BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 26TH, 1906

BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 26TH, 1906

Mr. Joseph Boyt.

My Dear Mr. Boyt, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant.

I note what you say as to a party existing in Chicago, but you do not make clear (even if this be true) that I am responsible for it, although you seem to imply that I am. I feel responsible for what I have said, and I am prepared to answer for this at any time, but I disclaim being responsible for the use made by others of what I have said. Neither do I admit responsibility for the esteem in which I may be held by any of my brethren, whether this be favourable or adverse. Christendom is divided into sects, and many of these are formed by special adherence to some chosen doctrine of scripture, but this does not prove the doctrine wrong nor involve in any responsibility those through whom the doctrines in question may have come. I say this so that you may understand my point of view even if I admit the presence of a party, but at the same time you must not conclude that I am without the very greatest exercise as to the state of matters at Chicago. But although I hear a good deal of what has transpired in Chicago during the past few months I cannot say that anything has come under my notice which would lead me to treat as a party those whom you so stigmatise. I had been in contact with the saints there for some time and had found help from the Lord in seeking to minister the truth to them, they bearing witness of help received; but on arriving there last December I found a change had taken place with many of them: I found distrust and coldness where there had been hearty confidence and appreciation. Now, in saying this I hope you will understand that I was not occupied with myself or what I had sought to minister; I say it only to show that the divergence (if there was ^[p. 43] any) was rather with those who objected to the so-called party than with the party themselves, for I found the latter hearty and sympathetic with the truth. Of course if what they all (more or less) had enjoyed during the past year or two was not the truth it would be a different matter: if it was false and someone came along and exposed it, and then some adhering to it: this would constitute them offenders and unfit for fellowship. But the facts of the cases before us are very different: on going to Chicago Mr. Boyd was known to have said that the gospel did not refer to what is down here, and further that he had vehemently attacked what many in Chicago had enjoyed as the truth. It is true that the meeting here had (as was thought) adjusted all this but some at Chicago were doubtful of this, and the sequel proved that they were right. It is not wonderful therefore that they were fearful of Mr. Boyd. There is abundant evidence that the line he pursued in Chicago (as elsewhere) tended to discredit that which is connected with the Holy Spirit down here, and it should not be a matter of surprise that ardent young saints (such as those in question are) should resent it. At a meeting with Mr. Boyd since, in the presence of some brothers, he threatened to break with me for having said at Chicago that salvation was to be found primarily in the house, and only with great reluctance would he admit that the gospel made any reference to the Spirit, saying there was only one scripture to support it. You can understand therefore how difficult it is for me to condemn saints for refusing the teaching of such an one. The fact that I may have handled the truth does not make it my truth or doctrine. The question is: Is it the truth? If it is, then saints should not be condemned for clinging to it and refusing to countenance what discredits it. You will remember that the matter was gone over while we were together, and it did not seem to strike you then that those brothers were contending for what was wrong. Of course I can understand that tendency to a party under such circumstances; it is very difficult to avoid the appearance of it, especially when there is great pressure, but I think great allowance should be made for saints when it cannot be shown that they are contending for what is in itself wrong. As to my being a prophet, etc., I regard it as absurd: it pains me dreadfully to hear these things. I am sure that if the saints only knew what I think of myself they would be ashamed to entertain such thoughts. I am no prophet, nor ^[p. 44] successor to Mr. Darby (I feel ashamed to have to mention it). My joy is that my privilege is to share his place with Christ before the Father.

I may add in closing that I regard this difficulty at Chicago as local, and I believe it would be much happier if it were left in local hands. For a good while there have been two elements in that meeting; the one in the main supporting what is of God, and the other to some extent refusing it. The bulk of the meeting I fear has drifted with the latter. But I feel sure the Lord will come in, and I feel fully prepared to recognise local responsibility in the matter. I can only judge according to what I have seen and heard, but I have not seen all, I am sure.

Affectionately in Christ,

James Taylor.