From Freedom to Failure, 1960-74

Many, knowing quite well what is right before the Lord, are held by natural links, personal preferences and the like, or are unable to distinguish the features of the truth which the enemy is attacking.

• The result is that instead of there being a clearly defined front against the adversary,
  • “… the battle was there scattered over the face of all the country; and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured”, 2 Sam. 18: 8.

• As to this conflict, J.T.Sr. says – Vol. 90: 70 – “You do not want trees to do damage to people. The forest has no heart or conscience; it is a pity that people should fall by that means. If any one falls, let it be on account of opposing the truth. There is no clear vision in the forest”.

• Too often the truth itself is not that which governs us in the warfare; while unbelief finds it difficult to separate from that in which it is settled, and where the natural heart finds its ties, and, generally, temporal interests the sphere of their support.

Unity amongst the saints is an exceedingly precious thing, but cannot be pleaded to enable us to go on with evil.

• In his 'Synopsis' beloved J.N.D. says – 2 Tim. 2 –

  “The unity of the assembly is so precious, it has such authority over the heart of man, that there was danger, when failure had set in, lest the desire for outward unity should induce even the faithful to accept evil and walk in fellowship with it, rather than break this unity.

  “The principle therefore of individual faithfulness, of individual responsibility to God, is established and set above all other considerations; for it has to do with the nature of God Himself, and His own authority over the conscience of the individual. God knoweth them that are His: here is the ground of confidence

  “… To maintain in practice the possibility of union between that Name and evil is to blaspheme it”.

You ask, ‘Where can I go?’ Did Abraham ask this question when told by God, ‘Go out’? When the Lord said to Peter, “Come”, did the latter say, ‘I have considered the circumstances and I cannot come’? No! Jesus had said, “Come!” This was all Peter wanted, and he went to Jesus walking on the waters.

• Faith, which is the direct looking to God and His power, does not calculate in terms of circumstances, probabilities, personal preferences, and the like – it obeys.

• It was not long after Abraham’s act of obedience that God said to him, “Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, thy exceeding great reward”, while failing Peter found the strong hand of Jesus supporting him in an otherwise impossible position.

• Is the principle any different today? No! True faith does what is right and counts on God as to the future. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

There is an excellent letter on the resources available to the simple believer in a dark day in 'Letters of J.N.D.', 1: 86-88 – new edition. The whole letter is worthy of close consideration, but in case you do not have the volume I quote the material portion.

• “It resolves itself, like all else, into a question of flesh and Spirit. If the Spirit of God sanctions the body, he who leaves in the flesh deprives himself of blessing, and sins. If, on the contrary, the Spirit of God does not sanction the body, he who leaves it will get into the power and liberty of the Spirit by following Him. That is the real way to look at it.

  “There may be evil, and yet the Spirit of God sanctions the body – not, of course, its then state – or at least act with the body in putting it away. But if the Spirit of God, by any faithful person, moves in this, and the evil is not put away, persisted in; is the Spirit of God with those who continue in the evil, or with him who will not? Or is the doctrine of the unity of the body to be made a cover for evil? This is precisely the delusion of Satan in Popery, and the worst form of evil under the sun.

  “If the matter, instead of being brought to the conscience of the body, is maintained by the authority of a few, and the body of believers despised, it is the additional concomitant evil of the clergy, which is the element also of Popery

  “… I cannot stay in evil to preserve unity. I do not want unity with evil, but separation from it. God’s unity is always founded on separation, since sin came into the world. ‘Get thee out’, is the first word of God’s call: it is to Himself. If one gets out alone, it may require more faith, but that is all: one will be with Him, and that, dear brother, is what I care about most, though overjoyed to be with my brethren on that ground”.

So, as I see the matter, we are concerned with two questions only:—

(1) Is there evil? (2) Is the evil persisted in?

As to (1), the new eating with doctrines are heresy – departure from sound doctrine – as is also the notion of authoritative ministry.

As to (2), how many faithful brethren have lost their lives in standing for the truth! The evil is persisted in.

• Then what is the simple believer’s course? To stay in the fellowship and put things right? This is not God’s way! He must “depart from evil”, even though “he that departeth from iniquity maketh himself a prey”, Isaiah 59: 15.

Another matter is assuming alarming proportions. All ministering brethren are watched to ensure that they are in line with the present ministry.

• I know of two recent cases where servants ministered what they felt the Lord had given them for the locality, but who were severally taken to task for being out of line.

• Scripture makes it very clear that the servant is to look directly to the Lord for his supplies, and to minister as directly responsible to Him. The body of the brethren, and each individual saint as possessing (the) unction from the Holy (One), is called upon to judge – “Let the others judge”, 1 Cor. 14: 29.

• J.N.D. says, “If saints do not prove for themselves all they hear, they cannot have faith now; but they cannot help being answerable for it hereafter, because God has commanded them to do it, and given His Spirit to the whole body, and to each individually, to enable them to do it, and they will be held responsible for this whether they will or no”, C.W. 11: 35, new edition.

The same beloved servant, expressing his appreciation of ministry of others which viewed the truth from a different angle from his own says,

• “in general, I like better reading what is not according to my own thought, because one always gains – if there is piety, and the foundations are solid – something by reading it.

  “Divine truth is of such vast extent, and is so many-sided, taking up the nature of God, His dispensations, His ways with men, their responsibility, the positive revelation of His counsel, the moral and eternal relations which flow from what He is, and from what other beings are, that on all points the truth may be looked at in many ways, and one fills up the gap left by others.

  “I see this even in the apostles. John speaks of the nature of God; Paul of His counsels; Peter of His ways

  “… Besides, if the foundations are well maintained, I like that there should be great breadth amongst the brethren, and not a part formed upon certain views”, 'Letters', 3: 255-6, March 25, 1850, new edition.

Ministry, then is in no way dependent on the will of the body, but on that of the Head. Neither is it subject to control by what is virtually a hierarchy.

• That the latter was attempted in J.N.D.’s day is evidenced by the following,

• “…. here it was taught that, as the brethren had first learned brotherly unity and fellowship, now that had been, as fresh instruction, led to church order. This church order was the authority of the teachers, who were exclusively to judge of, and recognize or the contrary, others as teachers”, C.W. 20: 48, old edition.

• Is this, or is it not, clericalism? And what does the Lord think of such a travesty of the truth regarding His rights over His servants? He has placed in the body various joints of supply; and they are responsible to the Head for the fulfilment of their functions.

• The wisdom of the Head is disputed if the employment of the gift be gainsaid, and none may touch Christ’s claims upon the service of His servants.

January 27, 1961, F. G. Holding.

Here, at our home, we have about 45 meeting for prayer and reading of the Scriptures.

• There are thousands of brethren who have either withdrawn or been thrown out on the most absurd pretext. We are in touch with many and the most remarkable thing is the unity of exercise, most of the saints having judged the entire system and are looking to the Lord to come in and help, desiring to move forward in the light of the Scriptures, rightly dividing the word of truth and continuing steadfastly in the doctrine and fellowship of the apostles, breaking of bread and prayers

• Undoubtedly there has come to light a terrible underlying state of spiritual pride and pretension which makes way for the concision, which is the cutting off. It develops into justification by works which having a certain appearance of wisdom in will worship, in principle is a denial of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. Indeed, Jude warns us about what will come in in the last days. He says “crept in unawares natural men not having the Spirit”.

These, beloved brother, are fragmentary remarks and will perhaps give you some impression as to the great evil which I believe has come in. J.N.D. warned the brethren,

1. about sectarianism which would make way for evil, and

2. that the Laodicean state springs out of Philadelphia.

DV, it is possible I may be in your parts within the next two or three months. In the meantime we pray for you that you may be liberated.

• Many of the brethren who are remaining in the system are doing so because of personal ties and relationships so that the system and the brethren are more than the Lord. Peter had to leave both and indeed, in 2 Tim. 2 we go out in separating from evil, we purge ourselves before we find those with whom we can walk.

… Days have been extremely full since I saw you last. We do trust in the ways of God that our links might be renewed. There is only one fellowship, the fellowship of God’s Son. We only have fellowship with one another as we walk in the light as He is in the light. This is conditional.

Lord be with you and bless you all. We pray for you.

Your affectionate brother in the Lord Jesus, W.S.

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 196).

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 [us] 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 today 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.

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.

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 year, one in the Spring and the other in the Autumn and, in accordance with this, we arranged one for May 16th, 1970, and sent out invitations to our brethren in February.

• Ten days before the meetings we had letters from Mr. MacIntyre Sr. of Basingstoke and Mr. Wallach of Ilford urging us to cancel the meetings.

• This was practically impos­sible at such a late date but apart from that we did not feel free before the Lord to accede to this request, especially coming from the same quarter as the support to the brethren mentioned above who had gone off to a neighbouring meeting and asked to break bread.

Some time after the meetings we received a letter rebuking us for not cancelling the meetings in view of the “general concern” and “universal concern”.

• It is difficult to reconcile these expressions with the truth, which is, we only had received the two letters mentioned above showing any concern about them.

Our desire is to follow righteousness, faith, love and peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart, and we had no idea that such an undercurrent was working to turn the minds of many brethren against us.

We count on the Lord to help us to maintain divine principles as set out in the Holy Scriptures and to care faithfully for His interests in the place in which He has set us.

I. H. R. Rogers,  H. F. Redfearn

P.S. We have never been told what evil we have done to cause this so-called concern.

To the saints gathered to the Lord's Name in [Toronto]. Beloved brethren,
In fulfilment of our responsibility towards all known as seeking to call upon the Lord out of a pure heart and to pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace,

• we must now warn – Ezekiel 33: 6 – the local assemblies universally of a sorrow in our area which affects general fellowship. 1 Cor. 1: 2.

The cause of our sorrow is that for some time past a few brothers in Ilford, and in our district, have increasingly been pressing their private judgment on the gathering in Croydon over cases of restoration, which the Scriptures teach us are a matter of local responsibility.2 Corinthians 2: 7-8.

• We have trusted Croydon, as we have all the assemblies, to be guided directly by the Lord Jesus Himself in attending to their local matters – Revelation 2 and 3 – and to call on help from anyone if needed. 1 Corinthians 12: 28.

Ilford are now calling Croydon’s stand against this interference “independency”, and again, on private judgment, have absolved us as a locality of our primary and special responsibilities which the Lord has committed to us as the nearest Deut. 21: 3, next Exodus 12: 4, and neighbouring, Leviticus 19: 18, meeting to Croydon;

• and have proceeded with one assembly meeting regarding Croydon in spite of our pointing out beforehand that it was unconstitutional;

• and then in spite of our appeals afterwards, have proceeded with a second one, without us or Croydon knowing at all at the time that it had even been thought of. Such actions cannot be binding on earth or in heaven. Matthew 18: 18.

We love the brethren in Ilford, in Croydon and in every locality and indeed all the saints, and seek to fulfil our obligations of love towards all in respect of Croydon.

• Ilford, by their violation of divine principles have, despite all our warnings and protests, fallen into the error of which they accuse Croydon and we must say simply that
  • we disown such a course of action and, as accurately acquainted with all the facts concerning Croydon remain in fellowship with our brethren there and with all who desire to respect the divine principles involved.

With love in the Lord Jesus,

On behalf of the saints meeting in Maldon Road, Wallington, Surrey, England.

Donald Leng,   S. Leng.

To the brethren meeting at 172a Selsdon Road, Croydon
Beloved brethren,
We thank you for your letter of 3rd July 1973 [unavailable] and are sorry for the delay [3½ months – not the first such delay!] in answering it.

We have now fully reviewed the whole matter in our meeting for care, going right back to the beginning of things in December 1965. We have already mentioned that “we had always regarded the ‘walk out’” from you on the 13th December 1965, as being without basis, and therefore wrong, and to this extent we agree with the Wey­bridge brethren, our letter June 19, 1973 [unavailable].

In view of this, and as we at this time agreed that Weybridge should handle the matter, we should have taken no further action, and therefore our letter of the 22nd March, should not have been written [!!!].

Again, we wish to say how sorry we are for the much distress which has resulted to many of the dear brethren. May they, and we all, be much comforted and prove every mercy and grace from our God, and may there be great spoil for Divine Persons out of it all.

With much love in our Lord Jesus to you all,

On behalf of those meeting at Clementswood Hall, Ilford, Yours affectionately in Him,

Charles Sidney   Fred E. Carter   Philip Haddad   Wm. H. T. Trickett.

To the brethren meeting at Clementswood Hall, Ilford,
Beloved brethren,
We are exceedingly thankful to have received your letter of the 17th instant.

We share in the sorrow for the distress that has been caused and the reproach that has been brought on the name of the Lord and pray that He may be pleased to bring in much recovery, healing and blessing as a result of your decision, and glory for Himself.

With warm love in the Lord Jesus from those meeting at 172a Selsdon Road, Croydon,

Yours affectionately in Him,
F. C. P. Hart   S. W. Littlewood   Keith Oliver.

To the brethren meeting at 172a Selsdon Road, Croydon
Beloved brethren,
We thank you for your brotherly letter of the 26th October 1973, which was read out to the brethren together in care.

We are now looking up to the Lord Jesus for His help and guidance as to any further contacts which brethren may make in their respective localities, with a view that His will and pleasure may be done. With warm love in our Lord Jesus,

On behalf of brethren meeting at Clementswood Hall, Ilford, Yours affectionately in Him,

Charles L. Sidney   Fred E. Carter   Wm. H. T. Trickett   Philip Haddad.

Mr. R. W. N. Saunders [Toronto], Beloved brother,
We have progressed much in our contacts with our brethren at Croham Hall, and their meeting at Hornchurch – our nearest meeting – in a most happy manner.

• Indeed, my wife and I went to one reading – after Harold [J.] Doughty had been to our Ministry Meeting – and I went to their Ministry Meeting at Hornchurch – and I can say without hesitation the Lord was present with them.

• I am now most assuredly confirmed in my own mind – and so others in Ilford – that the Lord is supporting our move towards reconciliation with our brethren without whom we have been for seven long years.

I enclose herewith copies of some letters* between us and Croham Hall, who have now declared to Hornchurch that they have no longer any issues with Ilford – nor indeed have we any with Croham Hall.

[* The three preceding letters.]

• I am therefore very happy to think that the Lord Jesus will surely indicate to our dear brethren in the various localities where there is a meeting with Croham Hall* how they can work out matters, under his good hand and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
  [* A number of brethren … had left the legal sect in 1964-65, and were joined by — who had been withdrawn from earlier. At some point they joined with R. W. N. Saunders (d. 1983), Will M. Taylor (1899-?), Gerald K. Martin (d. 1965) and John A. Bulloch (d. 1980) – and others who had separated in 1960.
  As a result of the differences between Ilford and Croham Hall, there was a division in Toronto on January 31, 1967. The 1965 group supported Croham Hall – later disintegrating. The 1960 group supported Ilford at the time, but subsequently this connection ceased.]

• This is already being the case in two localities where our own breth­ren – I mean those with us – are happily working things out with others* one brother – with Croham Hall – remarking in a letter to me, that such a procedure should be capable of extension elsewhere.
  [* This is the only indication that there might indeed have been a reconciliation effected between the Ilford and Croham Hall groups. But see the later anonymous letter of June 11, 1974.]

I am sure of this, dear brother, where personalities and feelings do not hinder the work of God and to defeat the enemy. Of this I am sure you will happily agree and approve.*

[* I do not know whether R.W.N.S. was “happy” about this or not. We had regular contact with him for several months – from Aug. 1982 – before he was taken by the Lord, but I was not aware of what had taken place or of the correspondence at that time, and so made no inquiry.
There is no record of a reply to P.H.’s letter by R.W.N.S. or of any contact, as suggested in the postscript, with —. In any event, there was no reconciliation with those in Toronto, or others on this continent, who had supported Croham Hall.]

I have not heard much from the dear brethren in Toronto … Perhaps this is due to my lack of writing letters myself.

With our warmest love in our Lord Jesus to you both at home, and to the beloved saints,

Yours affectionately in Him, Philip Haddad..

P.S. As to the enclosed letters, they are not for general circulation, but only sent to very few brothers on my own initiative – though our brother R. F. Gregory knows it. But, as it is done in another locality between our brethren and Croham Hall, it would be useful, if you are happy if, say a brother like —* should have the opportunity to see these letters. But the Lord will guide you, dear brother, and the dear brethren with you at Yonge Street in this matter – which I am sure is most pleasing to the Lord Jesus.

[* After being badly treated over a long period, — had left the legal sect. I cannot recall his position before the 1971 Ilford divi­sion, but later he was with the 1965 group who met at Park Lawn Road. That group ultimately dissolved and he, and his younger son —, went with an open meeting, where he was until taken by the Lord (1984). Others in the 1965 group went with various open meetings.]

The meeting had only just finished when it was stated in the presence of nine brothers, “We [Ilford] can now lay our hands on our brother Mr. —”.

• I immediately protested and emphatically stated that they could not, reminded the brethren that all they had done was to shut up Croydon and that the matter must be worked out there. I did not know that Mr. Wood had, prior to my arriving at the table, said almost exactly the same words.

Now there lies the root of the trouble, a root of bitterness which has blossomed and fructified in the so-called judgments of Consett and Marlow [High Wycombe].

• All these violate the principle con­tended for at Glanton, and each has been worse than its predecessor. A tree is known by its fruits.

• The utter devastation consequent upon the violent and extraordinary action of High Wycombe in presuming to pass an assembly judgment on Marlow before even they [High Wycombe] had established a breaking of bread.

The calamity of the total disintegration of the Marlow meeting, the subsequent and, one might say rapid, disintegration of the irreg­ular High Wycombe meeting and, then, the final collapse of the other collaborating meeting at Harrow, must be almost, if not quite alto­gether, without parallel;

• to which is added, for the very same reason, the collapse of the Farnham meeting; i.e., because some there would not accept such goings on, neither would they compromise concerning it when virtually they were requested to agree to differ.

To return to Ilford. They came together on January 20, 1971, to finalize the matters of the one held on December 18, 1970. The words underlined are their own, but are underlined for another reason.

• What does J.T. say:— “It is clear that an action of a meeting outside itself cannot be binding on others”, Letters 1: 292.

• Again, he uses the very word Ilford used:— “Ques. I would like to get clear just how far outside brethren can give judgment on a local matter. J.T. It cannot be final”, Vol. 165: 77.

• Now, I could go on quoting from J.T., J.N.D., and other reliable brethren on the same lines to the extent of well over a dozen examples, but what has been quoted will suffice.

Subsequently, I circulated privately among brethren a sum­mary of ministry relating to Glanton principles. This was relentlessly attacked;

• not the ministry, simply because it was so well established that it could not be disproved,

• so the attack was – and still is – levied against the brother who had the courage to state his ground, yet not his but that of others more worthy.

But what did a well-loved brother as Mr. [J. O. T.] Darton say? Just this, “I trust it will be used to save the brethren from falling into a snare”.

• Further, he said in my hearing on April 17, 1971, rela­tive to Ilford’s invasion of Croydon territory, “it needs just one more step to make it fully Glanton”.

• Finally, in the summer of 1972 he met Mr. W. C. Quick in Plymouth, where the latter was staying. Mr. Quick had, just prior to that, withdrawn from the gathering at Chel­tenham because of a refusal on the part of B.G.H. [Harding­ham] to discuss in care the ‘Consett’ issue. This is the same thing rearing its head in another place.

• Mr. Darton embraced Mr. Quick and told him he was fully sympathetic with his exercises. In his pre­sent condition, which in view of his age means that he must permanently be spared from any worry, he cannot be involved. I have no doubt whatever from my knowledge of him over the years, coupled with the above, that if he were able he would long ago have stated publicly where he stands.

Now all this, and very much more, has been faithfully placed before the Ilford brethren. We have been denied a meeting with all (the company) and, after persistent representations, a meeting with six Ilford brothers was conceded and took place early in 1973 at Ilford, Mr. Wood and I attending.

• The meeting was held in Mr. Had­dad’s house. We laid before the brethren the error of “withdrawing” from Croydon, quoted an abundance of valuable ministry on the sub­ject, appealed to them to reverse the wrong done;

• and, as this was just before the Feb. 24th meetings [1973] with Mr. W. H. Thompson, I said, “Tell Mr. Thompson to stay where he is in Consett, cancel the fellowship meetings and substitute a meeting of common humiliation and we will come and say with you that we erred”. That was, in effect, an expressed willingness to eat the sin-offering with our brethren.

What is the response? Look at the notes of the said fellowship meeting and you will find on page 4 of the reading:—

• “W. Heath-Coleman [Yeovil] … and is it not one of the evidences of the work of the enemy to deprive the saints of food in adverse conditions? He would try and prevent meetings to get them together to be fed, and he weakens them in that way”.

• This is nothing but base slander, and published far and wide; that my remark was referred to has been abundantly proved, for another brother took W.H-C. to task for it and he replied that he only said what he had been told. Who told him? It could only be one of those present at the meeting between Ilford and Chelmsford.

• I would say that the enemy would prevent, at all costs, the saints get­ting on their faces before God. I am not alone in this suggestion. When Mr. Cross [Plymouth] was asked recently to take a fellowship meeting at Guildford he said, “It is more a time for getting on our faces before God than holding fellowship meetings”.

… After the meeting with Ilford – on Feb. 1973 – it was widely circulated that Mr. Wood and Mr. Etty went in a very bad spirit.

• That we were firm I do not deny, anyone who has had dealings with P.H. involving disagreement with him will know that he is quite impervious to even firm speaking; firmness is a necessity – it was one of the pil­lars of the temple porch – and when divine matters are at stake invol­ving administration in the assembly it is right, indeed we are told to “hold fast the right”

• However, to obtain a fair judgment on the point and to check another wild statement that my presentation of the facts was a ‘tirade’ Mr. Wood asked Mr. Maurice Williams of Ilford for his personal view and his reply was, “if there was any tirade it was on the other [Ilford] side”.

Now, dear brother, in spite of all this, and very much more, we remain nominally in fellowship with Ilford. You may say, Why? Because while there is a spark of spiritual life in a meeting or any evi­dence of exercise to adjust such wrongs we are not justified in leaving it; love has long patience; but as another has said in relation to the Croham Hall exercise “it does not say everlasting patience”.

I do not wish to weary you, but we must see now where this refusal to listen to the patiently expressed exercises of neighbouring brethren is leading.

• I say refusal because long inaction is tantamount to that; if it is a question of anyone else the sword is in evidence, e.g., Croydon and, later, Wallington, but all we can get out of P.H. is, “Just let the Lord work it out”.

• That may sound very pious, but it deceives only the unsuspecting. But, to return to my question as to where this is leading, do you know of the assiduous way in which P.H. is now fostering reviving links with Croham Hall?

᰾ In recent weeks we hear that Ilford have written to Croham Hall stating that they were wrong in declining to accept the Weybridge judgment.

• This was sent despite the fact that the brethren were not unanimous, in fact one of the leading participants did not sign it … A brother writes from Scotland asking if it is true. He heard it at Croham Hall New Year Meetings in Glasgow …' The same from Gardenstown and Portknockie, they are quite incredulous, and so on …

• What next? P.H. has actually attended week night meetings at Croham Hall Hornchurch gathering for the past three or more weeks, and is encouraging others to do likewise.

In short, nobody can control him and, whether we like it or not, this link is to be forced through by every conceivable means and, we, his neighbours who shared in every detail the original exercise are conveniently dismissed as ‘not having been in fellowship with us for two years’, simply because we raise valid exercises concerning Croy­don and Wallington.

The defiance of the truth of the body – I say defiance, be­cause that truth is known, “The eye cannot say to the hand I have not need of thee” – does not end there.

• For a full year now invitations have been formally extended to Mr. – by Ilford despite the fact that he has left his local brethren [Chelmsford]. I will not labour that matter, but quote it as a violation of the truth of the body.

• I know and value that every lover of Christ is in the body, and the blessed comfort it is that “The Lord knoweth them that are His”, but surely we have learned that whilst we fully accept that and look for it prac­tically at the rapture, we, in the meantime, practise it along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

We linger on in hope and are still prepared to meet with our brethren in common humility, but not common compromise, and therefore cannot agree to the presence at such a meeting of Mr. Knight unless he returns first to us here. As to how long we can go on, we do not know, it is moment by moment.

Also there is what is due to Croydon and Wallington, who apparently go on faithfully alone, apart from rare visits from Mr. Crawshaw and family of Australia. H.F.R. [Mr. Redfearn] is said to be indescribably weak, confined to one room where he lives, eats and sleeps and breaks bread, having only one weekly excursion into another room on the arm of Mr. Leng.

H. S. Etty, 205 Beehive Lane, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex.

Let us ponder these matters before the Lord – confessing that we would have done, and in some cases certainly have done, no better than our brethren.

It is regrettable that there are so many gaps in the records presented here – and everything available has been included [in the original booklets].

• It is equally sad that no documentation is available of later developments among any of the various groups referred to – and especially that there is little or no information as to the many faithful brethren whose names appear in this record.

Here in Toronto, declining to go with either the Renton or the Strang factions of the Aberdeen party in 1972, my wife and I had drifted until recovered by the Lord, c.1980, to a fresh commitment to the continuance of the Lord's Supper and the service of God.

Later­ we made contact with the few older brethren, most well known prior to 1960, who had been earlier connected with Ilford. By then they were isolated and maintained no links of fellowship else­where, and we enjoyed brotherly contacts with each other.

• After the Lord took Mr. Saunders in June 1983, his home was not available – and they had no place to meet. We came to it, mutually, that there was in fact nothing to hinder us walking together and they joined with us in breaking bread in our home. All are now with Christ – but we enjoyed fellowship together for some years.

G.A.R.