BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 1932
Mr. T——— 1.
My Dear Brother, — I duly received your letter of the 29th ult. and your ‘observations’ of the 12th inst. These are saddening reading, for they show unmistakably that you have not yet faced as in the presence of God your part in the sad condition that has existed in the meeting in Newcastle during recent years. I felt constrained as before the Lord, while at the meeting convened at Newcastle in May, to tell you in the presence of the brethren that I believed you were largely to blame for it; the letter and paper from you, referred to above, confirms me in this serious impression, and I proceed to explain.
You told me last year that the matter against Mr. M——— was settled, that he (M——— ) and others — I cannot say whether one or more — had been formally told that they were unrighteous persons and that God would not be with them. That is, as I said to you in the presence of the brethren, you were by your own showing going on in fellowship with unrighteous persons.
Then when a local suggestion was made that a meeting should be held while I was in Newcastle, and when I wrote you as to this, you objected, saying in your letter to me there was no difficulty in Newcastle that could not be settled locally, and in the same letter asked me to meet some brothers at your house. Now before reaching Newcastle I had learned through conversations with several, including yourself, that a most deplorable state existed in the meeting, and on arrival this was confirmed, and the meeting of brothers which I attended disclosed such a state of feeling and cleavage that brought out the remarks made, that its assembly status was doubtful, and [p. 365] that fellowship in a general sense was involved, this divided state having existed for more than two years and was growing worse rather than better. Thus your statement that there was no local difficulty that could not be settled locally was misleading as disregarding facts mentioned above. It was because of having confirmed on the spot the sorrowful information I had previously received that I felt I could not leave Newcastle without placing on the conscience of the brethren the serious exercises which burdened me — that the state of the meeting involved general fellowship and that if it continued, the most serious consequences must ensue. How you could, as speaking before the Lord, refuse a meeting between some local and visiting brothers to take counsel as to this sorrow, saying it could be settled locally, and ask for a meeting in your house to talk over another matter, is quite inexplicable.
At the meeting of brothers referred to it was suggested that two or more competent brothers, acceptable to both sides in the financial dispute, should be asked to look into the purely business feature. This was not accepted then by Mr. W———, but it was by Mr. M———, but after a considerable time Mr. W——— cordially fell in with it, and the three brothers were invited to go to Newcastle with the knowledge and, as I understood, the concurrence of all. I cannot therefore accept your remark that the three brothers acted in the matter ‘over the heads of local brethren’.
In your observations you say, ‘this report has no authority whatever except what our Lord may give it in the consciences of the saints’. The report is the testimony of three witnesses, admittedly competent to testify as to the matter in question, competent to determine the truth as to it. Scripture (Deuteronomy) enjoins that a matter be established at the mouth of one or two witnesses. The reports of our three brothers, reached on scriptural grounds, contains the truth, needed for the consciences of the saints, as to the matter of controversy and so in itself has authority — truth involved in matters to be judged always has authority, must have, there can be no true judgment without it — and a refusal of this is a refusal of what God orders through His word as an all-essential means of arriving at a righteous judgment by the assembly (compare Matthew 18, John 8: 17 and other similar passages). Saying that the report has no authority save what the Lord gives it in the consciences of the saints is simply weakening the importance that He [p. 366] attaches to the truth itself, as the scriptures I have quoted show. The statement, if accepted, would enable one to avoid the conviction which truth imparts by saying that the Lord had not given it authority in his conscience; on this line no true judgment can be attained. The determining factor in all matters of adjudication must be truth. The Lord helps His people, but in doing so He insists on the authority of established truth.
The report of our three brothers establishes the truth as to the matter of dispute, and refusal of it is the refusal of the Lord’s authority conveyed in the above scriptures, and those who take this attitude may be assured of encountering His resistance and they will find that He is stronger than they. In the meantime, as refusing to judge themselves as disregarding the truth, they will continue to maintain the sorrowful condition that has existed in the Newcastle meeting, and this will bring a severer judgment. The complaint that the report is not signed has no weight, for its contents were stated verbally by its authors (Mr. Biggs being the speaker) in the presence of the brothers gathered at Newcastle, Mr. W——— at the same time making his confession. The truth was then put on the consciences of the brothers at Newcastle as before the Lord by three scripturally competent witnesses aided by Mr. W———’s confession and there it stands. Refusal to be governed by it on the part of any in the Newcastle meeting, thus occasioning the continuance of the cleavage, etc., will certainly incur for them the Lord’s stern resentment. The written report of what was verbally presented to the brothers of Newcastle really needed no signatures, for its authors were well known to all for whom it was written. Confirming what was verbally presented to the brothers of Newcastle, it bears the stamp of truth throughout and, as I said, disregard of it is disregard of the Lord’s authority and ordering.
As I urged you in my last letter, I urge you now to face as before the Lord, your part in all this sorrowful history at Newcastle, not sparing yourself. If you do you will discover, I am certain, that you have not been “a son of peace” in it. When others have been for peace, you have been for war. You had part in an effort to prove unrighteousness and conspiracy in this, on the part of certain brothers, throwing the whole meeting into confusion. Whatever the discrepancies in these brothers, the charges which occasioned the sorrow, in [p. 367] which you had part, have proved false, owned so by Mr. W——— and now it is the manifest obligation of all who had part in the charges, especially yourself who led in them, to humble yourselves before God and your brethren and own your wrong.
Faithfully yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.