BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 18TH, 1945

BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 18TH, 1945

Mr. S. McCallum.

Beloved Brother, — I have been unable to reply to your letter of the 9th inst. because of my visit to Washington.

I need not say that I am very interested in your remarks as to the Lord’s Person — in relation to the idea of status. I am afraid of it because of its more modern meaning. The inscrutableness of the Lord’s Person precludes the idea that He left Deity. What I am saying is, in the main, my exercise. Although becoming Man, He was here on the ground of obedience, yet at times He acted as God, and the same is true now for He is “the true God”.

The same principle enters into the expression “the form of God”. Scripture does not say that the Lord left that form. It is “emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form”. The emptying is by taking a bondman’s form. It is ‘simultaneous action’, as the note says. Besides, inscrutability precludes our saying that the Lord must remain in bondman’s form. He is “over all, God blessed for ever”. The Father only knows the Son. What you have quoted, is, I believe, generally right, but as exercised before God our minds are subject to modification.

There was a remarkably good time at Washington. A large number (for that city) came together. We had two meetings on the Lord’s Day, together numbering about 160. It was indeed a significant time for the Capital, and I believe fruit will accrue to the dear brethren there.

We shall be thinking of you in your long itinerary in the west. Our prayers shall go up that the blessing of the Lord may attend every inch of it.

My wife unites in love in the Lord to Mrs. McCallum and the children, whom we trust will be preserved in every way while you are away.

Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.

PS — Thanks for all the Notes. They are well taken and will be blessed of God, I quite believe.

I am now working on Montreal Notes of last year, also Rochester Notes of last year. Now in the press are Notes of London and Toronto, 1943. They are being published here.

I note your remarks as to a letter from Mr. House. I am uneasy as to certain views intimated in a letter from W.J.H. of late last year. I wrote him in January and received an answer this week. It is brief but expresses no further thoughts, so I cannot say whether our brother’s mind is altered. — J.T.