NOVEMBER 9TH, 1903
NOVEMBER 9TH, 1903
Mr. J. Boyd.
My Dear Brother, — As to Toronto: It is true that some meetings have taken sides with those whom Rochester refused. Some of them however had done this long before Rochester acted. Those who have done so since have acted, I think, largely on the strength of their knowledge that some brethren of weight take their view of the matter.
I must say I am somewhat discouraged to find that you are one of these. I hardly thought you would see any good in calling the Rochester action in question at this late date. As [p. 8] far as I know the brethren on this side generally accept the Rochester decision; and of course views now expressed to the contrary can but increase the spirit of division and unrest. But it seems doubtful that you have the facts of the case before you; otherwise I cannot see how you can say you fancy you could break bread with either side. Certainly I could not. A thoroughly lawless spirit has characterised those meeting at Ossington Hall. They had been entreated by their brethren all over this country to cease breaking bread; Mr. Raven, even, and those who came over with him, joining in this. But they steadily refused and after some eight months issued a circular to the effect that they had decided to continue breaking bread as always, etc., etc. The consciences of their brethren in other meetings were entirely disregarded: they were right: they were those gathered to the Lord’s name in Toronto, and ought to be so recognised by all. This was the ground they took and one or two meetings nearby acknowledged them. Now whatever one might feel about the others there can be but one judgment about such a course as the above. They had put themselves out of court entirely. What was there to encourage further waiting on them? Instead of a tendency to brokenness and subjection they proved themselves unbroken and independent. For several of them I, personally, had the highest regard, such as Hearn and Brodie, but when I met them at Rochester last year I could see they were entirely under a party influence. I think Blakely and Minto are the strongest factors.
As to Cleghorn and the others, of course, there is nothing very special about them. But it was simply a question as to whether they should be prevented from breaking bread indefinitely, seeing he and others had disqualified themselves for any further consideration. I do not see how fellowship could be rightly withheld. Hence when Rochester acted I was thankful, although I was not aware they were going to act. The matter was purely local and when a meeting like Rochester acted on that ground the simplest and wisest course for all was to accept it. I doubt whether any good could have accrued from leaving both parties alone indefinitely. The possible end would be that they would agree to differ and thus patch up an external reconciliation. I feel sure that the most potent elements in the Ossington Hall party are hostile to the truth, and have been for many years. And I think it cruel to pursue a [p. 9] course which would tend to force those who wish to go on with the truth into a nominal fellowship with such people. I think it better by far to have a few in Toronto going on more or less happily than a larger company biting and devouring one another; as has been the case for many years, as everyone knows. If Hearn, Brodie and the others more or less commendable humble themselves and submit to the judgment of their brethren generally it is an easy matter for them to find a place with the few now recognised.
I thought it well to send you the circular sent out by those with Dr. Hearn, to which I have referred. I also enclose Dr. Hearn’s letter embodying the views of those at Ossington Hall with reference to the Rochester decision. I think you should have the facts before you if you are to judge in the case. When there I think you told me you did not read any of the papers sent you.
Of course such brethren as yourself and Mr. J. S. Allen are, to a certain extent, qualified to judge of American matters, knowing the brethren so well. Still it is very awkward when your view of a local matter runs counter to that of the brethren here. This may not have occurred to you, but I think if you consider it you will not fail to see how trying it must be to those who have done the best they could believing they had His support to have adverse views coming from long distances. Before the action was taken counsel would have been opportune but now that action has been taken it is but crying over spilt milk (to use a homely phrase) to deplore it.
Some have it in their minds that the Rochester brethren should withdraw their decision. But this is out of the question. It would not only be making nothing of the Lord’s guidance and support among those who seek to act for Him (and I think this very serious) but besides it would but add to the confusion. It is altogether unlikely that those now recognised in Toronto would accept the reversal, and it is also unlikely that those around Toronto who have happily received them would now abandon them.
There are five or six meetings in Ontario, numbering probably forty brethren in all, who refuse the Rochester decision; and I have no doubt if most of these knew that they were not supported by more prominent brethren they would see their way to accept that decision. The only brother of any weight on this side that I know of, who rejects the Rochester decision,
[p. 10] is Mr. Magowan, and he has been 2,500 miles away from the scene for ten months. I doubt whether he has followed the developments. If he has he certainly ignores them. It seems to me if there was confidence in the Lord and the brethren the matter would be treated as local and the decision of those most locally connected would be accepted. The brethren in Rochester could have no selfish motive in what they did, and there is no reason in the world why they should not have the Lord’s mind — if they sought it. I do not doubt they sought it.
I am sure if you understood matters rightly you would seek to strengthen the hands of the brethren in Rochester and in that way you would strengthen things generally on this side But if brethren in England continue to advance opposite views in regard to Toronto and Minneapolis there is no telling how things may end. There can be but one result — disintegration.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.