BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 30TH, 1937
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 30TH, 1937
Mr. W. M. Brown.
Beloved Brother, — I am ashamed to find your letter still unanswered, but my hands have been unusually full since returning from New Zealand in January. There has been, as you may know, considerable unrest and trouble generally in this country, making correspondence beyond what I could cope with. Then, as I was uncertain as to the time of my stay in Great Britain this year, I have refrained from answering invitations.
I appreciate your wish that I should visit Sutton and I should like much to see you all there, but I fear it cannot be this year. If, however, I find I can ‘drop in’ for a ‘regular’ [p. 78] reading or prayer meeting I shall gladly do so, God willing.
The situation is much clearer in this country, but in Ontario there is a cloud because Mr. W——— has been circulating letters teaching that a group of meetings, such as in your district, are ‘mutually and equally responsible’ as to certain matters — e.g., a ‘fellowship meeting’ — local to any one of them — that there should be mutual collaboration before action is taken, etc. Thus each of the meetings loses for the moment its local assembly status. You can see how this works against the truth governing the assembly as taught in 1 Corinthians and Matthew 18: 20. Brethren nearby have taken the matter up and the Lord is helping. At meetings in London, Ontario, last weekend we had five readings on ‘tabernacle conditions’. The Lord made the truth to stand out, especially in the reading on Matthew 18, and I believe many got help. It will take time, however, for the results to become manifest, as W——— has considerable influence; but I believe if his immediate friends become clear as to the truth — and there is evidence that they will — he will withdraw his papers.
As to Babylon, I doubt that I can say anything to help beyond what I have already said and of which you are aware, I believe. Revelation 17 gives a general view both of the beast and the woman who sits upon it. Five kings of the former had fallen, “one is;” that would be at the time John wrote. “Is not”, I suppose, would refer to the submerged period of the empire and this would be prophetic at that time. The other or seventh king would bridge the submerged period and make the empire (in some sense) continuous. “The woman drunk with the blood of the saints” would refer to her murderous guilt in this period. Thus we have clearly history — prophetically — both as to the beast and the woman within the Christian period. The beast which carries her is characteristic and certainly not limited to his final or resurrected form. This form will be short-lived, and the ten kings’ association with it will be “one hour”, a critical period.
There seems no place for the harlot’s glorious riding on the beast in this time; the facts stated — and the closest attention is needed — would rather indicate that she is already discredited — fallen from her once worldly glorious estate. Ever since the Reformation this applies, but accentuated since the French Revolution, as is well known. Chapter 18 includes all this, but goes on to the final judgment. Manifestly “has fallen” and “become the habitation of demons”, etc. is very different from “a great millstone ... cast into the sea”. After the latter she “shall be found no more at all”. More recent history confirms above as to the harlot’s fall, the attitude of the ten kings (verses 16, 17) being manifest, and there is no suggestion that this will change.
My wife unites in love in Christ to Mrs. Brown and you and to all the brethren.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.