BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 26TH, 1931

BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 26TH, 1931

Mr. McB———.

My Dear Brother, — I have to acknowledge receipt of your letters to Mr. Higgins. They are sad reading to me as from one who, as confessedly restored from an erroneous position, promised to be, under God, of service in the testimony of our Lord.

What is particularly distressing is that what you are combating now as serious error was for a considerable time before your reception known to you to be held among the brethren whose fellowship you sought and obtained. You were present at the conference at Barnet where the statements you now refuse were openly and frankly made, and afterwards took your place in fellowship with those who made them. I had conversation with you during the meetings at Barnet and later in Scotland, and you made no adverse comment on what others and myself had said on the great subject of our Lord’s sonship.

^[p. 334] Surely you must see, as you consider it, that there is a moral defect here.

The first intimation I had of your adverse attitude was in a long controversial letter from you which came early this year — more than a year and a half after the Barnet meetings.

Added to above is the unseemliness of one who had been admittedly in an unrighteous association for twenty years, returning to the saints whom he had erroneously left, and then almost immediately taking a lead in controversy against them, and this in regard to a subject requiring the most mature spiritual judgment. Thus aside from the matter of contention, there is a moral incongruity in your position of which you seem entirely insensible.

I would suggest — without any bitter feeling, I assure you — that this is the outcome of the leaven of your recent association. I firmly believe this.

Reviewing your history from the time of our meeting at Barnet, I am convinced that you failed to judge as before God the evil principles and conduct of the system you had left, and correspondingly you did not face, so as to understand them, the truths and principles maintained amongst the brethren into whose fellowship you came.

I do not write to condemn you, dear brother, far otherwise — I wish to help you, and to this end I must tell you the truth. I gather from your letter to Mr. Higgins of November 30th that you have not returned to those with Glanton and so I would fain hope that you may be saved even yet for the testimony.

I do not enter on the contents of your letters, save to observe that you do not allow in your conscience the full weight of what has been said by others and myself as to the subject in question. I should, of course, gladly review the truth of Christ’s sonship with you in a brotherly way if opportunity offers. You may be interested to see a letter I wrote Mr. Allen Oliver on the subject which conveys the truth, as I understand it, fairly well; if so Mr. R. Besley would, I believe, supply you with a copy.

I would also point out that you build too much on Hebrews 7: 3, which, according to right exegetic principles, has to be considered in its context; otherwise it will be made to clash with other scriptures. This indeed is what your use of it does. Scripture abounds with references to God being Father to Christ. The designation “Son of God”, employed in the ^[p. 335] verse, implies it. Compare also Galatians 4: 4. Besides in treating of Melchisedec in Hebrews our Lord’s Sonship is taken up from Psalm 2 — “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”. It were serious indeed to deny Him this Parentage!

What is alluded to in the verse is clearly the parentage or genealogy needed by Aaronic priests (see Ezra and Nehemiah). Melchisedec had none as far as Scripture shows (and the facts, positive and negative, of Genesis 14 are under review) and yet he was priest of the Most High God. His priesthood did not depend on his genealogy but on himself, hence the greatness of this person as compared with an Aaronic priest. But while the designation “Son of God” implies that God is Christ’s Father, it also denotes the greatness of His Person — who He is. He is derived from no one. He is “I AM”. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life — “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come”. This statement, Hebrews 13: 8, shows that names applying to our Lord in time may be employed to designate His Person as in the past eternity without intimating that they applied to Him then.

I have written more than I had intended to write, but I am sure you will not regard this as a blemish.

Faithfully your brother in Christ,

James Taylor.