From Freedom to Failure, 1960-74

We do feel the support of the Lord. We desire to tread the path of faith and devotion to Him, who went to the extreme length of dishonour and death to free us from all that is dishonouring to a Holy God. We hold to His promise with comfort and joy,

• “Where two or three are gathered together in My name there am I in the midst”.

Our warm love in the Lord, Yours in Him, A. E. Myles.

There are persistent rumours about beloved G.R.C. and myself quarrelling over the truth and indeed it is being said that I am seeking my way back to the in position because of the confusion outside.

• Confusion there may be in some minds and in some places but anyone who has judged the system and come out to simply follow Jesus could never, with their eyes on Him, find themselves again in such a system!!

• All these wild rumours are wholly untrue and are the figment of vivid imaginations which find ready carriers to spread them abroad. It is a sorrowful thing, but untruth is one of the outstanding features of the existing state amongst those we have left.

As to Airdrie, we had a very happy time. About 80 brethren cames in coaches from Gardenstown, over 200 miles away, to be with us and to strengthen the hands of their brethren in Lanarkshire.

• The New Year meetings in the north with G.R.C. and in the south with Mr. [C. W.] Cooper were all excellent, and large companies 200-300 gathered in spite of intensely severe weather conditions.

As to the possibility of a visit to you, I judge it would be (if it does materialize) sometime around October or November. We shall have to see as to it later on DV, but I have it definitely in mind, if it be God’s will. *

[* A.P.C.L. was in Toronto for meetings in November 1962. See P. Haddad's 'Divine System' Book 3: 77.]

Aberdeen is prospering – quite a few added recently, and we hope that Prestwick will soon be added to our liberated gatherings.

Please give our very much love in the Lord Jesus to all with you.

Affectionately your brother in Christ. Cecil Lawrence.

The Lord is graciously stirring up the nest everywhere and more are being delivered, not in large numbers but in quality and depth of exercise.

A controversy, August-October 1966, and a further division resulted when most brethren in Hastings refused to express fellowship in the breaking of bread with a visitor from Birming­ham – which had endorsed Weybridge’s decision in favour of Croham Hall, Croydon.

In Toronto, some who left the legal sect in 1964-5 had joined those who had withdrawn in 1960-61, but insisted on maintaining links with A. P. C. Lawrence and Croham Hall. This led to division.

• In Feb. 1967, those remaining declared themselves “as unable to recog­nize as available to us in fellowship those who support” Croham Hall. In March 1968 they finally accepted Ilford’s action.

Division took place in Croydon on Dec. 13, 1965. On March 8 “Wey­bridge, as supported by Ilford” decided in favour of Croham Hall (See: Shedden/Tart, Aug. 24, 1966)

• On Feb. 27, 1967, Ilford charged Croham Hall with a “course of unrighteousness … over the past 14 months”.

• In October 1973, Ilford recanted in hope of reconciliation.

A Word of Warning by B. G. Hardingham is sober and help­ful amid all the feverish activities, although he ignores Hastings’ position.

Hastings’ position re Croham Hall seems, for some time, to have been considered as having validity by some Toronto brethren, before it was finally rejected in favour of Ilford.

1997 (Revised 1998) Gordon A. Rainbow

The brethren in Melbourne have been through a very great deal of sorrow and distress, the latest form of this being divided homes, where one partner leaves the other, and at times children are taken away from their own parents.

One is amazed at what has been going on in this city among the brethren we have left. For instance, in one meeting Mr. — with a flourish of his hands said, “If you are not going on with current ministry, God does not want you and you can go!”

But one of the most extraordinary things ever said was from Isaiah 54: 17, when this verse was read publicly by a youngish brother [as], ‘No weapon that is prepared against Mr. — shall pros­per and every tongue that riseth against Mr. — in judgment thou shalt condemn’.

• This particular matter has so dis­tressed a brother of 93 that, although he is bedridden, he feels he cannot go on any longer.

The extraordinary lengths to which matters are carried are almost unbelievable, that two persons, one in fellowship and one not, may not use the same gate of entrance to their own self-contained flat.

• It is pathetic to find the children taking on the same foolish prac­tices: such as a boy taking his sandwiches up a tree because he would not eat with others. He had to come down again because other boys climbed the same tree as well.

One is greatly impressed and much comforted in seeing that the brethren in Melbourne stand firm on every divine principle. There are no loose tendencies among them and they hold firmly to the wor­ship of the Spirit.

• I believe it on this account that God is still blessing them. It also provides a clean place for those withdrawn from to come to immediately.

On Thursday (19th) the brethren we have left had their usual reading at which Mr. — was present and, after the reading, seven persons were withdrawn from and 19 others were given a week. This meeting lasted until 10 minutes to 12 [midnight].

Every day sees further attacks on the brethren [we have left] in the press, and their public testimony is in absolute disgrace. Their meeting room doors are locked and even the iron gates have spike barbed wire on them.

• By way of contrast, our brethren, who have an excellent public hall, leave all their doors open wide.

We had two readings on Saturday (21st) when over 200 were present including 10 from Tasmania. Three meetings on Lord's Day when a number of strangers were present, and there was some bless­ing known. On Easter Monday we had a reading and address when well over 200 were present.

• As there are always more withdrawals taking place and many other matters of interest to speak over, the brethren remain behind for conversation, sometimes up to one hour. Their joy seems to be the Lord’s compensation to them for their suf­fering.

• A third breaking of bread was begun on Easter Sunday. The love and hospitality of the brethren is well nigh overwhelming, and many gather together in brethren’s homes, remaining until very late in the evening.

Three brothers from Melbourne came over for the all day meetings at Burnie, Tasmania, on April 28th. It was a time of very great joy as several were present who had only recently left the breth­ren they had walked with for many years. There was great interest in the gospel as a number of strangers were present. We also had a reading at Devonport.

• Two meetings were held in Bairnsdale, Vic­toria, on May 4th (180 miles) where there are only 4 breaking bread – but there were 27 to the address.

• Lord's Day the 6th was the first anniversary of the breaking of bread in Melbourne, when 25 came together. Now there are about 180, numbers increasing every week. Of the 250 to the gospel about 50 had responded to invitations given them by those breaking bread.

The situation at Sydney is very distressing and calls for much prayer as about 300 are out and only 25 are coming together – but an address is arranged in a hired hall on Tuesday (15th) and fellowship meetings the next day.

It is hoped to have some meetings in Auckland, N.Z. (all day 19th); Nelson, Christchurch and Hamilton (fellowship meetings 26th); during the 11 days there, after which, if the Lord will, I will return to Melbourne for 28th and 29th and leave for home on May 30th, spending the night of the 31st at Zurich – London, June 1.

As can be well imagined, the brethren everywhere are deeply interested in what the Lord is doing in other parts of the world. It seems now to be confirmed that Mr. — has been refused a visa to Australia and New Zealand for meetings in October, on the ground of hopelessly divided families through his ministry which has been applied in Melbourne with deception and cruelty.

Sydney, May 15th. We had a baptism here last even, and then went on to the address and, to the surprise of most, just over 100 were present – the first public meeting of those out.

We were at Centhall [?] recently. Mrs. — was there and a little girl befriended by J.T. [?] having a flat over the —s now turned out! Mrs. — has left.

• My dear wife is being looked after by her sisters at Canterbury. She had a bad turn but is better.

• It would be difficult to get brethren not in Australia, especially Sydney, to believe what goes on among the brethren we have left.

Much love to you both, Affectionately your brother, Edward J. Hemmings.

2. The recognition by brethren in Tunbridge Wells of a few meeting with Messrs. Joy and Lee in St. Leonard’s, Sussex, to the exclusion of those linked with Messrs. Pearce and Diplock who, like ourselves, are unable to continue in fellowship with the Croham Hall meeting.*

[* But see comments on Hastings’ Position Re Croham Hall in Part Three.]

3. The partisan action taken by brethren in Weybridge in recogniz­ing those continuing at Croham Hall to the exclusion of those (inclu­ding Messrs. Redfearn and Penhearow) who have left the Croham Hall meeting, and whose exercises were not taken into account in a godly way at Weybridge.

Our conclusions have been reached after taking into account a considerable body of information furnished by various brethren, par­ticularly in the vicinities where these actions have been taken.

• In all these cases, in spite of much detail and some confusion, it is clear to us that a course of iniquity (as understood in the context of Holy Scripture and, in particular, 2 Tim. 2: 19) has been followed, from which we must withdraw and do declare ourselves now accordingly.

As to divine principle involved, often associated with Deut. 21: 1-9, we fully adhere to what we have learned as to the special responsibility of the nearest meeting;

• where, however, a grave mis­carriage of justice is plainly indicated, as in the matters referred to above, we cannot recognize such actions as godly exercise of divine principle, nor can we regard those who support such actions as avail­able to us in fellowship.

Our responsibility is to:—

• “walk in the light as He is in the light, 1 John 1: 7; and

• “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart”, 2 Tim. 2: 22.

• “A false balance is an abomination to Jehovah”, Prov. 11: 1.

We deeply grieve that, in consequence, many of our beloved brethren in Britain and elsewhere are now no longer available to us, and this also applies to a number hitherto walking with us in this city* and who have given us to understand that they are unable to share in our conclusions now conveyed in this letter.

[* This refers to — [names deleted] and others who had been in fellowship with the signers of the above letter, after leaving the legal sect in 1964-65.]

The undersigned, acting on behalf of some twenty brethren in this city who share our exercises, have to advise that we are continu­ing to meet as heretofore, except that, as we have conceded the room to those no longer able to walk with us, we meet for the breaking of bread and other meetings at our meeting room 3421 Yonge Street, Toronto (which we had vacated in November 1965).

We shall continue in much prayer that the Lord, whose claim must be paramount, will graciously deliver all His own from the evil which has led to such tragic division.

On behalf of all who gather at 3421 Yonge Street, Toronto,

Faithfully and affectionately yours in Christ,

J. A. Bulloch, I. E. Salvesen,  W. Gray, R W. N. Saunders,  W. M. Taylor

Mr. R. W. N. Saunders,
Beloved brother,
Your circular letter signed by five brothers was received here, and I write to acknowledge its receipt. It has been handed to our brother Mr. Joseph Slater, who has the care of the notices and of let­ters relating to fellowship, so that my writing now is on a personal basis.

• “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another”.

As I correspond fairly regularly with our brothers, Mr. P. B. Diplock, also with Mr. W. J. Pearce, their exercises and position are known here.

• One feels that the Lord Jesus is arousing the consciences of brethren generally as to whether we are truly
  • “in communion (fellowship) with the altar”, 1 Cor. 10: 18, which involved His death.

  • Also “our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem”, Psa. 122: 2 – not one foot within, and one foot “in the camp”.

• I notice that you speak of some twenty brethren who share these exercises with you. May you all be encouraged in the Lord Jesus who is
  • “purifying” the assembly “by the washing of water by the word”, and is about to “present the assembly to Himself glorious”.

Those meeting in the Kindergarten School Hall, Paramatta (Sydney), now 31 brethren, had to withdraw sorrowfully in 1964 from those who maintained a ‘right’ to attend gospel services in so-called church buildings.

• These, not available to us, still meet in Cheltenham School Hall and are linked with Thirroul – their nearest meeting and with Balwyn Road, Melbourne.

• Brethren at Paramatta seek in humil­ity and dependence on the Lord to walk “in communion with the altar” and without the camp.

The Lord Jesus, after looking round on all things (in the city where He was later crucified) went out to Bethany with the twelve, Mark 11: 11, and in John’s gospel it says “there they made Him a supper”.

• Bethany on the Mount of Olives would suggest spiritual conditions where the Lord is pleased to come to His own, and where the persons – in the day of the Holy Spirit here – would know that the things which the apostle Paul wrote are the Lord’s commandment. 1 Cor. 14: 37

• This, one feels, is important, whereas fellowships built up by men, to suit men, are not important to faith.

• As you say in your letter, “we deeply grieve that, in consequence, many of our beloved brethren in Britain and elsewhere, are no longer available to us”;
  • but we can humbly thank God for the “opened door which no man can shut”, and that there are those with whom we have spiritual links.

• Meanwhile we await the Lord’s time, when “the approved” will be manifest.

With warm love in the Lord to yourself and those walking in the same path.

Affectionately in Christ, Albert Lee.

We came therefore together again in assembly on the 18th instant. We considered before the Lord the whole sorrowful position that has developed in Croydon since the sad division which took place on Dec. 13, 1965.

Reference was made to reasons,* as indicated on the attached sheet (mentioned in our last letter to you), as to why we could not, and still cannot, accept the Weybridge letter of March 8, 1966 [unavailable ], as concluding the Croydon issue.

[* Refers to points 1 - 4 following.]

• We cannot stress too strongly, dear brethren, the wrongness of that letter, sent out so hurriedly after seeing you only – the Weybridge brethren contenting themselves with seeing only one section of the division.

• And that judgment (which, we are advised, was never arrived at as before the Lord in assembly), chiefly, condemned the Purley brethren and found for you.

• As we have often pointed out, it was not preceded by a thorough and impartial enquiry face to face with all the Croydon brethren; it never went into the deep-seated causes behind the sad division. This was a most unfair and biased action, which can only be described as an unrighteous judgment.

The following facts were laid before us last Wednesday in assembly.

1. That you, dear brethren, did embrace, and tenaciously insist on, that judgment – when you must be aware of the inadequacy and inconclusiveness of the partial ‘enquiry’ conducted by Weybridge.

2. Your complete disregard of the deep and sincere exercises and indeed distress of so many of your brethren, including ourselves in Ilford, as to the vital necessity of a priestly, thorough enquiry accord­ing to God, of the whole issue, with a view to arriving at a godly solution and adjustment and healing all around, and not merely a rushed decision in favour of one section of the division.

3. Your refusing to see unless we first accepted this judgment “in its entirety”. Now, this continued insistence on this is not only unbroth­erly and devoid of all consideration to your neighbouring brethren, but it is self will in the things of God. It is deliberately shutting the door to what God might bring in, through the brethren, of another solution perhaps not envisaged by you. But man’s will is not God’s will and is therefore sin. All sin is lawlessness (1 John 3: 4), and as it is persisted in becomes – alas, as it has – iniquity in God’s house.

4. The sorrowful fact that bitterness, which existed at Croham Hall as originally constituted, remains to this day, with at least some still meeting with you there. This on the authority of Scripture, as was shown in the two words given at our previous meeting of assembly character on Feb. 21, 1967 – based on Leviticus 14 – has characteris­tics of “leprosy”. We reiterate brethren our statement in our last let­ter to you on Feb. 27, 1967, “that leprosy manifested at Croham Hall has, in the continuance of features that are not of God, evidenced its presence still”.

Dear brethren, when we were together thus, we were thor­oughly searched in our hearts in the presence of the Lord and had to judge these features of the flesh in ourselves; but we must now de­clare our own opposition in this grievous issue.

For the past 15 months, in deep and distressing exercises of soul and anguish of spirit, shared with so many of the beloved breth­ren in many parts, as to the state of things in Croydon, we earnestly and patiently sought to do what we could towards a godly solution of this most grievous sorrow in Croydon.

• We, however, have been con­stantly hindered, thwarted and resisted in all our efforts – our affec­tionate appeals to you during the past few months repeatedly ignored and spurned by you, so long as we could not bow to your terms im­posed on us in your last four letters [unavailable].

To summarize, then, we have to frankly state, dear brethren, that the grave matters set out in the above four paragraphs are sorrowfully still marking you, namely—

1. Unrighteousness: Insistence on an unrighteous judgment. Lev. 19: 35-36.

2. Independency: Disregard and violation of the unity of the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 1: 1-2.

3. Iniquity: Self will in the things of God is contrary to right conduct “in God’s house”. 1 Tim. 3: 15; John 3: 4.

4. Leprosy: Root of bitterness – continued and wide­spread, defiling many by it. Heb. 12: 15; Eph. 4: 31; Lev. 14.

As long, therefore, as these features, which are not of God, continue amongst you unjudged, we must, in faithfulness to the Lord, have now to declare, dear brethren, that we can neither have fellow­ship with you nor walk with you.

But may the blessed Lord Jesus graciously grant that attentive ears and exercised hearts in Croydon may yet be moved by this loving appeal through the brethren and that as judging the above mentioned matters, so foreign to the Divine nature in us, be greatly helped of Him to depart from iniquity in a way that will honour Him and lead to the re-establishment of happy brotherly relations together before God in the truth – to His praise and glory!

Assuring you, dear brethren, of our continued prayer and love, we remain, on behalf of the brethren meeting at Clementswood Hall, Ilford.

Yours affectionately in our Lord Jesus,

Fred E. Carter, John E. P. Watts, Chas. L. Sidney

Following the breach in December, 1965, a number of approaches were made to Croham Hall to bring about reconciliation, but these were all met by a definite refusal to see their brethren except individually. The bitterness existing, far from being “removed”, as is called for in Ephesians 4: 31, continues to this day.

Many dear brethren, well intentioned but uninformed as to the facts, speak as though it was only minor matters, not serious enough to cause a breach; but the will of man being brought into the things of God is a very serious matter and is clearly named in 1 Samuel 15: 23.

Now this same will has resisted and frustrated the brethren at Ilford in carrying out their responsibility to the Lord as one of our neighbouring meetings for twelve months.

• The principle of proximity, based on Deuteronomy 21, has long been honoured amongst breth­ren. As far as we have followed up the truth and the teaching, we have always understood that if a nearby meeting has to take up a matter in another locality and their handling of the matter does not carry the brethren in the district it is the responsibility of the next nearest meeting to look into the case.
  • Deut. 1: 17 says, “Ye shall hear the small as well as the great”.

• In this case, Weybridge heard the ‘great’ and sent out their letter of 8th March, 1966, without hearing the ‘small’.

• The statement being circulated that the other brethren refused to see Weybridge is not true. How can we pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace together if such unrighteousness is to be condoned?

• As you know, the Weybridge letter was to say that Croham Hall are right. For some months before Ilford were forced to act, Croham Hall refused to see them unless they first accepted the Weybridge letter; in other words, acknowledged that they were right.

The Guildford letter of April, 1967 [unavailable], shows that Ilford are not alone amongst our neighbours who share these exercises.

We feel intensely the part we have had in the dishonour done to the Lord and our lack of power to avert it or meet it locally, and have acknowledged this before the Lord.

We are deeply grieved that brethren universally should have been occupied with evils in Croydon. Our desire is that we may so thoroughly judge them before God that the Lord may graciously relieve all our minds of them, so that we may pursue the truth together,

Bearing in mind these exercises, we are concerned that there may be something, however small, of true assembly character in the place where the Lord and the Spirit may have Their way, and to which the Lord may be pleased to add.

We are breaking bread at 22 Birch Tree Way and earnestly desire the prayers and fellowship of the dear brethren in every place who are like minded.

Affectionately, your brothers in our Lord Jesus Christ,

I. H. R. Rogers, Donald Leng,* H. F. Redfearn

[* In 1970 Mr. Leng was local in Wallington a neighbouring (and also nearest) meeting to Croydon. When he wrote to R.W.N.S. in April 1983, Mr. Leng showed his address as 22, Birch Tree Way, Croydon, Surrey CRO 7JY – the home of the late Mr. H. F. Redfearn used as a meeting room since the Croham Hall division. Mr. Leng also spoke of “Mr. I. H. Rogers” as his “local brother and true yoke­fellow”.]

Times of meetings, if the Lord will:—
Lord’s Day 11:00 4:00 6:45
Monday – Prayer 7:45
Thursday – Reading 7:45
Ministry Meeting – 1st Tuesday in each month at 7:45 pm.

This is not peculiar to the present trouble, but has marked every difficulty (both in Britain and overseas) which has arisen over the past few years – a readiness to receive, circulate, and even add to alleged accounts of what is supposed to have happened.

• This is symp­tomatic of a thoroughly bad moral state, and an almost complete lack of confidence among brethren. Let us take this to heart.

A glaring false statement which has received wide circulation is that the present issue (as to Croydon) involves the accepted truth as to “the nearest city” (Deut. 21: 1-9) being set aside, and that the present conflict is “Glanton over again”. This is not so, as any sober consideration of the correspondence disclosed by Ilford, ex­tending over 15 months, would make clear.

1. It is extremely doubtful that Weybridge is the “nearest gather­ing” to Croydon. Weybridge brethren do not claim to be; they open their letter of 8th March, 1966 by saying: “As a neighbouring meeting we …” – for Ilford can be considered equally as near to Croydon, depending even upon which street is followed. But let us not be side-tracked away from the real moral side of the matter, which is far greater than a few yards either way.

2. Even although Ilford, in brotherly consideration, conceded that Weybridge should exercise the right to act as the nearest meet­ing, the question arises as to whether they have righteously exercised the responsibility attaching to it, for no “thorough enquiry” has been made – see Deut. 17: 8-11 – and this has been admitted, but various excuses have been made for this not being done. (It should be under­stood that although no obligation is laid upon “the nearest city” to make enquiry, yet it would be impossible for a right judgment to be made without such an enquiry.)

This section of Scripture emphasises (as C.A.C. and J.T. insis­ted) that the facts are to be established by “the priests, the Levites” – see Deut. 21: 15 – the distinction between “elders” (who are local) and “the priests, the Levites” (who may not necessarily be local) is important. We need to maintain the emphasis where the Spirit of God places it.

• Also the solemn matter of the heifer, and the ever-flowing watercourse (an allusion to the death of Christ and the move­ments of the Holy Spirit) is an obligation upon the elders, as they put into effect the words of the priests, the sons of Levi.

Now, there is no evidence that our brethren at Weybridge have moved in accordance with this Scripture. Indeed, no meeting of assembly character seems to have been held at which provision was made for all those affected to be present.

• In fact a brother present at the meeting remarked at a later date that the whole proceedings would not have met even worldly standards of justice.

• This being so, it is clear that priestly discernment and discrim­ination were absent, and any decision arrived at must be regarded as completely invalid.

A further matter which needs to be remembered is that, in addi­tion to the unsatisfactory nature of the actions at Weybridge, they refused to answer godly enquiries as to matters which had not even been investigated, but referred the enquirers to Croham Hall, who throughout have consistently refused to answer any ques­tions.

• While they may have their own reasons for this, yet it is not transpar­ency such as should be found with brethren, and it is utterly inconsis­tent with the street of the city – “pure gold as transparent glass”. If our walk is to be such then, why not now?

This sad behaviour, with its history of months of evasiveness and refusal, should, by itself, be sufficient for any spiritually-minded person to confirm that the rights of the Lord and the Holy Spirit have been denied. It has been a course of self-will.

• As to whether brethren in other places are free to go along with such behaviour, and be iden­tified with it is a serious matter.

• Our brethren at Ilford (which is really equally as near to Croydon as Weybridge) after prolonged searching and enquiry, and agonizing before the Lord, have come to the sorrowful conclusion that they cannot, in faithfulness to the Lord, identify them­selves with Croham Hall in its present state.

• Those who are consider­ing otherwise would do well to weigh these matters over before the Lord.

B. G. Hardingham*
1, Lambert Close, Shurdington – Cheltenham, Glos.

[* B.G.H. is the author of 53 and 148 in Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Little Flock – Re-Selected 1973.]

When the apostle wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians there were, as you say, only three classes of persons in view, “Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God”, 1 Cor. 10: 32

• In the recovery of the truth we have been helped to be adjusted as to many matters, and I myself and the brethren generally, accepted the word the Lord gave through Mr. James Taylor Senior nearly thirty years ago in Sydney that the words you quote,
  • “only in the Lord”, 1 Cor. 7: 39, applied to?day if both partners had obeyed the Lord's commandment as contained in 2 Tim. 2: 19-22.

• The marriage bond is probably the most obvious and closest of yokes, and you will see from our letter above referred to, that these words “only in the Lord” could not be said to apply to both partners in the marriage in question.

I trust what I have said may be of some help.

Since the marriage both partners are linked in fellowship with those from whom we have had to separate.

Affectionately your brother in Him, P. Bernard Diplock.

What I understand about purification is discrimination be­tween righteousness and wickedness.

• Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of God's throne, Psalm 89: 14.
  • “For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may in darkness shoot at the upright in heart”, Psalm 11: 2.

Letters can be tested without knowing all the facts, by noting that certain points are played up to the advantage of the writer, while others are played down to the disadvantage of the opponents or by other means such as flattery or recrimination.

• If we record anything in a letter, it must be true comparable to what will be recorded at the judgment seat of Christ. Otherwise it partakes of the character of Psalm 11: 2 [quoted above ].

I agree with your remarks about the Ilford letters. If they had acted in a priestly way they would have taken up the matter a year ago.

An expression is being used, “We cannot accept the principle of the nearest meeting as a rule of thumb”.

• If it is meant that we can­not fix the principle of proximity on the nearest meeting unless there are suitable conditions present to deal with the matter, it is obvious that the brethren moving with Ilford agree with this as, otherwise, we should not have rejected the Sidmouth decision with regard to Cred­iton and the Weybridge decision with regard to Croham Hall.

• It is agreed by the nearby meetings that suitable conditions do exist at Yeovil and Ilford. Therefore we do accept their judgments.

If meet­ings at a distance presume to come to their own judgments (unless it is a matter of the truth) it can only lead to confusion. As far as I understand these things, an assembly judgment carries the Lord's authority and the way of unity is to accept it.

Your affectionate brother in the Lord, H. F. Redfearn.

I feel Mr. James Taylor helps in this in his ministry, New Series 7: 333, line 13 from the bottom, “This as applied today would mean the nearest meeting or meetings” etc.,

• then in his letters, 1: 289, 2nd paragraph, “If this (spirituality) does not exist in a meeting, con­fidence by saints elsewhere could not be placed in it so its nearness would fail of importance, hence meetings further afield” etc.

• This shows that the matter is not simple for those far afield where we are not acquainted with the state and ability of localities nearby.

• There is no “nearest meeting” to us in America. Where is the nearest meeting to our sympathetic brethren in Kingston, Jamaica? – also to our brother Noel in Guyana and the few with him?

We know this does not apply to you in Britain to the same ex­tent, but a state of confusion has existed which has caused us to wait. My own feeling is that God purposely makes things difficult to test our spirituality.

• A divine principle is no guarantee in these con­flicts where a [spiritual] state does not exist.

It is interesting to read J.T.’s letters re Toronto in the early 1900's when Rochester (not the nearest meeting by far) took the mat­ter up and acted – and their action was accepted – the near meetings to Toronto being supporters of Toronto’s wrong state.

As to the Columbus matter – the nearest meeting, Cincinnati, did not deal with it. Indianapolis took the matter in hand and were supported.

• As regards the China matter – it was London, England, who finalized the matter. Of course, the China matter was hardly [merely] a locality, but it shows how divine wisdom works in unusual and broken circumstances.

As to meetings with you in Britain going on happily together, one feels glad and I see the actions of Mr. A. E. Myles and St. Leon­ards previous to Ilford’s final judgment (which do not meet with your approval) as being in the right direction – so that this difficulty should not be a great barrier to your being together, as in actuality you are together in meeting the challenge of the open principle.

W. M. Taylor.

The Present Difficulties In Croydon, and the Feb. 8, 1968 letter, by the formerly non-partisan B. G. Hardingham ­are effectual in secu­r­ing Toronto’s – previously uncommitted – support for Ilford rather than Hastings.

Hastings’ Position Re Croham Hall reflects on Toronto’s early sympathy for Hastings’ and how – yielding to intense pressure – they finally abandoned Hastings altogether – influenced by the majority support for Ilford, to avoid the charge of “independency” and to maintain the widest circle of fellowship.

Rex Grace’s account of his 1969 trip (though somewhat sugary) is interesting, and identifies brethren connected with Croham Hall. [It is not included on this page.]

Five letters (Jan. 1970 – Dec. 1972) are grouped as they deal with the history of brethren in Sydney, Australia, aptly called Mobbs Hill.

The few in Croydon and Wallington who had refused Croham Hall and then Purley, seemed cleared by Ilford’s March 1967 judg­ment of Croham Hall. But by December 1970, they too had incurred Ilford’s displeasure. The charges were vague, unsub­stantial and unsub­stantiated – but Ilford declared them out of fellowship.

From October 1973 to June 1974 the letters refer to a proposed but uncertain (as to outcome) reconciliation of Ilford and Croham Hall, although Ilford is reported to be “not unanimous”.

A rift between Ilford and Chelmsford centres on the activities of Ilford. The Jan. 29, 1974, letter of H. S. Etty – who had earlier sup­ported Ilford fully – exposes the spirit at work in that locality. The March 30th and June 6th letters of J. L. Wallach of Marlow – former­ly of Ilford – confirms Mr. Etty’s assessment.

1997 (Revised 1998) Gordon A. Rainbow>

… I think I may say that the acid test of fellowship is the accept­ance or refusal of Ilford’s judgment. (I do not like the expression “test of fellowship” but it is almost the only term which isolates and emphasizes the vital issue.)

Now, beloved brother, I will not write more. There has been far too much writing. I prefer to deal with facts (although latterly attacked in certain quarters). I trust the Lord will bring in healing through the acceptance of righteousness.

My very warm love in the Lord to you and your dear wife and to all the brethren who remain who are known to me.

Very affectionately yours in Him, B. G. Hardingham.

The excuse being offered is that full enquiry has been made by Weybridge, as the nearest meeting, and they have exonerated Croham Hall. This is a convenient excuse for refusing to support any further enquiry.

• I am reminded of J.N.D.’s short paper entitled 'What Investigation has there been at Plymouth?' – Collected Writings, Vol. 20 – in which he quotes the person who had drawn up a statement that there had been an enquiry as admitting subsequently that anything like an open investigation was positively refused. This is also true of the Weybridge enquiry, and of Croham Hall’s attitude.

• It is like an offender, having gained the ear of a weak and indifferent judge, refus­ing to answer any questions. Such behaviour lacks transparency, and is without any respect for the rights of Christ in His Assembly, for what has happened in Croydon is the concern of all in every place who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

• I feel that the attitude of many in regarding that matter as being simply between Ilford and Croham Hall is deplorable, and cannot be too strongly condemned. It completely ignores the way the rights of the Lord and of the Holy Spirit are being affected, and shows how personal feelings – and even animosity – are being allowed to becloud the issue.

What is even worse, and destructive of true fellowship, is the sectarian attitude which is being pursued by certain gatherings which are opposing Ilford.

• Personally, I support neither Croham Hall or Ilford; but since, so far as has been possible – for there has been much obstruction and refusal of cooperation – Ilford has carried out a long, patient and open investigation and as Ilford is at least as near, if not nearer than Weybridge,
  • I feel under an obligation to the Lord, as well as to my brethren, to accept the judgment of Ilford, which was arrived at in a properly convened assembly meeting, at which a number of brethren from other gatherings were present.

• This was, as I understand it, that until Croham Hall came to an acknowledgment of the truth, they could not walk with them. The way was left open and still remains so.

The Lord is using the present difficulties (which themselves afford no excuse for division) to bring to light what, to my personal knowledge, has been under the surface for many years.

• Let us, each one, keep our eyes on Christ, and be ready to be guided by the Spirit, and, above all, let all bitterness, and heat of passion, and wrath, and clamour, and injurious language, be removed from us, with all malice; and be to one another kind, compassionate, forgiving one another, so as God also in Christ has forgiven us.

B.G.H.

With fervent love in our Lord Jesus Christ,

From the brethren meeting at 3421 Yonge Street, Toronto.

Mr. R. W. N. Saunders,
Beloved brother,
It is only a week since I wrote last to say that we could not come and visit you because of local troubles here. It has now come to a head and we had a very sorrowful division.

I think I told you of the difficult case we had before us – a brother who forsook his wife and lived de facto with another woman for 14 years.

• Eventually his wife divorced him and he married the other woman, then presented himself under a new name, with his new wife for restoration. This happened 12 years ago when we were all in the Exclusive Brethren together.*
  [* One cannot but wonder whether the brethren knew of his name change, and on what basis he was received at that time, c. 1958.]

Recently he left the Exclusive Brethren [the legal sect] and came to us.

• Some felt there was no basis at all for receiving them be­cause they were living in sin; others thought Matthew 19: 9 applied, others that the gospel was their only hope.

• Matthew 19 has been can­vassed among us for weeks as the Scripture that covered the case because he had been divorced for adultery but, at the care meeting,
  • — and others made plain that the guilty party is not referred to in those Scriptures, otherwise it is as good as saying that the Lord taught that the only righteous way to dissolve your marriage and enter into another one is to commit adultery!

I got help to see that the only basis upon which we could walk with them would be the gospel. Their position is hopeless and fixed.

• If they repent and acknowledge their position before God it makes way for grace to act, in spite of their marriage and not because of it. Eventually we all came to this, that the only basis for fellowship with them was a priestly testimony to repentance and washing of robes.

But some insisted with great force and dogmatism that Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9 covered their case, and they included the priests who had brought the testimony.

• Some of us felt their testimony was value­less seeing they thought there was nothing of which to repent. We pleaded during 3 long sessions of discussion for them to drop those Scriptures as giving sanction to their present marital state and let the names go forward on the basis of repentance only. But we were over­ruled.

The seriousness of the position gradually dawned on me and on others also. There was a definite attempt to add the words “except for fornication” to the second clause of those verses to give them the meaning they wanted.

• It was saying that the Lord was teaching to do evil that good might come. We named it as blasphemy, and felt if we broke bread even once more with persons holding this doctrine we were identifying ourselves with it.

The next time we were together, — announced that he could not go on with persons who held this blasphemous teaching. Four more of us said the same kind of thing.

• After a bit of an uproar, about two-thirds of our company walked out. Some think we acted too hastily.

• “An heretical man, after a first and second admonition have done with”, came to me.

For a start I was prepared to think they could be helped, that their stand was ignorance or inadvertence, but the force with which they pressed this error was like a bulldozer.

• There was no standing against it, and I felt the devil was in it, and if I were to break bread with them I would lose the power to deal with evil.

It has been a terribly sad blow to us all. I thought we were united enough and mature enough to discuss a question like this calmly in the Spirit’s power and arrive mutually at the Lord's wisdom for us.

• But certain very forceful men, acting in the flesh, were deter­mined to push it through their way, with this disastrous result. Of course, as ever, there was much confusion and many side-issues and not a little heat, but the issue is the truth of Matthew 5: 32 and 19: 9.

I don’t know where we stand with you dear brethren overseas now. You will have to arrive at your own judgment as to us. I am thinking of suggesting that we put together a sort of circular letter, signed by several of us, to set out briefly the facts, I expect the others will be active too.

I received a letter from —s saying they were looking for­ward to coming with us to Toronto for 4 days. I hope they will still go. What a pity this has come in, but the Lord knows best. He has allowed it in His infinite wisdom.

• — of Council Bluffs and —s of Manchester [Conn.] also write warm, welcoming letters as — of Copenhagen. I have had to write to them all, of course, and tell them we are not now coming.

Affectionately your brother in Christ, Milton Crawshaw.

P.S. It was the fact that we were being asked to break bread with this couple on the basis of Matthew 5 and 19 that made it so urgent for us to act. 

To the brethren who meet at Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
in fellowship with Mr. R. W. N. Saunders

Beloved brethren,
Referring to the sorrowful division on 19th November, 1970, amongst the dear brethren with whom you and we were then walking in fellowship and who met in the Mobbs Hill room in Sydney, Australia, as you will be aware, those who, after the division, continued to meet in the hall mentioned,*

[* Presumably including Milton Crawshaw (previous letter). See later connection of Mr. Crawshaw with H. F. Redfearn and others in Croydon.]

• subsequently withdrew from our brethren at Ilford, England, and ipso facto from ourselves and all who walk in fellowship with Ilford. This action by those at Mobbs Hill did not automatically remove the difficulty as to the other faction in Syd­ney,

• nor did it relieve us of our responsibility as the nearest meeting to satisfy ourselves as to the charge of wrong teaching relative to the subject of divorce as set out by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19, and which was the real issue in the division.

• The question was whether a man by his own sin of adultery sets himself free to remarry without again committing adultery, i.e., without committing adultery a second time.

• “… in regard to the teaching of Matthew 5 and 19 … we agree that a man who commits adultery and re-marries commits adul­tery a second time”.

Meanwhile, the brother and sister with an outstandingly sor­rowful history, who came amongst our brethren in Sydney and were the cause of the division, and who subsequently broke bread with those now meeting at West Ryde,

• defected and linked on with another company of brethren with whom we cannot walk.

• They thus disclosed their own state and betrayed those who received them against the consciences of their brethren at Mobbs Hill.

As is well known, assembly sorrows are invariably accompanied by many ramifications such as misunderstanding, ill-advised speaking, personalities and the like, and this is not usually limited to one faction.

• We could never, at such a distance, inquire into all such, but we did feel responsible before the Lord to satisfy ourselves as to what might savour of false teaching and which could reflect upon the glory of our blessed Lord Jesus.

• This aspect has now been cleared as far as we can go in the matter for, what ever the West Ryde brethren said or taught at the time of the division, what they now say we be­lieve to be according to God.

However, in their letter to us above-quoted, they go on to say:

• “As to the matter of fellowship, since our brethren at Mobbs Hill sep­arated from us, we regarded ourselves as no longer in fellowship with them or with any other company with whom they at that time had links, and we have established none since.

• “In the present confused state amongst the companies who once all outwardly walked together it may be difficult to ascertain just what one was being linked with, and we feel the Lord is indicating to see to ourselves and humbly continue in all that is right, desiring to be preserved from a spirit of independence or presumption, while waiting upon Him for what He may indicate for the future”.

This we can only accept, waiting prayerfully upon them in their exercises.

• Yet, as we understand the position, there should now be no matter affecting the truth outstanding between them and their brethren, and we have therefore urged them to seek the Lord's help in the light of the one body, to remove all outstanding matters which may exist of a nature other than ‘the truth’.

• We do not urge this with a view to their linking up, but with a view to removing all outstanding personalities, etc., for we are not on sectarian lines.

• In view of the decision taken by the brethren at West Ryde, we can now only leave them with the Lord as to what He may do and as to any­thing further which He may disclose. We thank you for your prayers and your patience of love.

On behalf of the brethren meeting at the address of this letterhead, who send fervent love in the Lord to you all.

Your brethren in Christ, Melville E. Evans,  A. W. I. Watt.

To the saints walking in the truth at [Toronto].
Beloved brethren,
We are sending you the enclosed statement and copy letter trusting the Lord may use them to guide you in your consideration of Ilford’s action.

• We have never been told by them of the result of their so-called assembly meeting on December 18, 1970, and were not even informed that a second such meeting was going to be held on January 20, 1971.

The Ilford letter of January 30, 1971 telling us of the result of this second meeting is a fabrication of the truth.

In the first place they say they are writing because of our refusal to see them. We have never refused to see them. We cannot see them just as they want to arrange it. Mr. Rogers made it perfectly clear to Mr. Haddad that he would arrange to see any one of them at any convenient time and if two of them propose to come he would require a witness.

They charge us with independency, this on the untrue state­ment that we did not cancel the May fellowship meetings knowing that there was “general concern” and “universal concern” about this. The facts are set out in the enclosed account of matters in Croydon.

A further charge of “self-will” is because we refuse to follow them in the violation of divine principles.

How we can be charged with breaking the unity of the body of Christ in Croydon because Mr. — withdrew from us is beyond our comprehension.

Now that Ilford has forced this unnecessary division we feel it due to the Lord that the brethren should be acquainted with the true facts.

Your affectionate brothers in Christ. I. H. R. Rogers H. F. Redfearn.

Factual account of occurrences in Croydon during 1970 for the information of our dear brethren at a distance who may not be aware of the truth. This has been made necessary by the many untrue rumours that have been circulated. We have hitherto remained silent leaving the Lord to work and we are dependent on Him to open the eyes of the saints to the truth.

At the end of 1969 a certain family living in Croydon asked to break bread and, at the same time, brought serious accusations against a worthy brother with whom we were in happy fellowship.

• This may appear to brethren to be an unusual accompaniment to an application for fellowship and, of course, we had to take up certain questions with them, whereupon they withdrew their application and went to a neighbouring meeting and asked to break bread there.

• This was supported by certain brethren further afield for natural and social reasons and we have had to make a stand against this violation of divine principles.

It has been usual for us to arrange two fellowship meetings a