiate that this was so. As to the actual question itself, Does the gospel not only refer to Christ as the Subject but also to things down here; this was again discussed, J.B. affirming that the kingdom referred to what was established in heaven. J.T. pointed out that the kingdom of heaven signified authority in heaven that the kingdom of God was potency or power, that the power was on earth in the Person of the Holy Spirit. As to the Holy Spirit mentioned in connection with the gospel, J.B. claimed that the Holy Spirit was only mentioned once, in Acts 2. J.T replied that Scripture did not require to repeat itself, that one allusion was perfectly sufficient, that it was again mentioned in verse 38 “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. The Lord Himself furthermore spoke of the Spirit to the woman of Samaria who was not a Christian and in Revelation 22: 17 it is said “And whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely”. It was conceded by J.B. that the gospel in its full scope did allude to things down here.

JB had objected to J.T.’s statement that the gospel referred to things down here and insisted that it referred to Christ. J.T. did not deny it referred to Christ, but held it to be a vital point in Christianity that it referred to things down here, such as the presence of the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, etc. After much discussion it became apparent as before said that J.B. divided the gospel into two parts, viz. the proclamation and the teaching while J.T. in using the term gospel included both. J.T. said if he were putting the gospel before a sinner he would point them to Christ, but if to a converted man he would refer to the presence of the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, etc.

Objection was made to the Woodstock Notes that the Lord had His forces down here, but the point was explained as having reference to the divine power of the Holy Spirit.

The statement that salvation is found in the church was next alluded to. J.B. objected to this because no actual text of Scripture could be cited in support. J.T. claimed that he did not place his faith on an isolated text of Scripture but rather on the whole testimony of God — that the house was dependent on the presence of the Holy Spirit here — doctrine should not be limited to the New Testament. All Scripture was given for doctrine, etc. Zion did not strictly refer to the church, yet the elements found in Zion were found in the church. In the Old Testament, salvation was found in Zion — her walls were salvation. The main features of the church as dwelling-place of God are in Zion. In Acts 2 are the features of the assembly “and the Lord added to the church those that should be saved”. J.B. would not go with this, because no actual texts of Scripture were produced and insisted on the contrary quoting, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”.

JB objected to the statement of J.T. that salvation was in ^[p. 36] the church. J.T. fully agreed that salvation is in Christ. J.B. asked for one scripture that would support that salvation was in the church and discussion must cease if he could not support his statement with direct Scripture. J.T. supported his view from the standpoint of the city of refuge, salvation being in Zion and the Lord added to the church such as should be saved.

The subject of building was considered. J.B. affirmed that J.T. had stated in Brooklyn that there was nothing to preach about until the Holy Spirit came. J.T. on the other hand claimed the form of expression used by him was in the shape of a question, viz. ‘What was there to preach about before the Holy Spirit came?’ He contended that there was nothing of practical help for man until the building was formed. It was here conceded by both J.B. and J.T. that the preaching alluded to was not the preaching of the Lord Himself while He was on earth, but apostolic preaching. J.B.’s thought regarding the building was that it was formed before the Holy Spirit came; to this J.T. objected because there was no ‘cement’, the material was there, the stones were there but it required the Holy Spirit to cement them together. In the Old Testament David had to do with the preparation of the material but Solomon as the type of a risen and glorified Christ constructed the edifice.

JT laid special stress on the presence of the Holy Spirit and cited Peter in Acts 2 to prove his point where Peter referred to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. J.B. held he only alluded to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in answer to the accusation of the onlookers “these men are full of new wine” and that the exaltation of Christ was the point. J.T. fully went with the exaltation of Christ and pointed out that it was the exalted Christ who had sent down the Holy Spirit and that the house was formed by His coming down. J.B. held the house was there before He came. They both agreed that after the house was formed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit that in Him the power was given which enabled the servants to go out from Jerusalem. Between the ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit no one could be saved.

A considerable time was taken to unfold the main features of Acts 1 and 2 for the clearing of other questioners than J.B. One noticeable fact was pressed by J.T. that the Lord, a divine Person, had left the earth and there was no preaching until ^[p. 37] another divine Person the Holy Spirit took up His abode here.

JB referred to brethren at different places refusing him and taking the ground that they would receive no teacher who was not in line with J.T. Such a thing he could not go on with and he characterised it as evil and this was the fault of J.T.’s teaching. J.T. objected to this and said it was individuals who were at fault and that he, J.B., should try and get them right. J.T. asked him if he thought assemblies throughout the country would take this ground and J.B. replied that he did not think so. Thus it was a question of getting the individuals right.

FL after a considerable pause said, ‘Where shall we next meet again? as likely as not in the Lord’s presence’. J.T. then said to J.B. that he was willing to walk with him, that when statements of his were made that had caused difficulties he was willing to modify them as far as in his power. Seeing that J.B. admitted that the full scope of the gospel referred not only to Christ but to things down here, he could go on with J.B. and although their residence was too far apart to bring them in actual contact he would have sympathy with him in the ministry. He then asked J.B., ‘Can you go on with me?’ to which J.B. replied, ‘Yes I can’. He, J.B., wound up by saying that it was not a question of disfellowshipping brethren here when he said he could not go on with them, but that the whole would have to be left to await development.

The letter written from Woodstock to J.B. was taken up. J.T. pointed out that the brethren there having seen J.B.’s reply to the Woodstock Notes in which it was said ‘the gospel did not refer to things down here’, felt that unless the criticism were modified it would be happier that J.B. would not be present at the conference.

As to what had occurred at Chicago and Minneapolis the circumstances were gone into in detail. The request that J.B. should not visit these places was simply a precautionary one to avoid trouble — teaching and doctrine was not the point. It was simply feared that the effect of J.B.’s presence might cause difficulty among the saints.

It was evident from the statements made by both J.B. and J.T. that there had been much misunderstanding of facts on both sides as to the attitude of each in advising others, etc., and that had the facts been known to them much which caused difficulty would have been avoided. All parted in a kindly spirit individually.