BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 15TH, 1906

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 15TH, 1906

Mr. John Henderson.

My Dear Brother, — When writing last I did not have time to refer to the agitation which the Notes (Chicago) of the meetings for which I am mainly responsible have occasioned. While from the outset I had the assurance that the Notes did not contain error, I was aware of inaccurate and unguarded expressions, which were well understood when given out orally, but which might easily be misconstrued by a reader who did not attend the meetings, especially if such an one was not acquainted with the speaker. _ All this (although quite unforeseen) is what has actually happened and as my brethren have been caused anxiety and sorrow I feel I am blameworthy. I hope it will be understood that I am deeply pained that any of the Lord’s people should have had conflict which forethought and caution on my part might have averted. But it should be borne in mind that the Notes were primarily intended for brethren on this Continent, and as most of them are acquainted with Mr. Pellatt and myself and do not suspect either of us of bad doctrine, it was never anticipated that there would be serious criticism, indeed as a matter of fact there had been none that I am aware of until the objections from your side began to appear and even since, with one or two exceptions, there has not been anything serious. I mention this specially because my belief is that the difficulty has arisen largely from the form of expression employed and want of apprehension on the part of those objecting as to the point of view taken. The fact that those who are acquainted with the manner of giving out the truth of the speakers represented in the Notes, have little or no difficulty is, I think, a proof of this. I would mention further (as I did in a previous letter) that the Notes came to me to look over at a time when I was under the greatest pressure from stress of business, and hence I was ^[p. 32] hindered in giving them proper attention. I went over them very superficially and I see now that I should have held them back until I had more time, but as I said, I had no anticipation of criticisms; I regarded the Notes as semi-private, and quite believed that they would be read in a charitable spirit by those into whose hands they might come — that they would be taken as intended for edification, and as calling attention in a pointed way to what the Lord had revived through the ministry of others. There is nothing further from my mind than that anything in the Notes should be dogmatic, but at the same time I believe that what they contain is substantially the truth which the Lord has been calling our attention to for some years, and I am convinced that where it is refused an irreparable loss will be sustained. I am very far from expecting that my elder brethren should pay especial attention to anything one so young as I might have to say, but I think that to which the ministry of those now at rest called attention should be considered and contended for. The church’s heavenly calling as united to Christ was pressed, also the great fact of its existence down here at the present time in the power of the Holy Spirit. The former is now being pushed forward, but the latter as a practical sphere of protection and blessing for souls is being largely ignored. This explains the point of view in the Chicago Notes. There was not the intention to belittle the heavenly side, but the need of insisting on it did not exist. Now I see that much should have been added in the way of guarding and explanation, and would have been, had criticism been anticipated. Many things have been alleged as taught in the Notes which are entirely foreign to my mind and I am certain I never gave expression to them. The more important of these are:

1st. That the church is an ‘earth-dweller’ and that through her Christ is also made such. His session at the right hand of God being ignored, beclouded and hidden.

2nd. That the church is presented as an object of faith in the gospel, and that instead of Christ, she is the giver of living water.

3rd. That living water is located in the saints, instead of in Christ.

I refuse all this as contrary to Scripture. It never had a place in my mind. As to the first, I believe the church’s distinctive place is in heaven, or the heavenlies, and that she ^[p. 33] will never be seen actually on earth again after the rapture; that even now she is the body of Christ and united to Him in heaven.

But she is actually here on earth in testimony and, as Christ’s body she is Himself morally (Acts 9: 14). But although here the earth is not her place; heaven is her place although in the future she is ever seen in relation to the earth, at the present time the church forms the sphere in which Christ is known and enjoyed, but the associations are all heavenly having Him at the right hand of God as the centre.

As to the second, I believe Christ alone is presented as the Object of faith in the gospel and that He is the giver of living water.

The third allegation may have an apparent support in the Notes, but this can only be by inference that because living water is located in the saints it is denied that it is in Christ. It is in Christ, and to say that it is in the saints down here does not weaken this in the least degree while it presents the living water as practically available for man at the present time. The living water is in the assembly, but it is not in the assembly instead of in Christ. It seems to be forgotten that the assembly itself is in Christ. In what appears in the Notes on this point my thought was not that the locating of the living water in the saints was by the preaching, but rather that the preachers should do this (I did not say how) for souls. In preaching, Christ should be presented as the One through whom every blessing comes. The locating of things in detail comes in afterward.

In conclusion I would say that with the aid of some on this side and in England, I have made a revision of the Notes, and I hope they will soon appear in print. Had they been properly revised at the outset I should have thought it best to print them in the form in which they had been criticised, with needed marginal explanations, but as they stood they were, from a literary point of view, entirely unfit for publication. Besides as they are being printed chiefly with the hope that they may be found helpful to the saints, it is but proper they should be as accurate as possible, and that all extraneous matter should be removed.

Affectionately in the Lord,

James Taylor.

PS — You may be quite free to make whatever use you may think proper of this letter. — J.T.