BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 3RD, 1938

BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 3RD, 1938

Dear Brother, — I thank you for sending the correct information as to our Lord’s sonship in the ‘Collected Writings’.

I did not doubt what you wrote, for I was well aware that Mr. Darby, especially in his early days, had strongly held ‘eternal sonship’. The remarks in Doctrinal, Volume 1 are dated 1831. Those in Expository, Volume 4 were, of course, much later.

But in 1881, he wrote (Letters, Volume 3, page 468) as to John 10: 36 — that this passage referred to Him as Man. This is referred to in Notes called ‘The Glory of the Son of God’, 1932. Those Notes show that the thought of Christ sent from heaven — i.e., before incarnation — is not supported by Scripture.

Your present letter indicates that you are now resting on Mr. Darby’s view of the subject in question, which will not suffice when you are called upon to answer to the Lord as to what you hold, and this, I need not say, is to be looked forward to. The Lord has been helping His people as to this subject ^[p. 141] for many years, the scriptures bearing on it having been inquired into by godly brethren from all parts with the deepest interest and concern, in which the Holy Spirit was fully owned and sought, and the result of all this inquiry is in print. You can see it any time — you have seen it in part, I gather — and if you refuse it, as you do you are obligated before God to advance something more than an appeal to the writings of Mr. Darby: you must appeal to the scriptures, as the Lord Himself did.

In your first letter to me, you spoke highly of Mr. Raven and quoted him as saying he would not remain in fellowship with one who did not hold eternal sonship; but you surely know that F.E.R. rejected it himself a few years later. Many, with myself, are witnesses to this (see his published letters, page 45).

And in J.N.D.’s writings, there are modifications in the later ones of what earlier works contain. This is inevitable in all ministry — save what is ‘inspired of God’. No one would insist on it more than Mr. Darby himself, as is well known. There is nothing unseemly or out of accord with the truth to suggest that the Lord may have allowed Mr. Darby to cling to the generally held view, eternal sonship, considering that at a later period in the testimony more would be gained by calling attention to the truth of Scripture as to it. The letter to which I have referred and some remarks in Notes and Comments, Volume 7, page 7, show that while J.N.D. did not give up the doctrine of eternal sonship — which implies what the Creed states, that our Lord was ‘begotten of the Father before all worlds’ — his mind as to it was somewhat modified. Were it the will of God that Mr. Darby should remain here in service till now, his mind, I am certain, would be much clearer as to eternal life, the Lord’s supper, the service of God, the sonship of Christ, and many other subjects than his writings disclose.

Faithfully yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.

PS — In your first letter, you indicated plainly that you were seeking help, but in the last you manifest a deeply rooted opposition to important truth held and taught by myself and others with whom I walk, this being known by you from the outset of the correspondence — you can understand how this affects me. — J.T.