His wife was Agnes Magowan, born c.1854, Ballyclare, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland. She died in 1926 in Yorkshire.
I well remember Dr Neil Shepherd during a fellowship meeting at Oldham saying that he was probably the only one there who remembered Mr Boyd - JB - as he added.
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I think, though I have not it to hand at present, that James Boyd denied that the Lord had a human spirit, and was reprimanded for it. One of the citations by "BM" regarding supposed "Ravenism" in the "Glanton" brethren on page 15, "That the Son was the Spirit of His own body," is probably his.
However, though a most serious error, I understand he withdrew it. I shall add a further comment on the page regarding BM and "Ravenism" as it is called.
(Following Tom's reply, I have commented below, indicating that the withdrawal by JB of his doctrine was less than adequate.)
Hi Mark, There are some items on the website about JB's teachings which aren't linked here:
https://www.brethrenarchive.org/archive/later-exclusivism/raven-section/glanton/boyd-controversy/
I have read through the tract by Mr Boyd having the title "The Son, A Letter." He says on page 8, "To deny a human spirit to Christ may be going to [sic] far, hence I withdraw the statement." However, the next sentence reads, "At the same time I think it is going to [sic] far on the other hand to affirm it, for this cannot be found in God's Word any more than its denial."
Also reading further on, there is still some hesitation about other aspects of the Lord's human nature, indeed on manhood generally, and what it is that constitutes a man. It would appear therefore that Mr Boyd did not really retract his erroneous doctrine. (Unless someone has the evidence that he did.)
I have not come across this in the ministry of Mr Raven, and it seems to have been solely in the thinking of James Boyd. (Again, unless somebody can give proof from the books containing his ministry.)
Two points: (1) The "brethren" were by the late 1920s very seriously divided. I once heard someone in the "open" meeting call the "exclusive" brethren "the church of the splitted splits." Perhaps not without reason. Someone has even drawn up a "Chart of Shame."
Ezra 9, particularly verses 3 and 6, seem appropriate in the circumstance, and I don't read of Ezra taking the attitude that it was everybody else, not him.
(2) And related to the first point, Mr Boyd wrote the tract in 1927. The Lord took him in 1936. A long time it might be thought to bear with him, but as said in one of the other tracts, including the one by "BM" on another page, the "Glanton" leaders were not wanting to go through yet another division, though there were the "Glanton seceders" over another matter, or "Little Glanton" as sometimes called.
Otherwise, no such error as his has appeared among "Glanton" as far as I am aware, and "Glanton" have to my knowledge been sound on the Person of Christ.
Should Mr Boyd have been withdrawn from or put away? Well, we cannot turn back the clock.
Of course, the "Glanton" brethren could have divided in 1927, then gone through a series of reunion exercises after 1936, eventually regrouping some years or decades later.
We are broken to pieces, brethren, having done in 200 years that which took 2000 for the church generally. The nearest "available mount for communion for any consistent Christian" for many is a hundred, or in many instances, two or three hundred miles away. And that is just in the UK. Ezra 8 verse 21 comes to mind.
(I have also commented today on the page regarding "The History of Ravenism" by BM.)
Close to the end of his life, JND wrote to Mr Boyd about a matter concerning another brother who was confused, and seemingly wrong - https://www.brethrenarchive.org/people/malachi-taylor/. Mr Darby objected to the spirit of the opposition. He also credited the accused (M. Taylor) with his sound beliefs. We can perhaps learn from this.
What has been written against Mr Boyd, has been written; this will not change. Those who commented on him in the early 20th century knew the circumstances better than we today, yet they may have erred in their judgement. Some today may exonerate Mr Boyd or not. Assemblies almost 100 years ago divided over Raven, and Boyd, and others. The sad legacy is there. But we are still able to learn.