BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY, 1906
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY, 1906
Mr. J. S. Allen.
My Dear Mr. Allen, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th ult. I thank you for it.
I regret to hear of dear Mr. Broomhead’s illness, but I am thankful to know that he is recovering. I met Mr. Broomhead once and feel very much interested in him; and all the more so because of his past close relations with dear Mr. Raven.
As to the Chicago matter, I would say that if the action you mention was taken (and I hope for the sake of those who would be responsible for it that it was not), we have not been notified of it. After the special meetings we heard accidentally that a letter had been sent, but afterwards that it was cancelled. What the contents of this letter were, I do not know. The state of things at Chicago at present is most deplorable, for the leaders are acting like so many children — applying Romans 16: 17, 18 to a good proportion of the godliest souls in the meeting, without any proof that the conditions referred to in that scripture exist. Although the situation in Chicago is the direct outcome of Mr. Boyd’s visit, yet there is no issue raised which calls for interference from outside, as the matter is purely local. I feel that a great deal of working material would be kept from the enemy if local matters were left in local hands. Of course, where a manifestly wrong course is being pursued, it is of God to seek in a sober, humble way to check it, but on general principles it is safest to leave things with the Lord, who is Son over the house of God.
As to the body of your letter, I am somewhat at a loss to know what to say, for I do not see that I can add anything, as to the points you raise, to what I have said in the revised Notes, especially in the preface — a copy of which I had sent you.
You say: ‘If ... the Spirit is never dissociated from Christ who gives it, then it must be to Christ you turn, and to Him where He actually is in Person, and not to the saints or the assembly’. This is exactly what I say substantially, as the following extracts show: ‘In order to drink, each one must come to Christ, the Source and Giver’. ‘It would be wrong to imply that the church is the giver of living water. Christ is the Giver of living water’. Your remarks, therefore, are a sorrow to me, for you do not seem to accredit what I say. You may reply that other statements of mine are different. I certainly do not know of any such.
Then you say: ‘This, as I see it, is the root error, which vitiates what might otherwise be good’. That is, you charge me with something as root error which is the exact opposite of what I affirm in the plainest English! But I have never thought or said that the saints give living water (although I have made full allowance for certain instances in the Acts, of the Spirit being communicated through the administration of men); my point all through being to emphasise that the living water was here, and this in order that saints should become exercised as to it. I have always (of course) held that Christ is the Giver of living water, as of every blessing; but what I have felt is that the administrative position of the assembly, as set up by the Lord at the beginning, is not understood; hence if anyone were to say in a limited way that the Holy Spirit was given through men at the beginning I could not deny it. But I only say this as guarding the side of the truth which I have mentioned, and as making full allowance for the authority of all Scripture; and I would always feel it needful in making such a remark to emphasise that Christ is the real Source and Giver. I have in mind such a scripture as: “Give ye” (the “ye” is emphatic) “them to eat”. The Lord supplied what they gave, but in detail the disciples gave the food to the multitude. The phase of the truth indicated in this should be upheld, otherwise we are bound to suffer loss. It can easily be maintained without trenching on the Lord’s personal glory and prerogatives. It may be said that this line of things occupies the saints with themselves, but of what value is this remark when, as I have shown, the Scriptures present it as part of the truth? How can we have the ministry of the church without referring to the church? And the church always means the saints, no matter what be the view taken.
As to the living water, I am surprised that you should think that it is limited to the ‘effects’ of the Spirit, but I am glad that you are not dogmatic about it, for in the light of John 4 and 7 I cannot see that the thought is scriptural; indeed I am sure it is not scriptural. John 7 does not say, ‘This spake He of the effects of the Spirit’, but “This spake He of the Spirit”. Then in John 4 the Lord said that the water that He would give would become in the recipient a fountain of water springing up. How are we to understand that the Lord would give to the woman the ‘effects’ of the Spirit? or that the spring in the believer is the effects of the Spirit? The Lord alluded to the Spirit Himself, and to say the contrary would, to my mind, weaken the whole passage, and indeed tend to rob us of Christianity in the real power of it. I fully own that the effects of the Spirit are included in the living water, especially as flowing out of the believer, but the living water as given to the disciples by Christ, was the Holy Spirit personally, and this should be insisted on.
Your remark as to the Holy Spirit not entirely leaving heaven is, I must say, very peculiar, and I beg you to excuse me if I say that it will jar on any mind conversant with the teaching of Scripture; and that any views based on it will only tend to confusion, if not to error. For myself, I may say that I have always believed that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, equal with the Father and the Son, and ever in the Godhead; so I would not restrict Him, as thus viewed, to any sphere, but I want to be governed by Scripture, and there I find that Christ being glorified the Spirit is here — “sent down from heaven”. Till Jesus was glorified the Spirit “was not yet”, but now He is here Personally as that other Comforter who abides with [p. 50] us forever, and it is as here in the church that He is spoken of in the New Testament, and not as in heaven. Of course, the Spirit is in Christ as Man in heaven, but until it is shown from Scripture that souls have received Him from heaven since Pentecost I shall hold that all persons who have received the Spirit since He came to the 120 as seen in Acts 2, have received Him as thus already here. In Acts 10, indeed He was “poured out” on the Gentiles, but it does not say that He was poured out from heaven. In Acts 2 the sound of “a rushing, mighty wind” is out of heaven. But He is never disassociated from Christ. He is in Christ in heaven, but at the same time He is acting as a distinct Divine Person here on earth (we cannot undertake to explain this), and it is in the latter position, as I have said, that He is spoken of in connection with Christianity.
I do not know why you refer to the writings of brethren, as if I had been basing my views on these. I have learnt much through the ministry of others, but I make a point to rest everything that I believe or say, on Scripture. I am not in the habit of appealing to the writings of others.
As to the withdrawal of certain things, you may by this time be aware that I have withdrawn the unrevised notes of the New York meetings of last year. I send under separate cover copies of my letter of withdrawal.
I have written at some length to you, dear Mr. Allen, because I am desirous of making my meaning as clear to you as possible, and if any statements I have made appear too strong or in any way unbecoming, I beg you to pardon them, for I desire to respect fully your age and experience.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.