I agree, though Crowley's remarks are worth reading (about Champney's school) as they are one of the few insights into 'social life' of Brethren that you can find. It probably would not be advisable for me to post them here, though his autobiography can be found on the online in many places. The relevant pargraph starts,
The Revd. H. d'Arcy Champney, M.A. Of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, had come out of sect. He had voted at the parliamentary elections by crossing out the names of the candidates and writing, "I vote for King Jesus." He had started a school for the sons of Brethren at 51 Bateman Street, Cambridge
I believe Mr Champney was my father's cousin. I don't know anything more about him but did know one of his daughters, Phoebe, a little - I assume she was Peter's aunt. If he would like to be put in touch with me, I would be happy for that.
Be not deceived: Champney (HDAC) absorbed, copied and taught the wrong and bad teachings of James Taylor senior (JT). I will give only two examples where JT and HDAC were together and HDAC did not contradict JT but supported him:
J. Taylor: . . .The name of God to which we are baptised is that of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Matthew 28:19. But this order could not be applied in absolute deity. It indicates simply that two of the Persons have taken a relatively inferior position in view of revelation.
H.D'A.C.: And we have not the right to reverse the order and say: The Spirit, the Son and the Father.
J.T.: It is evident that we could not do that. In the New Testament the Son takes a position of inferiority, for example when He says: "I cannot do anything of myself", John 5:30.
(Ministry of JT, vol. 38, p. 11 - Stow Hill Edition)
H.D'A.C.: The word Only-begotten has always baffled the saints because of the word "begotten".
J.T.: Now that attention has been called to it, and the truth made clear {JT is speaking of his false doctrine of non-eternal Sonship}, I do not think it baffles spiritual persons.
H.D'A.C.: Through the help the Lord has given difficulties disappear.
J.T.: They do. An "only-begotten" necessitates a father, and a certain relative inferiority in the person who is designated as the only-begotten.
(Ministry of JT, vol. 34, p. 107)
Martin
I have commented elsewhere on H.D'A.C.'s support for J.T.Snr.'s notion that Christ came into the Father's bosom at incarnation, and have there shown their misuse of the Greek preposition, 'eis', dragged in supposedly as proof. However, the fault lay in the system.
By the 1920s J.T. had come into prominence and was given so great a place of authority among those known as "London" brethren that all had to accept the "new light" he was promulgating. Either that or leave, and who would thereby want to suffer the disgrace? Sadly, therefore, many chose to stay and fall into line with J.T.'s teaching. The notion of an elect vessel in the recovery of the truth has led into that which has now become the PBCC, and those who have come out need to examine when things really went wrong, and it was well before J.T.Jnr. was given the position.
The error is in confounding the verb 'to beget' or 'to be begotten' with the adjective 'only begotten' which also in places might be considered a noun. This was a distinction made by J. N. Darby, F. W. Grant, and I cautiously add, F. E. Raven, as also similarly the way in which they regarded Christ as the Son of God born in time on earth in contradistinction to Him in His Eternal Sonship.
Please read Mr Darby on Psalm 2 verse 7, the verses at the end of Matthew 1, verses in the middle of Luke 1, and the opening verses of Hebrews 1 in the ‘Synopsis’.
As the Eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ is co-equal with the Father. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the three Persons in the Godhead, the Holy Trinity, the Triune God. On this we cannot compromise.
