BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 25TH, 1905
[p. 29] BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 25TH, 1905
Mr. T. H. Reynolds.
My Dear Mr. Reynolds, — Your letter dated November 1st was duly received. Its kindly tone was much appreciated, and now I take pleasure in sending a line in reply.
I do not think you rightly understood what I intended Miss Elwood to do in helping to revise the ‘Notes:’ it was never my thought that she should be responsible for anything that might appear in them. I had heard that she had considerable experience in this kind of work and was very efficient; and, knowing that she had been in close touch with both Mr. Stoney and Mr. Raven, I judged she would have a good idea of the form in which the truth has been currently expressed in England. Hence my freedom in soliciting her aid. All she has done is simply to make suggestions on a separate sheet as to where she believes changes should be made. This is great service to me, and I do not at all see that what she has done is outside the latitude of what is proper to sisters. It is my belief that to your knowledge both she and others have done as much, or more, heretofore without being challenged. It seems to me that while we should recognise 1 Timothy 2: 12 we should not overlook that at the beginning women partook of the gifts of the Spirit and helped in the truth (compare Acts 21; 1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 18: 26).
I regret that you did not see your way to withdraw your two printed letters. I did not wish you to unsay all you had said, but the letters themselves were admittedly not based on fair grounds (the information you had was of a private nature and did not profess to be authentic: you admit the latter on page 1 of your first letter) and on this account should be withdrawn as they stand.
In them you criminate others and myself with whom you are nominally in fellowship as being guilty of doing ‘dishonour to Christ’, and of ‘giving up the testimony recovered to the saints;’ and this without making the least effort to discover whether you rightly understood the views of those responsible! To my mind it is but common fairness that a public expression of judgment on a matter of this kind should be withheld until the persons in question have opportunity to explain themselves. Your justification is that ‘the letter has, I judge, done that for which I wrote and printed it. The Lord has, I am sure, used it in recalling our souls to the truth confided to us’. If [p. 30] this was the end you had in view, you certainly took a most extraordinary way to reach it — a way that involves charges against some of your brethren which if true constitute these brethren unfit for Christian fellowship. I hope you will bear with me, dear Mr. Reynolds, if I ask you to consider this matter. I do ask you to do so. As I say, I do not ask you to unsay all you have said, for I am sure a warning against the obscuring of the heavenly side of the truth can but do good; but the preferring of charges against those with whom we are breaking the same loaf contrary to the principles laid down in Scripture cannot have the Lord’s approval;, besides, being unfair, an injustice is done to the persons in question. As for myself, I feel certain I could satisfy almost any of my brethren that I do not hold any thing contrary to Scripture, hence you can understand my feelings in being branded as a party to doing dishonour to Christ, and giving up the testimony recovered to the saints.
Of course it is natural for you to counsel me to withdraw what you regard as so erroneous. My belief is, however, that in view of all that has been said the ‘Notes’ should appear as properly revised.
As to the Notes of the New York meetings, I do not know how you make out that I make the church an ‘earth-dweller’. Certainly it is foreign to my mind. I do not believe the church will ever be on earth again after the rapture, and I am sure I have said nothing to the contrary. What I have intended to convey is that she will be connected with the earth — she will be in relation to the earth in the millennium, but her place is distinctively in heaven. From Revelation 21 it would appear that she will ultimately be more immediately connected with the earth (”with men”), but even from that passage I would not say that she will be on earth.
I would call your attention to a remark you make in your letter condemnatory of me. ‘You connect Christ also with the earth through the church’. I believe Christ is to be connected with the earth in the world to come, and if anyone denied this I would consider that he denied the leading point in prophecy. “His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives”. This is not only connection, but contact. I am sure you will admit what I am saying — that Christ is coming to reign; if He reigns over the earth He must be connected with it. I only call your attention to the error [p. 31] involved in your statement — I do not think you meant anything wrong: you are alluding, I suppose, to my making the church an earth-dweller, and that consequently Christ is made such also. I assure you I have no such notion.
With love in the Lord, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.