BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 4TH, 1906
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JUNE 4TH, 1906
Mr. J. Henderson.
Beloved Brother, — Since writing my last I have had time to weigh the question of the withdrawal of the unrevised notes of meetings held in New York last year. I had partly decided to do this three months ago, but hesitated then because I did not wish that those who appreciated the line of thought contained in them (and I had abundant evidence that there were many such), should be deprived of what they valued as the truth. I cherished the hope that I should be enabled to furnish satisfactory explanations of the points objected to; and indeed I may say, that as far as difficulties have been presented to me directly, I have succeeded in this.
Notwithstanding, however, I feel that as the Notes were not [p. 46] properly revised, and as they do not accurately represent the thought of some of the speakers, and of myself in particular, and as they contain expressions which, being unguarded, are capable of misconstruction, and more especially as they have become in this form the subject of public controversy, fairness to all concerned, demands that they should be withdrawn, as they stand. It is not that they contain anything wrong, but some of the expressions alluded to above, have been torn away from their context and grouped together in such fashion as to lead some to conclude that a system of error is being taught; hence godly care for souls would lead to the removal of what in this way is being used to harass and distress the Lord’s people. Had it not been that much they contain as truth, and which I believe the Lord would call special attention to at the present time, is now in print and before the saints, I should have felt it needful to revise carefully the Notes in question and publish them, so that all might be in a position to judge as to what is really held, but this is not necessary on account of the publication of the Notes of the Chicago meetings.
I would ask you, dear brother, kindly to make known to those with whom you may be in communication that these Notes are withdrawn for the reasons stated above, and in doing so, I feel it is but seemly for me to say that while I am acting with a view to peace and the restoration of confidence among the saints, yet the admissions made above involve a measure of failure on my part, for had proper care been exercised at the beginning, this act might not now be necessary. Hence, as on a former occasion, I would again express my very great regret for any sorrow occasioned my brethren which more care on my part might have averted.
I can understand it being said that such an acknowledgment as I now make is not enough; that I should confess that error exists, but I am utterly unconscious that it does, and, until its existence is proved, it is impossible for me to admit it. It is not that I claim unconsciousness of error vindicates me, I do not; but while I am unconscious of it, it is, as I said, impossible for me to admit its existence; and until the presence of evil in the Notes is attested, I can say no more than I have said above. It is true that we are to be justified or condemned by our words, but if statements are made which although said to be one-sided or unbalanced, are at the same time supported by Scripture, they cannot be called error. This is especially [p. 47] the case if the balancing truths are found elsewhere from the same speaker, and the different Notes which have been criticised abound with this very thing. For instance, the Son of God is said to have come, and come to stay, and ‘The church is here to stay’. What was the thought behind those expressions? By reference to other statements in the Notes it can be seen that it is held that Christ is literally in heaven, and that the church’s place is there also; hence, ‘here’ cannot be intended to mean the earth alone, but the heavens as well, as included in the sphere of testimony.
I will not say more, only to add that in withdrawing the Notes as they stand, it is as reserving the right to use them in part or as a whole, if this be deemed necessary in the future, as properly revised Notes of two of the meetings have been already revised and published under the titles respectively of ‘Christ in Authority’, and ‘Christ crowned by the Father and by the saints’. These, of course, are not withdrawn.
Mr. Pellatt quite agrees to the withdrawal of the unrevised Notes.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.