BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 2ND, 1920

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 2ND, 1920

My Dear Brother, — Your letter of March 15th did not reach me until the end of May, as I was in Great Britain when it arrived here; otherwise it would have been answered earlier.

I have not your previous letter by me to refer to, but evidently I misunderstood you in assuming that you regarded the assembly at Corinth to correspond with the “great house”. I am sorry for this, but I am glad you recognise that the saints there, notwithstanding the sin which existed in certain individuals, were addressed and treated by the apostle as the assembly of God.

As regards the body of your letter, it is possible that you have, since writing it, seen some account of certain meetings in London in March; if so, you will be aware that it came out, and was accepted generally as according to Scripture, that in dealing with cases of discipline now we act publicly according to 2 Timothy 2 and privately and before God we take the ground that we are of the church (though not it) and so 1 Corinthians 5 is necessarily before us, as the “law”, so to speak, “of the house”. In our public attitude and statements we do not assume to be the church (in any given locality); but as bearing the Lord’s name, we cannot walk with persons guilty of unjudged sin, and we say so as we refuse to go on with anyone found in that sad case. This is becoming, for outwardly all is ruin, and although we seek to be true to the Lord, we cannot disclaim responsibility for the ruin. In view of this it is utterly unseemly, and indeed quite wrong, for any company of Christians to assume by the formula they use to be an assembly.

^[p. 181] On the other hand, we know the precious fact that we are of the assembly; we recognise this, knowing the reality of it by the Holy Spirit — all this necessarily enters into our dealing with one who may have sinned. We act together as before God in the light of the church, and this power (in measure at least) is with us, and thus discipline is made effective. But if a company of saints ‘puts persons away’ from itself and ‘receives’ to itself it is assuming by this (especially by the formal announcements made) that it is a church. This does not set aside the blessed fact, however, that a number of saints described in 2 Timothy 2: 22 may enjoy church privileges. They may be clothed with church thoughts, so to speak; but this would be as before God — not that the company is a church, but of it, as I said before. The Supper is, of course, public; but it does not involve administration, and there is no pretension in a few saints responding in this way to their Lord’s request. It involves the church, for the loaf symbolises all, but it is not administration, as I said, and the absence of so many in any locality speaks of the ruin. There can be no question that the Supper is in order for those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.

With love in Him, I am Yours affectionately,

James Taylor.