BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY, 1929

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY, 1929

My Dear Mr.———, — I have your letter dated the 24th ult. and also the previous one addressed to the Celtic. Thanks for both. I had hoped for an opportunity of talking with you on the subject of these letters.

With you, I am sorry that there should be any disagreement between us and I earnestly trust it will not be for long duration. The best way to ensure this is to be frank, reserving nothing; each being assured that personal motives do not govern him and that while he is concerned for what is right and true, he is not overlooking the value of his brother. As you rightly say, we have been generally agreed in regard of the truth since we first met, 38 years ago, and I am sure we both wish this agreement to continue. You may be assured, therefore, that I am not disposed to take a biased view of your paper. But as it was to me new both in form and substance, I was bound to write freely, especially as you had desired me to do so. I shall now refer to the features of the subject seriatim as they appear in your letters.

First as to the form of the paper, I referred to it as ‘open or circulated;’ it has a formal title and was mailed to some seventeen persons in different parts of the world without restrictions; it would thus be handed round in the different localities to which it was sent. I heard of it before the copy you sent reached me, and I know of copies being made of it by a brother to whom you did not send one. That a letter accompanied each copy you mailed does not detract from above facts and so the paper was clearly both open and circulated; and this not only because you could not well control it after so many copies had left your hands, but because you expressed no wish to do so — as far as I know. Thus I am unable to alter my remarks under this head in my first letter.

^[p. 245] The powers that be, — I have no doubt that you respect them, but your paper reiterated that the saints had nothing to do with them in regard of city boundaries and the like. This not only produces a bad impression on the mind, but it is obviously incorrect. If I own a house I must recognise the powers that be in the name of the place (city, town or village), the name of the street and the number of the house. If you write me a letter it will not reach me unless you comply with the ordering of the civil powers. The same applies to a room or hall in which the saints meet. I need not enlarge on this feature for it is quite evident that what I have said covers the limits or boundaries of places. I am to pay tribute to whom tribute is due, and so I must determine to whom my taxes are to be paid and this is by finding out that I am within the area of the authority to whom the tax is to be paid. In New York the obligation is on the property holder to find out the person to whom his taxes are to be paid; if he fails to pay he will be fined. Unless therefore you recognise the ordering of the civil powers, a communication mailed by you to the saints in New York will not reach them. The Lord Himself designates a street in Damascus and we are bound to accept that “Straight” was its name as given by the civil powers. And so when he told Saul to “enter into the city” he alluded not only to people, but to houses, walls, etc. The ethnarch kept the city of the Damascenes shut up to take Saul: the city and the people are distinct. Thus the assembly in Damascus would be the saints within the limits indicated in the word enter used by the Lord. To assume that the saints would not recognise those limits, is wholly inadmissible.

You mention the assembly in Philemon’s house as showing that the conception of an assembly is not confined to the political boundaries of a city. I never thought it was, nor have I ever heard anyone say it was. The enquiry is not that but what is involved in the expression “The assembly of God ... in Corinth” — must not Corinth be determined? As you say, ‘the assemblies in households would be embraced in the larger thought of the assembly in a city’.

References to cities after Acts 2 — I must say again that these are comparatively many, even when the idea of the assembly directly or indirectly is connected. Besides those formally mentioned we have the Spirit testifying in “every city” — this was obviously in connection with the saints in them; then we have elders ordained in “every city;” added to these we have cities in which the gospel was preached — all indicating how prominent the thought is in the mind of God, as agreeing with Proverbs 1: 20, 21.

Old Testament cities. — You say ‘The context should show I could not have in mind Cain’s city’, etc. — but this was the defect — the question in the paper was as to ‘Old Testament conditions and requirements’. Why should the Old Testament not speak fully — it treats of other cities besides those under the law. You say you were enquiring about ‘assembly days (not Old Testament times);’ you ruled out the Old Testament because municipal, religious interests were all one under the law, ignoring the fact that cities were treated of long before the law, and cities with which the law had nothing to do long after — cities to which God bore witness as He is doing now. Why should the Scriptures which God had written to treat all this be disregarded? Are they not written for our learning? They are indeed! The first three cities they mention are said to have been built; to one of these (Nineveh) God sent a prophet to preach to it and he entered into it. Surely that is for ‘our learning’ as to cities and God’s testimony to them. Besides, the cities ‘under the law’ came under a foreign yoke, when their political and religious interests were no longer identical. As you reconsider it I believe you will see that I should not alter what I wrote under this head.

As regards saints residing ‘just outside the gate of Corinth’ being ‘included by the Spirit as in the assembly of God at Corinth’, I see no gain in such a remark. Why assume there were any? If there were and they broke bread ‘outside’ they could, of course, be included in the ‘places’ mentioned in chapter 1: 2. If they broke bread inside they would, of course, be included in the assembly at Corinth.

As to incongruities as at Detroit, these are the exception; so also London — notoriously. The Lord gives wisdom in such cases to those directly responsible. Herein, I believe, lies the solution of these exceptional cities; generally there is no difficulty.

I shall be glad of an opportunity to speak with you “mouth to mouth” on this (now) extended subject; in the meantime I trust you will take in the spirit of forbearance what I have written thus freely.

I may add that I see no justification in Scripture for your suggestion that the “holy city” in Matthew 27 refers to the saints in Jerusalem and not to the city itself. There is no evidence that it should not be taken there as in Matthew 4, Revelation 11, and like passages in the Old Testament, particularly Daniel 9.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.