*LETTER FROM MR. A. M. HAYWARD*, JANUARY 24TH, 1919
LETTER FROM MR. A. M. HAYWARD, JANUARY 24TH, 1919
My Dear Brother, — I may say at once that the meeting with Mr. Taylor and others at Park Street on Thursday, January 23rd, eased the situation considerably and that it was so clear that Mr. Taylor held nothing in the way of error that Mr. Higgins asked him at the end and before all whether he could give an address at Park Street if Mr. Binney were agreeable, which he was.
With all that was said, Mr. Taylor held quietly and firmly to his ground, showing that there was no wrong thought expressed, or any word that needed to be withdrawn in the [p. 174] Reading on Covenant Relationships, 1914, as evidently at the time, all was quite understood. His manner was very quiet and sober. Not once did he show any heat or irritation, but I was struck with the way he always saw when there was a tendency to overbalance anything, and, whilst agreeing with all he could, he did not, on any occasion, let himself into allowing anything untrue to pass. I was so struck with this, because even in small things he just adhered to the truth. For instance, Mr. Giles kept saying, ‘the covenant is entirely subjective — the work of God’, and he would say in his quiet way each time, ‘Not entirely. There is forgiveness of sins, that is objective, and though it is God who works, you must allow for the persons’ exercises’. I only mention this, because it was so marked the way in which he always seemed to be concerned that the whole truth should have place.
The matter was virtually over after the first half-hour, though we had two meetings, each of about two and one-half hours’ length — 10:30 to 12:50 and 2:30 to 5:00. Mr. Binney prayed very nicely at the beginning, after which D. L. Higgins stated the object of the meeting. Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Higgins to read an extract from his (D.L.H.’s) own address just before the Glanton trouble on ‘Fellowship’. In this address he speaks about the bond pretty freely, and Mr. Taylor said that what he (D.L.H.) expressed there in connection with the bond was exactly what he sought to express in this Reading in connection with contract. D.L.H. said that if that were so there was nothing between them, for he firmly adhered to what he said there. This went a long way, as you may imagine, to finish the difficulty; but some had great trouble over the word ‘contract’ and begged Mr. Taylor to withdraw it. He said he could not do that, as it had been clearly understood by a great many brethren and in its setting it was guarded and introduced merely to enforce the point of committal, which he felt was so important. Some reasoned that contract meant terms on both sides — a bargaining, but Mr. Taylor said he did not use it so, and did not so understand a contract. All the terms were settled by God and we only had to ratify them in committing ourselves to them in a contract (to his mind), the terms were already settled and you then merely put your hand to it. He could not say that the word as used there was wrong and he did not wish in any way to weaken what he had said, but that he had not used the word before,
[p. 175] or since, so far as he could remember, and would not use it again if brethren understood something different by it from what he did, but felt it was due to brethren who had received help by the reading not to withdraw it. He referred to a marriage contract and said all the terms were well understood before ever the contract was entered upon. He was very definite that all the terms were on God’s side. He was pressed for a scripture in the New Testament to support the thought of putting your hand to the covenant. He referred to 1 Corinthians 10 — the cup, and that the result of not being true to the covenant was that the judgments spoken of in connection with Israel at the beginning of chapter 10 would come upon those who likewise sinned — “All were baptised”, etc., “but with the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness”. It was pressed you could not apply that, but he maintained you must include all christendom in your thoughts and that it was written to us as warning.
Mr. Giles could not at all see that you put your hand to the covenant in chapter 10 because there the covenant is not mentioned and in chapter 11 the committal side is not presented. Mr. Taylor replied that in chapter 10 it is the cup of blessing which we bless and we are committed to that, i.e., to the fellowship of His death and also that for the covenant thought you are right to consider all scriptures on it. He just kept to the thought of the cup as enough to establish the point and enlarged on the “cup of blessing”, what that is, and left it there.
Mr. Giles pressed the work of God in connection with the covenant. “I will write, etc.”, all of which Mr. Taylor agreed with, but he said, ‘You must commit yourself to it, there must be your side of exercise’. This Mr. Giles sometimes allowed and sometimes denied in terms, so that if one followed out his line, the legitimate sequence would be that a person who goes into the world or perishes in the wilderness does so because God does not work. Mr. Taylor agreed it was the work of God in us that led us to commit ourselves, but that we have to commit ourselves — that is our side and God does not do that for us. This, surely, applies in every step of soul history.
Another great difficulty raised was, Could we ‘covenant with God?’ Mr. Taylor had again and again to point out that he never suggested our covenanting with God. Some [p. 176] seemed to see no difference between entering into a covenant with God and ‘covenanting with God’, which latter term Mr. Giles frequently used. Mr. Taylor said he would not use that term, though before condemning anyone else for using it (as it was said others did), he would want to know what they meant by it. To him it had the thought of bargaining in it and he would not entertain that, but he did not wish by any remark of his to weaken what he had set forth in that reading as to entering into covenant relationships.
‘Fulfilled responsibility’ was brought up, but not much said about it. Some quotations were read where he is made to say that ‘to go into privilege according to God you must discharge every obligation first’, and again ‘he has discharged every obligation down here and so is free to rise’. He said those statements needed guarding and had he edited the notes he would have done so, but he never saw them before publication. You would only do that, of course, by self-judgment and we would not rise to God unless all that was not positively discharged was dealt with in self-judgment. All he was pressing was that Romans must precede Ephesians in our soul history.
Mr. Henderson tried to give a series of serious practical evils as the result of this teaching of Mr. Taylor and spoke of certain alleged effects on the young brothers, but that was left without comment.
In the afternoon, the first half was mostly between Mr. Giles and Mr. Taylor, the former pressing the evils of ‘covenanting with God’ and Mr. Taylor saying he did not go with it. The latter half of the meeting was given over to the consideration of the question of ‘putting away’. Mr. Taylor’s thoughts were asked for on it and whilst he quite refused the extreme thoughts set out by Mr. Budd and others, he drew attention to the fact that we are in the “great house” and that “put away from among yourselves” in Corinthians, meant outside all that professed the name of Christ, as there is only Jew and Gentile and church of God recognised there. To his mind, we needed not only to be unpretentious in our thoughts, but also in our words, and he would feel happier in eating the sin offering within, judging all within in the light of 1 Corinthians 5 and naming the sin there, judging the wicked person as one unsuitable for any Christian fellowship; but before the world he felt we needed to act humbly and remember the broken condition [p. 177] and so avoid any language which is unsuitable to our present position. No agreement was come to.
One more thing, indicating again Mr. Taylor’s regard for the truth, I must mention. At about the end of the second meeting some said it had been reported that the older brethren had made an attack on Mr. Taylor, which ‘of course’, they said, ‘is quite untrue’. One brother then said to Mr. Taylor, ‘I hope you don’t think it was an attack’. His reply was, ‘I would not use that language exactly; no, I would not put it that way, but Mr. Higgins’ letter to me was very strong; indeed, it was such a letter as one would write only to a heretic’. This he said twice.
It was also said that Mr. Taylor’s teaching had been stated to be subversive of the gospel, but it was agreed that that was not so.
Mr. Taylor was himself encouraged and says it will sink into the consciences of brethren, and it is there after all that things are worked out.
Mr. S.H. stated that what J.T. was seeking to press as to covenant relationships was what we all should insist upon.
Yours affectionately,
AM Hayward.