BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 24TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 24TH, 1932
Mr. B———.
My Dear Brother, — I duly received your letter of the 10th inst. You have evidently received a wrong impression from my letter to Mr. T——— 1. I stressed the authority of the truth which the testimony of the three brothers (as to the matter committed to them to examine) established. I quoted certain scriptures which show that truth as to matters requiring adjudication by the saints is arrived at in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and that such truth has authority in itself. This was over against Mr. T——— l’s statement that such truth — referring to the ‘report’ ‘has no authority whatever except what our Lord may give it in the consciences of the saints’. This principle, as I said in my letter, would enable one to disregard the authority which obviously truth has in itself on the plea that the Lord did not give it authority in his conscience.
The statement in my letter as to the Lord’s authority is: ‘The report of our three brothers establishes the truth as to [p. 371] the matter of dispute, and refusal of it is the refusal of the Lord’s authority conveyed in the above scriptures ... the written report of what was verbally presented to the brothers at Newcastle bears the stamp of truth throughout, and, as I said, disregard of it is disregard of the Lord’s authority and ordering’. You will observe that there is nothing said of authority ‘conferred upon the three brothers’, nor is there anywhere in the letter; it is a question of the authority of the truth established on the scriptural principle of testimony of two or three witnesses. I have no doubt you will recognise the truth and importance of what I write, as you compare it with my letter. Besides, you will, I hope, have opportunity of seeing my letter to Mr. T——— 1 of the 16th inst. Your letter seeks to make out that the three brothers were biased and implies that I was the author of this bias. You furnish no facts, for generalities, such as the ‘report’ being faulty, reflecting ‘cruelty’, ‘injustice’, etc. etc., are of no factual value whatever. What could be the occasion of bias in me as in favour of Messrs. M———, T——— and against Messrs. T——— 1 and W——— ? The latter two have always been most friendly to me and supported in attitude and words most heartily what I have sought to minister as from the Lord, whereas I do not recall (although no doubt I had met him) even speaking to M——— until we met in the brothers’ meeting in May. Mr. T——— l I have long known, of course, but I absolutely deny that I am biased in his favour as over against, for instance, yourself, T——— 1, W———, the D——— s, etc., etc.
No, my dear brother, there was no bias in me in favour of any brother or brothers; I am perfectly clear as before the Lord that I was concerned for what was right and true, and if I appeared to have prejudged the matter it was because the facts which came to my attention from all sides, especially what I saw and heard at the brothers’ meeting, showed unmistakably that righteousness was wanting. You speak of a ‘boastful remark’ that a matter such as the one before you at Newcastle would be settled in New York in twenty minutes. I had no thought of calling attention to New York, for we have our own troubles and there is nothing to boast of. I might have named many other meetings, only wishing to emphasise by a known form of speech that the ‘business’ matter (which was the one before us) could ordinarily be quickly disposed of, and why not in Newcastle? You go on to say that my remark [p. 372] showed how little I knew of the burden you had to carry for three years, indeed extending back 17 years. Why speak thus when the matter before us at the meeting was a financial dispute, the facts of which have been determined by competent persons? This is seen in the work of the three brothers. I had in mind this one thing, as you must know, for I recall saying, when it was intimated that anterior difficulties existed, ‘let this be taken out of the way’. You agreed, I believe, with my suggestion at the time, and now that our three brothers have brought in the truth you are not accepting it! Why should the three brothers be biased? Messrs. Davidson and Malpas scarcely knew any of you and surely Mr. Biggs, well known to you all, could have no personal feeling against any. There was no bias in any of us, I am perfectly assured, save in favour of the Lord and the truth, and the findings and all that has happened since confirm me in this assurance.
If other difficulties, extending back 17 years, exist in Newcastle, let each be taken up according to the facts entering into it; but let this dispute between Mrs. D——— and Mr. M———, now that the facts are known, be taken out of the way. Let the truth have its authority, including the establishment of the guilt of those who falsely accused Mr. M——— and others. I do earnestly urge you — I may venture to say in the Lord’s name — to clear yourself of this guilt by owning your part in it. If there are other difficulties let them, as I said, be dealt with on their respective merits, but delay not to deliver yourself as to this long-drawn-out dispute. If you see all things clearly as to it, you will, no doubt, see all things clearly as to remaining ones.
I do not see any grounds for your alarm as to what the Lord may have ministered to the saints through me being discredited. If you can show that I have said or written anything contrary to the truth I will confess my wrong, but, as to the matter in hand, what is discrediting what the Lord is giving His people, through whomsoever, is the state of the Newcastle meeting — the conduct of those — or some of them — in it. Because of this its status, as bearing the character of the assembly, is much more than doubtful.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.