AUGUST 7TH, 1930

AUGUST 7TH, 1930

My Dear Mr.———, — I am hoping to see you especially so as to speak a little as to your paper entitled ‘The Son’ — sent me in April. The fact that it was a carefully written article with a title occasioned my remarks. It had the same character as the paper on City boundaries — it contained your definite thoughts — ‘I cannot but see’, etc. — and these would be received into the mind of any reader according to his estimate of your judgment. If he relied on you he would be affected by your remarks rightly or wrongly. The fact that you profess to be questioning implies that it might be the latter and this is most serious in view of the gravity of the subject. You might not hear from him, but damage had occurred — even if he did mention the matter later you could say, ‘My paper was in the nature of a question;’ but this could not relieve you of responsibility. Thus the method you have adopted in these papers in dealing with the things of God has a grave moral defect. The paper conveys the idea of something carried by a Levite, having a title, etc., but it professes to be an uncertainty and so unworthy of such dignity. In spite of this it will influence its readers according to the reputation of the Levite ^[p. 280] that carried it. I am speaking of the principle of handling divine things in this way. It is a kind of element that would start a fire, Exodus 22: 6. As I said, I write of the principle of the paper. Besides, as far as I was concerned, you could have spoken or written me, months having elapsed between the time of the meetings at Barnet and the time of my sailing to England — instead you sent me this paper.

Reduced to its basic contents, the paper negatived what I said at Barnet. Yet you asked me if I saw anything wrong in it!

Answering your enquiry (not your P.S. of July 28th) as to Matthew 11: 27 and 28: 19, I would say that I understand the titles or names mentioned as those taken in the declaration or revelation of God. Before touching the main point I would remark that it is quite obvious that Holy Spirit is a designation of that Divine Person as having to do with evil or unholiness. There would be no need for it (’holy’ ) otherwise. The word Spirit (breath or wind) is evidently used to convey to men how God in that Person was acting in creation. All such activities had in view the Spirit coming on Jesus. Mediatorship all centres in Christ, the Son, in manhood. The mediatorial principle was present from the beginning (by whom, etc.), but anticipated the incarnation. All things have been created by Him and for Him.

In presenting the Person of Christ the Holy Spirit begins with designations applying to Him as Man, such as the Son, the Word, Wisdom, etc., but this is far from saying that these applied to Him as in the form of God. In Romans 9: 5 “Christ” is said to exist God over all, but clearly we cannot say that that term always applied in that existence. It implies that He is anointed and so takes a place below proper Deity. The same remarks cover the designation Son. Although there is the clearest evidence that it indicates His personal deity, yet He says, “The Son can do nothing of Himself”, and that no one knows that hour, “nor the Son” — these statements do not convey Deity but rather that One who has, as to His Person, part in it has taken a relatively inferior position to carry out the will of God. This is as clear as anything in Scripture and so to make terms which convey this latter apply to or characterise the Person as in the form of God is unscriptural.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.