3.  ADDRESSING  GOD  AS "FATHER,  SON  AND  HOLY  SPIRIT"
A. E. Myles' Teaching – 1952 H. C. Stanley – Teddington – 1953-55 A. G. Brown – London – 1954	H. D. Thomas – London – 1954-55 Ashton–under–Lyne – 1955

While the compiler has not been able to trace any published ministry of the brethren on the subject prior to the introduction of the 1951 hymn book and nothing was reported as having been said in regard thereto at the “hymn book” meeting at Teddington in 1950, yet this hymn book when it issued contained hymns in which God is addressed under the “name” of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. This new feature, in so far as brethren are concerned, appears to have been a corollary to the teaching as to the separate address to the Holy Spirit, since that teaching involved the Holy Spirit being held objectively in the mind in Christian prayer and praise in a similar way to the Father and the Son.

A. E. Myles' Teaching – 1952

However, Mr. A. E. Myles, into whose hands the revision of the hymn book had been placed, soon began to bring forward teaching on the subject to the effect that this form of address was the widest and greatest in Christianity embracing “the full thought of God” or “God in His Fulness” since “it included all the Persons of the Godhead”. It was taught that when the name “Father” was used “God in His Fulness” was not conveyed since “only one Person” was in view.

In particular in meetings at Barnet in July 1952 where the subject was 'The Worship of God', Mr. Myles brought the subject forward as follows:—

A.E.M.  … In John 20, the Lord says “My God and your God,” and that is distinguished from the reference to the Father, “My Father and your Father”. So it is a further thought and a wider thought.

E.C.L.  Do you mean that the word used for “God” there would include the Father, Son and Spirit as one God?

A.E.M.  Yes, I think so – one God. The greatest name of God known to us is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – one Name and one God.

'Response to God as Revealed', A.E.M. 1952-58, page 20.

A.E.M.  When we speak to God we are really speaking to the three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. When we speak to the Father it is that Person in the Godhead.

Ibid., page 47.

This teaching was taken up by many other ministering brothers and it was eventually taught that the name “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” should be used in addressing God in the final stage of the service of worship on Lord's day mornings and that the name “Father” by itself should not be then used. Matthew 28: 19 “baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” – was always given as the Scriptural basis for this teaching. Many were unhappy at this teaching as they did not regard Matthew 28: 19 as giving a name by which God was to be addressed and considered that there was abundant Scriptural evidence to show that “Father” was the name by which God was to be known and addressed in Christian prayer and worship.

Surely "that God may be all in all', 1 Corinthians 15: 28, is not only the Father but includes the Son and the Spirit.   GAR

H. C. Stanley – Teddington – 1953-55

In January 1953 Mr. H. [Horace C.] Stanley who was the Manager of the Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot gave a most remarkable address at Merton Park. He read John 1: 18; 1 Cor. 8: 6; 1 Tim. 6: 13 and Rev. 21: 3 as instructing us as to our knowledge, our relationships, our approach to God and as to God Himself. In the course of the address he said:—

The Spirit and the Son are each God In Their Persons, each equal with the Father. I think of the Son in His Deity (as far as I can think of Him); Deity is the same in Him as in the other Persons, and there is no diminution or partitioning of Deity whatever. Deity is as great in the Son as in the Father, Son and Spirit. Let us get away from the idea that one fears is in some minds, that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are each a third part of the Deity. It is bad doctrine. The Father and the Son are not each a part of the Deity. Deity is the same in the Father as in the Three, likewise in the Spirit as in the Three, for the Being is there, whether I think of the Father, the Son or the Spirit. Scripture teaches, “God is One”.

He went on to stress that our approach to and worship of God is in the known relationship of Father.

The compiler heard of the address two days afterwards from a sister who was present and said it was an outstanding address given with great power. Subsequently Mr. Stanley had so many demands for copies of it that in May or June 1953 he had a number printed to meet the desire which he commenced to send to enquirers. Almost immediately, however, he was called upon by those promulgating or supporting the new teaching, to desist from issuing it as it was no doubt realised that it was a Scriptural challenge to what was being currently taught. To avoid trouble he acceded to this request; but this did not save him from the fate of all who were not afraid to question current teaching.

Early in 1954 Mr. James Taylor Jr. [allegedley] influenced certain brothers in Mr. Stanley's local meeting at Teddington to take up with him certain corrections to notes of Mr. James Taylor Sr.'s ministry and other similar amendments for which he was responsible and which had been made by him in carrying out his duties as manager of the Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot. In particular the omission of the reference to speaking to the Spirit in Mr. Taylor's ministry in New York in 1942 and certain alterations in other ministry of his in respect to the epistle to the Ephesians, were brought up. These had been dealt with by Mr. Taylor Sr. with Mr. Stanley and the issue between them cleared many years ago; but Mr. Taylor Jr. had the whole mat­ter brought up again declaring that it had not been settled.

To sup­port his case he produced copies of some letters which had passed between his father and Mr. Stanley, but others which would have proved that these issues had been settled as between Mr. Taylor Sr. and Mr. Stanley and that the former was on normal relations of confidence with Mr. Stanley before he died were omitted.*

[* If, as likely, those "omitted" were letters of J.T. to H.C.S., surely Mr. Stanley could have produced them himself. GAR]

In the course of these proceedings Mr. James Taylor Jr. sent a long cable to Mr. Stanley on 20th February 1954 telling him what he should do in regard to these past matters which included “condemning error in your Merton Park address”. The whole issue was brought to an assembly meeting in March 1954 and Mr. Stanley took low ground in respect of the charges against him which included – it is understood though no record is available – the repudiation of his Merton Park address and his so-called “sin” was remitted.

This, however, did not end the matter. On September 21st 1954 the Trustees of the Stow Hill Depot invited a number of representative brethren from all parts of the British Isles to a meeting at Park Street, London, a private and confidential report of which was subsequently issued under the names of the Trustees of the Depot [unavailable]. One of the principal purposes of the meeting was stated to be for the Trustees to acknowledge the wrong that had been done at the Depot in the past in mak­ing certain alter­ations to manuscripts of Mr. Taylor's ministry without his knowledge. Although it was admitted that these had been gone into in 1942 it was stated that some of them had subsequently as­sumed special importance owing to their relating to “the truth as to the Spirit”. The Trustees went on to claim that had the remarks by Mr. Taylor on the subject of singing to the Holy Spirit not been deleted or altered, “the saints generally would have been aware earlier of the way the truth was taking form in Mr. Taylor's mind, and it is probable that exercise would have taken place then with the saints generally that would have facilitated the earlier bringing for­ward of the truth in ministry and made it easier for Mr. Taylor in 1947 and since, to develop the truth as to addressing the Holy Spirit”.

The compiler finds it difficult to understand how the excision from the 1942 notes of the references as to singing to the Holy Spirit could be blamed for the brethren not taking up this teaching, seeing that when it came up in 1947, the brethren took it on immediately it was ministered long before any notes were printed and issued.

Follow­ing this meeting the whole issue as to Mr. Stanley's “sin” was, early in 1955, raised again, notwithstanding his forgiveness in 1954 and accusation after accusation made against him with the result that at an assembly meeting at Twickenham on 7th June 1955 he was withdrawn from. In addition he was dismissed from his post as manager of the Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot. Subsequently a number of local brothers who felt keenly the unjust and cruel treat­ment which Mr. Stanley had received were also withdrawn from or themselves withdrew. A full account of the whole matter was set out subsequently in a letter dated 3rd December 1956 from Mr. R. A. Ball to Mr. J. Taylor Jr., which the latter ignored. Mr. Stanley was a broken man after all he had passed through and suffered from extreme ill-health until the Lord took him on March 23rd 1969. He was never allowed back in fellowship and the compiler understands that it was said that he had committed the “sin unto death”.

If the above account is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, Mr. Stanley was certainly inexcusably mistreated – another example of a harsh legal spirit dominating.   GAR

A. G. Brown – London – 1954

To return to 1953 the difficulties as to this teaching in respect of addressing God continued and the subject was taken up by Mr. A. J. Gardiner in three day meetings in London in July 1953. He carried the previous teachings on the subject even further and taught that “you do not really get the full presentation of love in the Father, you need the Father and the Son and the Spirit for the full presentation of love” and “the whole name of God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and in the three we have the complete presentation of God, and God Himself is the supreme Object of worship”.*  This teaching was also taken up actively by another leading teacher Mr. G. R. Cowell and Mr. A. E. Myles also continued to propagate it. After the notes of the London meetings with Mr. Gardiner in 1953 were published, Mr. Brown#  who was most unhappy as to this teach­ing had a two hour private interview with Mr. Gardiner on April 14th 1954 in which he set before him his difficulties in regard thereto. At the close of the occasion Mr. Gardiner expressed his regret that he had not been able to help him on the subject.

[* The Worship of God, by A. J. Gardiner, pp. 70, 98-9. AGB]
• [# Arthur G. Brown, the compiler of this account. GAR]

On 17th May 1954 at the end of a prayer meeting at Eltham, London, Mr. Brown was challenged by Mr. S— and after pro­testing without avail that the occasion was not appropriate to deal with such an issue, admitted that he had difficulties as to addressing God as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. This led to an interview with three local brothers and subsequently to his case being brought up at the London care meeting on 29th May 1954. At this meeting Mr. A. J. Gardiner suggested a special reading on the subject, which was held at Park Street, London, on 2nd June. The meeting was placed in Mr. Gardiner's hands and he suggested the Scriptures which were read, namely – John 13: 3-4; John 14: 1-7, 15-20 and 1 John 5: 20. His teaching was that in John 14 the Lord is presenting the Persons of the Godhead objectively and as we contemplate Them as so presented we are prepared in our hearts for a spirit of worship that would result in God known in the Three Persons of the Godhead obtaining the wor­ship that He looks for – that is addressed as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Opportunity was given to express difficulties of which Mr. Brown was able to take advantage, stressing that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as a name of address is nowhere to be found in Scripture and that God known in the fullest way is presented and addressed in Scripture as “Father”. The difficulties expressed were not considered to be of any substance and the reading ended with the issue unresolved. Full notes were taken but were not issued. When enquiry was made as to this it was stated that it was not considered to be wise to issue the notes.

Mr. Brown was left in peace until September when Mr. S— of Eltham urged on by Mr. L— [Percy Lyon ?] and Mr. C— of London brought the matter up at the London care meeting on October 2nd 1954, which led to Mr. Brown being brought before an assembly meeting at Park Street on 9th November 1954. At this meeting Mr. S— outlined the case against Mr. Brown naming it – that is addressing God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” – as an issue of truth, yet not reading a single Scripture to support it. He stated, “Throughout the assemblies this truth has been established and ratified and we believe it is of the Spirit. It involves the authority of the Lord to minister through whom He will … There is the Lord's authority, the Spirit has His right of way. The truth is established in the house of God, and that house is the pillar and base of the truth. Our brother says, I hold so-and-so, an alternative. Our brother's atti­tude is intensely serious, we must name it as ‘sin’ ”. Mr. Brown then spoke for half-an-hour in reply, reading six Scriptures and referring in particular to 1 Tim. 1: 17, Eph. 4: 6, and Phil. 4: 20, pointing out that while in the Timothy Scripture God is spoken of as the King of the Ages and the One to whom honour and glory is due, it is clearly the same God as is referred to in Ephesians 4 as “One God and Father” who is over all and in Philippians as “our God and Father” to whom is rendered “the due divine glory” [footnote to Phil. 4: 20 in J.N.D.'s translation] to the ages of ages. He explained that in the light of the Scriptures read he had difficulty in accepting what had been put forward. He was not rejecting it; but was looking for light from the Scriptures of truth. He was waiting for further light and help as presented in the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Lyon then came forward to the attack [?] reading Rom. 9: 5 and asserting that what was put forward by Mr. Brown was to limit himself professedly to the adoration of One Person of the Godhead and to deny the other Two equality in Godhead because in divine condescension They have graciously taken lower places. He claimed that it was a challenge to the closing features of Mr. Taylor's ministry which had been confirmed in the support given to Mr. Gardiner's ministry in 1953 in London and that it was opposition to what had been reached in temple enquiry and in divinely given communications.

Following Mr. Lyon, Mr. Thomas [Harry D. Thomas] gave a short word reading from 2 Chron. 19: 6-7, “And he said to the judges, Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man but for Jehovah, who will be with you in the matter of judgment”. He warned the meeting to be careful as to what was done. He did not understand from what he had heard Mr. Brown say that when he worshipped God he excludes the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of God as Mr. Lyon claimed he did. He pointed out that Mr. Brown said that he knew and was conscious that when he worshipped God that the Three Persons were included in the Deity. Was it within the right of the brethren, he asked, to lay it down as a rule that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” should be mentioned? We should take care, he said, that we do not give the impression that spoken ministry has greater authority than the written Word. (A sister present from outside London who took notes, commented at this juncture, “Up to this point the meeting had been characterised by utter silence. At the end of H.D.T.'s word, however, there was such a fervent chorus of ‘Amen’ from throughout the room that the general impression was that the meeting was more or less over and that the charges could not be proceeded with”.) Four other brothers then spoke, one brother, Mr. M— stating that many had doubts as to what ought to be done and appealing for Mr. Brown to be given more time to prove himself. The other three sup­ported the condemnation of Mr. Brown, one Mr. G. B— [George W. Brown ?] stating that the issue was whether it is going to be questioned whether the Lord is among the brethren in London, whether the Spirit is with them and whether the Spirit of God has been speaking in the ministry which has been universally accepted.

Mr. Lyon then returned to the attack [?] reading 2 Tim. 2: 19 and asserting that it was manifest that the issue was one of iniquity. “Leprosy in the head is the description of our brother's estate. He ignores the very crux of the rich ministry that has come to us”. He then asserted that in accordance with the Scripture read the brethren must firmly and sorrowfully but definitely withdraw from Mr. Brown. Mr. H— [Charles Hammond ?] then got up and made a final appeal to Mr. Brown to which Mr. Brown briefly replied repeating that he was still looking for clear Scriptural authority in regard to worshipping God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Mr. C— then arose and read Psalm 48: 9-10 and Psalm 29: 1-2, asserting that these Scriptures both support addressing God as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and had been brought before Mr. Brown at meetings in the room in which they were now. He finalised his word by saying that Mr. Brown's claims as to lack of Scriptural support and the liberty to use the name of “Father” at any time, “ignoring the mind of the Spirit in the tem­ple” was a wicked thing and fully confirmed the judgment of with­drawal already expressed.

Although I do not doubt Mr. Brown's sincerity it is difficult, if not impossible, to present one's own case and the response of others in a completely unbiased manner.   GAR

H. D. Thomas – London – 1954-55

In subsequent care meetings Mr. Thomas and Mr. M— were attacked for their part in the assembly meeting [for Mr. Brown] and were called upon to withdraw the words they had given, Mr. Thomas being particularly condemned for his suggestion that the spoken word was being put by the brethren above the written Word. Eventually under the pressure put upon them, Mr. M— agreed to withdraw the word given by him at the assembly meeting and Mr. Thomas said that his word on that occasion was not intended to accuse the brethren but to warn them; but if they regarded it as an accusation he would withdraw it on account of their consciences not of his own.

This, however, did not end the matter so far as Mr. Thomas was concerned and all kinds of accusations were raised against him in relation to his ministry and various things he was supposed to have said. It was known that he was by no means in sympathy with the extreme line pursued by many in regard to current teaching and the objective of the London extremists was obviously to use the opportunity to get him out of the way. Amongst the matters brought up against him was the accusation that his ministry had promoted unrest in regard to the current teaching throughout the world. He was brought before assembly meetings in London on 22nd December 1954 and 23rd February 1955 and finally on 5th July 1955 when he was withdrawn from.

Ashton-Under-Lyne – 1955

An issue on this same matter came up at Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, in July 1955, when Mr. W—n of the meeting in that town charged Mr. M—, Mr. F—, and Mr. W—r in a care meeting with silent opposition to the truth, in that they did not address God in worship as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and did not say “Amen” when he did so. The three brothers asserted and showed that Scrip­tural authority was lacking for this practice.

After various visits and discussions in the subsequent care meetings, the issue was finalised in an assembly meeting held on 8th November 1955 when the three brothers were withdrawn from. At this meeting Mr. W—n took the principal part against the three brothers asserting that “Our leaders have set out this ministry and we should obey them” and “We must obey our leaders; they have made an issue and other meetings have, and it is incumbent upon us also”.

While harsh or intemperate actions cannot be excused, one must wonder why those who so strongly objected to what the majority of the brethren held and practised as being without scriptural foundation would remain in opposition. If their views were irreconcilable surely the right course, after attempts to convince others their view was baseless, would be to themselves withdraw. Did they only remain to force the issue? GAR

Page Top   Article Top

4.  THE  RESULT  OF  PROCEEDINGS  OUTLINED  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTERS
S.McC. – Authority in the Ministry – April 1953 A.E.M. – The Man of God – March and May 1954 J.N.D. – Universal Consent J. McMullan – Belfast – 1954	R. Grubb – Norwich – 1954-55 G. A. Lucas – Hornsey – 1954 Zurich – 1955 Manchester – 1956 – and elsewhere Present Outlook and Exercises – 1955

It will be clear that running through the proceedings outlined in the preceding two chapters is the principle that ministry put out by the leading ministering brother amongst the brethren is authoritative,* even if it cannot be clearly established from Scripture and must be accepted by all under the penalty of exclusion from the fellowship. Not only did the fact that this principle was operating become evident by the actions taken; but, in addition, specific ministry was given by certain ministering brothers to promote it. Examples of this ministry will now be given.

* In view of the importance of this oft misunderstood matter, and its abuse and misuse to mislead and mistreat the saints, here is my reply to an inquiry from Guests: My Stand 1.   GAR AUTHORITATIVE  MINISTRY Tue, Apr 27 1999 Dear Daniel, You note my "stress on 'authoritative ministry' ". The 'Zurich Papers' – if we have the same items in mind – seem to reflect an abuse or misuse of the term by some. While I, and perhaps you, might question certain remarks, AEM's reply to Stuart Price is interesting – Biography: A. E. Myles: Correspondence. The word 'authoritative' has two senses. It can mean "having the power to demand or command". I do not use it in that sense, which is how it has been misused by the legal sect who turned it into an authoritarian instrument of repression. The Lord Jesus alone has "the power to demand or command", although it is also said, "Obey your leaders", Hebrews 13: 17. The second meaning is "coming from such a source as to ensure belief". This is the the sense in which I use it and the way I understand it is alluded to in the Scriptures. It is also used this way commonly. For example, I have two technical books on the internet which claim to be authoritative, that is reliable and trustworthy. The following support this meaning. "And they were astonished at His doctrine, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes", Mark 1: 22. "As a man ... having left his house and given to his bondmen the authority, and to each one his work", Mark 13: 34. "Reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and laying down", Acts 17: 2-3. But some may say that was the Lord, or the apostle Paul. Certainly it was, but the principle remains. In Ephesians 4 the gifts are given by the ascended Christ. Have they no authority from Him? In 1 Corinthians 12, the "gifts … services … operations" in the body are each "the manifestation of the Spirit" and further "God has set certain in the assembly …", all pointing to divinely exercised and divinely given authority. And Peter adds, "If any one speak – as oracles of God", 1 Peter 4: 11. What is any ministry worth if it is not 'authoritative' in the sense I use the term? For ministry to be called 'authoritative', i.e., trustworthy, reliable, believable and worthy of being followed, I understand that it must be based on, and in accord with, the divinely inspired Scriptures, ministered in the power of the Holy Spirit, by bondmen – subject to the Lord – whose lives are in moral accord with the truth they minister. Such ministry, and such ministry alone, is 'authoritative'. There has been ministry of that character from the beginning of the revival, from which we have greatly benefited. See Ministry: J. Taylor 1: Authority in Doctrine and Fellowship The rejection of authority – in the sense I have spoken of it – is the exercise of self will, as it is said, "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes", Judges 17: 6, etc. I believe it is a divine principle – in all ages – that is set out in Judges 2: 18: "And when Jehovah raised them up judges, then Jehovah was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge". That there have been – and still are, and will be yet – false apostles and teachers who claim divinely given authority for their own ends is without doubt. 2 Cor. 11: 13-15; 2 Tim. 2: 16-18; Titus 1: 10-11; 2 Peter 2: 1-3; Rev. 2: 2, etc. We are not to be misled by such, but neither should we refuse the concept of authority in ministry. Under the Lord, it has been, and is, for our blessing. Yours in our Lord Jesus, Gordon.

S.McC. – Authority in the Ministry – April 1953

Firstly, an address was given by Mr. S. [Stanley] McCallum [of Detroit] at Barnet on 18th April 1953 which was especially print­ed in pamphlet form and issued by Stow Hill Depot under the title 'Features of Authority in the Ministry'. The [next to] closing para­graph of this address was as follows:—

Then, as it says in verse 16, “Every Scripture is divinely inspired”. What an importance this Scripture should have in our minds, and yet the Scriptures are not to be used as setting aside the ministry, setting aside the truth. The Scriptures, rightly used, will support the truth, if it is the truth. Let us not put a wedge between the ministry and the Scriptures. Someone said to me in another part of the world, just a little while ago, as to the matter of the Spirit, ‘But I go according to Scripture’, as if the ministry were one thing and the Scriptures were another – I am referring to divinely-accredited ministry. We have not to drive a wedge between the Scriptures and the ministry in this way, as if ministry was something that was optional and we do not have to go with it. We are no better off than Bethesda if the ministry is to be regarded in that way. The ministry – I mean divinely-accredited ministry – carries the full weight of divine authority, the authority of the exalted Man, the authority of the Spirit, the authority in the commission that is given to the servant who is used in a divinely-accredited way. As we think of men like beloved J.N.D., J.B.S., F.E.R., and J.T. now departed [March 29, 1953] from our midst, how their ministry has been divinely-accredited! Think of the place that it has in the body of the saints! Let every one of us make full room for the authority that attaches to the ministry, not in any sense setting aside the author­ity of the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are inspired, and the standard of the truth is in the Scriptures, but divinely-accredited ministry is according to the Scriptures and carries the full weight of what is contained in the Scriptures.

A.E.M. – The Man of God* – March and May 1954

The following extracts are from readings with Mr. A. E. Myles  in London and Barnet in 1954:—

A.E.M.  But I want to try and explain it if I am able for so many have missed their way over this. Take the “token”, many sisters and brothers too, do not understand this. It is enough for me that a man of God opened it out. I cannot understand Greek; I must be subject to the man of God; for he is the vessel of the Spirit.

P.H.H.  Do you mean that if the ministry on any particular point has come out with authority, because it is through the mouth of the man of God, not any particular brother, it ought to be enough for us to take it on? …

A.G.H.  And recognise the authority of the man of God.

A.E.M.  That is it, the letter of Scripture is most important, but I am not capable myself of understanding the Scripture without the teaching of the Holy Spirit and help from the man of God.

London, March 20th, 1954.

---

A.C.S.P.  Would it be right to say, in connection with the matter of the wall of separation, that if we are going to be inside the city we have got to be loyally under the leadership of Nehemiah, and, to put it simply, we have had an outstanding lead from beloved Mr. Taylor [Sr.] and our position as with the brethren involves submission to the truth we have received through him? Is that going too far?

A.E.M.  No. That is just what I think … I would say if you are going to remain happily in fellowship with the brethren in heart and soul you must accept all Mr. Taylor's ministry, even to a matter like the token.

Barnet, May 9th, 1954.

* Mr. A. E. Myles is to be respected and honoured for his long and faithful labour in the Lord's service. Nevertheless, however well intentioned he may have been, his remarks above have laid the basis for the subsequent distorted and unscriptural exaltation of those who have taken the place of leadership after J.T.'s departure. There is no evidence that J.T., by then with the Lord, would have accepted such a designation. For J.T.'s views see 2 addresses on 'the Man of God', 1937 and 1939 But to this day some who have followed have accepted the designation of "man of God" which has resulted in their word being given equality, if not superiority to the Scriptures.   GAR

J.N.D. – Universal Consent

It will be seen from these extracts that the prime place was being given to the ministry of the leading ministering brother with a kind of supporting role to the Holy Scriptures. Mr. J. N. Darby had warned the brethren many years ago against this very thing, as the following extracts from his Collected Writings will show:—

Let the saints be on their guard. Self-will is always evil. Affectionate confidence in those who labour in the Lord is always happy. But “universal consent”, and the authority of teachers, are the instruments of the enemy for the church's departure from God. In the perilous times of the last days the known security of the saints is the doctrine of the apostles themselves, and the written word of God (2 Tim. 3) – both now concluded in this last – the sole and sufficient resource available through the teaching of the Spirit to the saints of God. Teachers may aid them in it, but can never take away each man's own direct responsibility as to what he receives. But when “universal consent” is thus publicly appealed to, it is high time to see where we are going … May beloved brethren remember that the written word of God, and the grace and teaching of the Spirit of God, are the only security against error, and the devices of Satan – that ascribing authority to teachers, to “universal consent”, or anything else but to the written word of God, is departing from the only security of the saints in these dark and evil days; and yet, if dark and evil, blessed in the resources of grace to him that has faith. If the Spirit of God be looked at as residing in the teachers and not in the whole body, it is the full-blown principle of Roman clericalism. If saints do not prove for themselves all they hear, they cannot have faith now; but they cannot help being made answerable for it hereafter, because God has commanded them to do it, and they will be held responsible for this whether they will or no. J.N.D., Collected Writings, 11: 22-3.

The principle, on which the proceedings referred to in the pre­ceding chapters were based, was not allowed to go unchallenged by some who perceived its falsity and the most serious danger flowing from its application. While there were doubtless many cases in addi­tion to those about to be recorded, yet these are given as records of them are available to the compiler.

J. McMullan – Belfast – 1954

On 4th May 1954 a Belfast brother Mr. James McMullan*  made a public statement to the brethren in Belfast in which first of all he quoted from the ministry of Mr. A. E. Myles in London on 20th March 1954 in regard to the “man of God” to which reference has already been made, pointing out that in it was a discernible trend towards the Romish doctrine of “implicit faith”, which means that people are to accept the church's interpretation of Scripture as authoritative and binding whether they understand it or not. He went on to quote the warnings of Mr. J. N. Darby which have just been quoted herein. He then referred to the action taken at Carshalton in respect to the Sutton division asserting that this was iniquity from which he must depart.

• See 'The Ulster Outlook', No. 17 in 'The Historical Reference Series'.

R. Grubb – Norwich – 1954-55

Then in July 1954 a Norwich brother, Mr. Robert Grubb, issued a pamphlet [unavailable] entitled 'Brief Remarks on the Unique Authority attaching to the Holy Scriptures'. The purpose of this pamph­let was to draw attention to certain principles which have been at work during the course of this dispensation, and which tend to obscure the undivided and absolute subjection which is due to the Holy Scriptures. It con­cluded with five propositions:—

1. The Holy Scriptures, as the written word of God, must be accord­ed absolute, and therefore, undivided authority.

2. To refuse to accept any part of that word is to deny its authority.

3. To claim authority for anything not contained in that word is to deny its authority.

4. True ministry, because from Christ, by the Holy Spirit, will claim no authority distinct from the written word of God.

5. Every saint has a responsibility to test all ministry by the apostles' doctrine as contained in the Scriptures, and to fail to do so in reality denies the authority of the written word of God.

In November 1954 onwards Mr. E. J. Boyt a ministering brother at Manchester in an extended correspondence with Mr. Grubb raised objections to this pamphlet, claiming that it would promote “indepen­dency” amongst the brethren and called upon him to withdraw it, which he rightly refused to do. Subsequently he was pursued by cer­tain brothers in his locality influenced very much by certain London brothers and withdrawn from in February 1955.

G. A. Lucas – Hornsey – 1954

Following the London assembly meeting of 9th November 1954 [for Mr. A. G. Brown], Mr. G. [George] A. Lucas* at a special care meeting in his local meeting – Hornsey – on 24th November 1954 challenged first the way in which the Sutton matter has been handled at Carshalton, secondly the ministry of Mr. A. E. Myles in London on 20th March 1954 as to “the man of God” and finally the statements made at the London assembly meeting on 9th November 1954, asserting that that judgment was based on corrupt teaching and was iniquitous. He said that if his local brethren embraced the judgment he must withdraw. The issue was finalised at an assembly meeting on 30th November 1954 at which Mr. Lucas maintained his stand and was withdrawn from.

[* Letter of G. A. Lucas, Feb. 7, 1964, in Part Two is not posted here.]

Zurich – 1955

Finally the brethren at Zurich in Switzerland made it known that they were deeply concerned as to these happenings in England and after visits to London by Zurich brothers and visits to Zurich by London brothers, four Zurich brothers issued a circular on 15th March 1955* in which they set out their concerns and the reasons therefor. They summar­ised the result of the assembly decisions in England as follows:—

The test for fellowship is no longer the apostolic doctrine, in other words, God's Word alone, but what the brethren have arrived at. We are thus placing ourselves on the ground of a special fellowship. Absolute subjection to the ministry is required. The appeal of the individual to Scripture is designated as self-will or as a sectarian tendency. The believer's conscience is subjugated and an authority inserted between God and his soul. The ruin of the church is ignored and for local companies the status and authority are claimed which belong solely to the whole Assembly of God in a locality.

A number of subsequent meetings were held and eventually three local brothers, who supported current teaching, assisted by a number of brothers from England on 16th April 1955 withdrew from the rest of the meeting. The brethren withdrawn from – the majority of the meeting – broke bread separately on 23rd April.

[* Part Two, not posted, has this and other 'Zurich Letters'.]

Manchester – 1956 – and Elsewhere

During the following years many individual brothers and sisters were either withdrawn from or themselves withdrew from fellowship as being unable to support the current ministry and the actions taken to enforce it. In some cases issues were raised in certain localities which resulted in a number being withdrawn from or withdrawing at the same time. These included a number in Manchester who withdrew in May 1956.*

[* See The Manchester Connection re Mr. James Macdonald and others.]

Present Outlook and Exercises – 1955

It is now necessary to weigh up what is the result and meaning of all that has been recorded herein as transpiring amongst the brethren consequent upon the introduction amongst them in 1947 by Mr. James Taylor of the teaching as to separate prayer and praise being addressed to the Holy Spirit.

In this connection the compiler feels that he cannot do better than to quote from a letter which he received in 1955 from a sober aged brother who was one of the brethren withdrawn from in 1952 in Sutton Coldfield. The letter was written in response to the compiler's enquiry as to the brother's judgment of the situation.

Coming now to the question raise in your letter as to my present outlook and exercises as to the condition of things amongst those with who we used to walk; (I will write of them as “brethren” to avoid much repetition of this long sentence and also to avoid giving them a denominational name) and “as to the Lord's mind for the days that may be ahead”, I will endeavour to reply briefly and to the best of my ability.

Writing reverently and I trust in a spirit of humility; when the Lord considered a similar position the Scripture says, “and as He drew near, seeing the city He wept over it”.

I think J.N.D. felt in measure the same thing when he con­templated the possibility of “brethren” failing and losing their place in the “Testimony”. He writes,

“I have no doubt the brethren have been used to bring out the testimony of God in these last days. I have always hoped and prayed the Lord might come before they failed, as everything since Adam has done. They will lose it if they are not lowly”.
Letters of J.N.D. 2: 390

– again “Let them walk in love in the truth, humble, lowly, unworldly and all for Christ, as little, and content to be little, as when they began and God will bless them. If not, their candlestick may go (and oh, what sorrow and confusion of face it would be after such grace!) as that of others”.
Letters of J.N.D. 2: 340.

We see from the above he saw and felt the possibility of “brethren's” failure and I judge he felt it even to tears.

From this emerges, so far as I am concerned, the exercise as to whether the “brethren” have arrived at the conditions contem­plated by J.N.D. in those extracts. It is surely for each one of us to arrive at a judgment of the present conditions for himself.

C.A.C. appears to have had very definite exercise and concern as to this in the closing days of his life. I went to see a brother personally as to this in order to confirm a report I had heard. He told me he had asked him [C.A.C.] if he had any message for the brethren. His reply was:—

“You may yet find yourself walking alone but you may have others with you”.

A short time after this he repeated his question to him. His reply still was that “you may find yourself walking alone”. He did not repeat “You may have others walking with you”. But he added the following. He said he thought the time was at hand when the Testi­mony would again revert to the “twos and threes” in localities walking together in support of the Testimony and further he could discern the possibility of the enemy introducing amongst the “brethren” subtle questions difficult to solve from Scripture and they would cause great distress of heart amongst them. Are these conditions with them now? It appears to me very much to be so. I am, however, going on pa­tiently in my present position with my wife and four others at Sutton Coldfield. It may be conditions amongst the “brethren” may still further develop which will make it manifestly clear that recent ministry and what may still be added to it, is not of God and others in an individual way will withdraw.

As regards your second question relative to the Lord's mind for the days that may lie ahead. This I judge can only be what it was in the days of the movement by those who came out of the sys­tems of men and the sectarian position as overcomers – an individual movement – to walk in the light of the apostles' teaching, giving place to Christ as Head and to the Holy Spirit, the authority of Scripture, and the truth of the assembly, the one body.

The position is, as overcomers, distinctly an individual one and the only corporate position we have is our link with the whole body, the assembly, going out in affection of heart to all the saints and actively seeking them, bearing the sorrows of the whole assembly and the scattered conditions of the saints. Is this the condition of the “brethren” to-day? It was so in J.N.D.'s days, as evidenced by his ministry and activities. Or have they come to the state he feared when he saw the “brethren” growing in numbers to such an extent as to become a self-contained body, spending the time ministering only to themselves? When they reached that condition he saw the moment was not far distant when the Lord would set them aside and raise up His testimony elsewhere. F.E.R. I judge was greatly exercised as to the conditions amongst the “brethren”. Hence his stressing the line of “maintaining our individuality” and our link with the whole body, and our affections going out to all the saints. He says that was the only company he knew

H.O.W.

"Blow the trumpet in Zion, hallow a fast, proclaim a solemn assembly; gather the people, hallow the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts; let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride from her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of Jehovah, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare, O Jehovah, thy people, and give not thine inheritance to reproach, that they should be a by-word of the nations. Wherefore should they say amongst the peoples, Where is their God?", Joel 2: 15-17, J. N. Darby translation

Page Top   Article Top

5.  THE  DEPARTURE  FROM  THE  TRUTH CONFIRMED  BY  DEVELOPMENTS  UNDER THE  LEADERSHIP  OF  MR.  J. TAYLOR JR.
G. R. Cowell – 1958-60 Eating and Physical Separation The Duration of the Forsaking Sabbath Keeping	Sundry Rules and Regulations Withdrawal from Public Sale of all Ministry

The experiences recounted in the preceding chapters unhappily conditioned many of the brethren to accept and expect the feature of a universal leader who should be regarded as divinely-accredited and whose teachings should be deemed to be “the voice of the Spirit” for the moment, which must be accepted and followed by all.

For some years after the death of Mr. James Taylor Sr. no brother occupied this position amongst the brethren, but from 1960 onwards his son James Taylor Jr. was given and accepted this position and obtained – or perhaps took – a place amongst them which was marked by even greater dominance than that which his father had held. The circumstances under which he gained this position must now be briefly recounted.

The above paragraphs seems to suggest that J.T.Sr. "occupied this position amongst the brethren". This may have been so in the minds of some, such as A.E.M., but I am not aware of any evidence that this was generally so, though he was widely respected for his work's sake. It was certainly not J.T.'s estimate of himself as his ministy and letters bear witness. GAR

]* 'Separated from Evil and Separated to God', is in 'Greatness and other ministry, No. 3 in 'An Outline of Sound Word Series'.]

There were many 'three-day' meetings held during the year throughout the world. J.T. was asked to give a lead in many but many other gifted brothers also served in various parts. The meetings in London being central attracted many brethren from the U.K. and overseas who were glad of the benefit of J.T.'s matured ministry.   GAR

In 1959 Mr. G. R. Cowell was asked to take the lead in the Lon­don three-day meetings and in the course of the meetings made statements seeking to encourage a considerate rather than a legal enforcement of the issue as to professional associations where circum­stances made immediate compliance difficult, for example, where brethren had contracts of employment which required them to be members of such associations and the termination of such contracts could not righteously be effected immediately. Mr. Cowell's statements were openly challenged by Mr. James Taylor Jr. who was pres­ent.* Subsequently certain of the leading London brethren took the line that they had been remiss in not supporting Mr. James Taylor Jr. when he raised his challenge and brought the matter up administratively with the result that a so-called “assembly meeting” was held in London on 20th January 1960 at which the two principal brothers# concerned confessed to their failure to stand with Mr. James Taylor Jr. at the London meetings, indicating that they had been wrongly hindered by the harshness of the manner in which Mr. Taylor had spoken.

[* 'Unity as Presented in Paul's Epistles', published by Philip Haddad, page 95 onwards. GAR]

[# A. J. Gardiner and Charles Hammond. Notes of the meeting and further details as to Mr. Cowell and others are in 'Persecution of the Righteous'. No. 20 in 'The Historical Reference Series'. GAR]

Prior to the aforesaid “assembly meeting” the issues had been raised at Mr. Cowell's local meeting (Hornchurch) and he took low ground in regard to what he had suggested and was “forgiven”. This, however, did not end the matter and under the influence of brothers from outside the locality the issue was continued against him in conjunction with other charges in regard to his ministry and two fur­ther “assembly meetings” were held at the second of which Mr. Cowell was withdrawn from.*

[* 'Outline of Principal Events leading up to the Withdrawal from Mr. G. R. Cowell in Hornchurch on 12th July 1960 by K. E. G. Barber, J. L. Wallach and H. J. Doughty [unavailable]. AGB]

The result of these proceedings was that thereafter Mr. James Taylor Jr. was given and readily took the place of being the dominant ministering brother amongst the brethren throughout the world and all that he brought forward was regarded as being author­itative and “the Spirit's voice to the assemblies”. These proceedings, however, opened the eyes of a large number of brethren to the true state of things amongst the brethren and on this account and also on account of some of the teachings of Mr. James Taylor Jr., now brought for­ward, very many throughout the world withdrew from fellowship with the brethren. Many others were withdrawn from for not accepting or following these teachings. All that then took place and all that has since followed under the leadership of Mr. James Taylor Jr. has but manifestly confirmed the departure from the truth by the brethren which was described in the preceding chapters.

The compiler of this history has no intention of examining fully the teachings of Mr. James Taylor Jr.,* but the following teach­ings of his are drawn attention to as they are outstandingly departures from the Scriptural teachings of honoured servants of the Lord in past years.

[* An extensive examination is in 'The Confrontation of J.T.Jr.' by Hubert Calvey. Published privately by H.C. in 3 volumes.]

The first matter to be referred to was the first divergence brought forward by Mr. James Taylor Jr. and was the assertion that the compliance with 2 Timothy 2 in regard to withdrawal from iniq­uity required complete and physical separation from those not in fellowship with them. This included the assertion that those in fellowship with the brethren must not eat with anyone with whom they do not break bread. In other words he taught that all eating with other persons involved fellowship with them. This teaching and its enforcement brought disastrous results amongst the brethren with public dishonour on the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ; causing as it did divisions in families and households, and, in some cases, separation between husbands and wives. This teaching can be seen in the following volumes of James Taylor Jr.'s ministry published by the Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot:—  6: 346-51, 407, 675;  7: 67-74, 117, 144, 260-3, 309-13, 344, 351-8, 367;  8: 278-80; 13: 225, 299; 15: 299-302; 16: 56-9, 279.

The compiler will do no more than point out that the teaching is quite contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10: 27 – “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake”. It is to be noted that verse 1 of chapter 11 termi­nates the paragraph containing the verse quoted and reads, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ”. This reminds us how our Lord Himself in His gracious drawing near to men in need ate with tax gatherers and sinners (Luke 7).

In the 1963 edition of 'The Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth', referred to in the preface of this pamphlet, on page 319 an attempt was made by the editor Mr. A. J. Gardiner to claim that there was “nothing new in the present insistence that eating with persons involves fellowship”. He went on to state the following:—

As long ago as 1897, the late Mr. F. E. Raven in a reading at Greenwich on John 13 (Ministry by F. E. Raven, 5: 264) said in relation to verse 18 that eating bread implied fellowship, and the late Mr. C. H. Mackintosh in his 'Notes on the Book of Genesis' (the fourth edition of which was published in 1861) says that the act of partaking of anyone's hospitality expresses “full fellowship with him”.

Anyone acquainted with the history of the brethren knows well that nothing of the character of the extreme physical separation brought in in connection with the question of eating by Mr. James Taylor Jr., was in the mind of either Mr. F. E. Raven or Mr. C. H. Mackintosh and that nothing of the kind had been taught or practised by them or the brethren between the date of their ministry and the bringing forward of the current teaching by Mr. James Taylor Jr. A letter dated 12th February 1965 was written to Mr. Gardiner pointing out and proving the falsity of his statements; but he refused to modify them in any way. A printed copy of this letter can be supplied to any person desiring it.

This teaching and its consequences caused a great public stir in certain parts of the country where families were particularly affected by it, so much so that a member of Parliament, Mr. R. Gresham Cooke, took up the issue on behalf of persons affected and arranged an interview*  in London with Mr. James Taylor Jr. on 10th August 1964, the day after the close of the three-day meetings at Dorking. At the last moment, however, Mr. Taylor took fright and returned to America without waiting to keep the appointment.# In December 1964 Mr. Gresham Cooke presented in the House of Com­mons a private member's bill entitled 'The Family Preservation Bill', which had two operative clauses reading as follows:—

[* "I am very grateful to you for suggesting a personal visit, and if you will name the time on August 10  or 11, I will come and see you, if the Lord will and I should live, James 4: 15." See letter of July 7, 1964, from J.T.Jr. to Mr. R. Gresham Cooke in 'To Press and Parliament', No. 25 in my Historical Reference Series.]

[# Most of us who were present were probably unaware of the appointment. J.T.Jr. left the 1964 Dorking meetings unexpectedly, a rumour being that he was unwell. He left the Lord's Day reading in the hands of his ultimate successor J. H. [Jim] Symington of Neche, N.D., to whom he had been referring enigmatically as “Big Jim” – the nickname of the press for himself. In the reading, Bruce [W.B.H ] and John [J.S.H.] Hales had J.H.S. thoroughly bewildered. Later, 'Stow Hill Depot' asked brethren to remove that reading from the book.]

1. Any person who, without reasonable grounds based upon considerations of health, either in writing or orally gives, solely under the guise of religion, any teaching or instruction which is calculated to encourage a husband or wife to break marital obligations, persistently to refuse intercourse one with another or to withdraw affection, comfort and solace one from the other, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

2. Any person who, either in writing or orally gives, solely under the guise of religion, any teaching or instruction which is calculated to encourage a parent or guardian to withdraw love and affection from a child of the age of thirteen and under in his care, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

This bill never received a second reading and lapsed.

After it was presented a brother Mr. Alan [C. S.] Price [of Barnet] on 21st January 1965 circulated a letter* to all members of Parliament in which he asserted ‘ inter alia ’ the following:—

This Bill strikes at the foundations of Christianity and the liberty of those who practise it.

If it became law it would be a punishable offence for anyone of whatever religious persuasion to preach from such passages of Scripture as Luke 12: 51–3; 14: 25–7, and 18: 29–30  

It is a direct challenge to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and indeed to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Mr. Price went on to indicate that the sponsor had made it plain in his statements to the Press that the bill was aimed against the brethren and asserted:—

The principles that governed them 140 years ago are the principles that govern them now, there has been no change – not indeed since Paul's day …

They have no rules or edicts, no headquarters or central administration, no corporate status, funds or property. Their leader is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; their law the Holy Scriptures.

[* See 'To Press and Parliament', No. 25 in my Historical Reference Series.]

The reader can judge the extent of the veracity of Mr. Price's assertions.

A further divergence from the past teaching of brethren brought in by Mr. James Taylor Jr. was the assertion in his teachings that the forsaking of our Lord continued while he was in the grave until His resurrection. This teaching can be found in the volumes of his ministry as follows:—

6: 675;  12: 74-6;  14: 4-15, 141-4, 361-4;  15: 399-411;  17: 103-7;  18: 31-4, 259-60;  19: 139;  27: 398-402;  28: 150-2, 203;  32: 6;  35: 16-7;  46: 16-7;  50: 124-5 51: 44-5;  66: 14;  67: 84

The following references will suffice to direct the reader to past ministry which will show that Mr. James Taylor Jr.'s teaching is a clear departure from that of honoured servants of the Lord of past days.

– J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 3: 193;
– J. N. Darby, Collected Writings, 15: 75;
– F. E. Raven, Ministry by F. E. Raven, 1: 83, 91;
– C. A. Coates, Letters of C. A. Coates, page 43.

The last divergence to be referred to is that of keeping Saturday as the Sabbath and not doing any work on that day. The following references to the ministry of Mr. James Taylor Jr. relate to this issue: [Volumes] 29: 48-51; 57: 119-22; 59: 11; 68: 10-1, 22-3.

Among other effects this ministry has led brethren who owned shops to close them on Saturday. The following references to the ministry of Mr. J. N. Darby and Mr. C. H. Mackintosh deal very fully with the question of the Sabbath.

– J. N. Darby, Collected Writings, 10: 86-88;
– C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on Genesis, pages 17-21.

Not only has Mr. Taylor [Jr.] brought forward teachings which involve a most serious departure from the truth, but, in addition, he has introduced very many ideas affecting the lives and habits of the brethren which have been hailed as “the voice of the Spirit” by his followers and have been made rules and regulations amongst the brethren which, if not followed, result in exclusion from the fellowship.

One example of these is that the brethren must not keep pets such as dogs and cats; another that they must not live in flats where the entrance from the road is shared with persons not in fellowship.

A most serious development under his leadership has been the encouragement of drinking of strong drink, particularly whiskey. This has been on the basis that whiskey and other similar drinks are “creatures of God”. This has been taken on to such an extent that the compiler personally knows two sisters who were asked by one of the leading brothers in their locality whether they had commenced to drink whiskey, “to be like Mr. Jim”.

A recent development has been the withdrawal from public sale by the Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot of all ministry sold by them,  leaving only for public sale Bibles and certain tracts; the sale of ministry being confined to the brethren in fellowship with Mr. James Taylor Jr. This is a departure from the practice followed by the Depot since its establishment as a charity under a Trust Deed in 1931. Firstly the ministry of Mr. James Taylor Jr. was withdrawn from public sale at the end of 1968 and this was followed in early 1969 by the withdrawal of the ministry of earlier teachers including Mr. J. N. Darby, Mr. J. B. Stoney, Mr. F. E. Raven, Mr. James Taylor Sr., etc. In the past it has always been held by the brethren that the ministry of their teachers was for the whole Church of God, and, indeed, the return of the Depot to London was considered at the meeting called by the Trustees in September 1954, one of the reasons being that it would enable those not in fellowship with them to have access to their ministry. No reasons for the withdrawal of this ministry from public sale have been given, though when speaking of it to a brother in fel­lowship with Mr. James Taylor Jr. he referred to the Scripture in Isa­iah 8: 16, “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples”, implying that the time had come to confine the ministry to those who were, in the view of the brethren, true “disciples”. This change has been reported to the Charity Commission, who have taken the matter up with the Stow Hill Trustees as this restriction of the sale of some of the Depot's publications appears to conflict with the status of the Depot as a registered charity. The issue has not yet been finished.  However, the compiler would point out that if anyone partic­ularly desired to investigate the teachings of Mr. James Taylor Jr., access to these issued up to 1968 can be obtained in the Reading Room of the British Museum in London, where copies of all pub­li­ca­tions have to be sent under the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1911.

Compare History: Stow Hill Depot: 1968 - Sales Policy.  GAR

It is intensely sorrowful and humbling that what might have at one time been regarded as the main stream of a remarkable move­ment of the Spirit of God in the early part of the last century, which resulted in very large numbers of Christians withdrawing from what they had come to regard as “iniquity”, should now have become itself to be marked by “iniquity” of a most grievous character, and yet this is the only conclusion that any sober-minded and truly exercised Christian can come to in view of what has been briefly outlined in the pages of this pamphlet.

The compiler has been deeply impressed in going over the history with the terrible subtlety of the way in which the present situation has come about, a most evident mark of Satanic activity in connection with it. The sequence of events but demonstrates this in a marked way. Firstly the introduction by the leading teacher amongst the brethren, whose past ministry had been blessed of God to them, of new teachings which could not be established satisfactorily from Scripture and which were a reversal of past teachings; this leading to the brethren being compelled to accept this teacher's ministry as “authoritative”, and then according to his successor – an entirely different type of man – the same place of authority, which, in turn, has led to the compulsory adoption as “the Spirit's voice to the assemblies” of unscriptural teachings introduced by him, which have brought disaster to the brethren and to their testimony.

"Yet the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, The Lord knows those that are his; and, Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work. But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart." 2 Timothy: 19-22 (J.N.D.’s translation)

Page Top   Article Top

LETTER  TO  G. A. RAINBOW
January 28, 1973

65 Nork Way, Banstead, Surrey, England

Mr. Gordon A. Rainbow,
My dear Brother,

Having seen a copy of your letter … it has occurred to me that you might like a copy of the enclosed pamphlet 'The Departure from the Truth after its Recovery' of which I am the compiler and also the Mr. B— of page 36 [of the original printing]. While this booklet has gone fairly widely abroad, I have no recollection of any going to Canada and would be glad to send further copies free of charge should you be able to make use of them to help our poor misguided brethren.

I also enclose a copy of a letter which I have sent to many of my contacts during the past week and which speaks for itself. The London Strang-Aberdonians are very different from the Mason brothers.

My wife and I are not attached to any group of ex-exclusive brethren and have not broken bread since 1954.  We are, however, in close touch with very many.

With love in the Lord Jesus, Your brother in Him, Arthur G. Brown 

Page Top   Article Top

LETTER  TO  A. J. GARDINER
Re 'The Recovery And Maintenance Of The Truth' February 12, 1965

Dear Mr. Gardiner, 
The 1963 [second] edition [blue cover] of your book 'The Recovery and Maintenance of the Truth' has recently come to my notice and, in particular, the chapter commencing on page 316 entitled 'What is required of those naming the Name of the Lord'.

On pages 318 and 319 the following statements occur:—

“It is significant that the Lord has established eating and drinking together as the expression of Christian fellowship (1 Corinthians 10: 15-17; 11: 26-29) with its accompanying respon­sibility, and, if, as governed by the directions in 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, we are unable, in faithfulness to the Lord, to partake of the Lord's supper with certain persons, it is clearly out of the question to eat with such persons on natural or social lines. To do so is really an affront to the Lord and the Spirit … It may be added that there is nothing new in the present insistence that eating with persons involves fellowship. As long ago as 1897, the late Mr. F. E. Raven, in a reading at Greenwich on John 13 (Ministry by F. E. Raven, 5: 264) said in relation to verse 18 that eating bread implied fellowship, and the late Mr. C. H. Mackintosh in his 'Notes on the Book of Genesis' (the fourth edition of which was published in 1861) says that the act of partaking of anyone's hospitality expresses ‘full fellowship with him’ ”.

Yours faithfully in our Lord Jesus Christ, A. G. Brown.   Page Top   Article Top