BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 3RD, 1906
BROOKLYN, N.Y., OCTOBER 3RD, 1906
Mr. J. Henderson.
Beloved Brother, — Mr. Lock sent you earlier in the week a statement signed by four brothers present at the meeting with Mr. Boyd denying his report as to Mr. Pellatt, and also a synopsis of what passed at the meeting. I think the information therein contained should satisfy brethren that Mr. Boyd’s statements and doctrine are not to be accepted without question. From the facts which have come from your side it is clear that he has made false statements, and the notes sent you by Mr. Lock prove Mr. Boyd unsound both as to the gospel and the kingdom. I need not say that I am most deeply concerned as to all that is transpiring, and feel most keenly the extreme [p. 58] gravity of being in this way made the occasion of so much contention. I am much encouraged to hear of your prayer on my behalf, and I think I can say that I feel the effect of this in my soul. I am seeking to go on in a quiet and obscure way, being compelled to devote most of my time to secular business. I find constant encouragement from the Lord, I am thankful to say, in seeking to go on with the few here who are seeking to go on with the truth. We have had a good deal of sorrow here owing to a few brothers carrying certain views to such a length as to be at plain issue with the Scripture, having also formed themselves into a distinct party. We have had to deal with them, and since doing so there has been much relief and edification in the truth. These brethren had been primarily very favourable to me, and some held me responsible for their extreme views (responsibility which I entirely repudiated) which as I have said were utterly unscriptural. They, on the other hand, had become quite opposed to me. But the remarkable thing was that Mr. Boyd, knowing all this and what sorrow these brothers were causing the saints, identified himself with them and stayed with them, and reported to others that they were all right; notwithstanding that he knows that they had said worse things than he imputed to me. In other words Mr. Boyd commended the only ones on this side that could be called heretical. Their heresy arose too, I believe, from their pushing to the extreme, things that they heard me say. The difficulties as to this are now past, I am thankful to say. But matters at Chicago are very unsettled, this being the direct outcome of Mr. Boyd’s visit there. Outside Chicago things are comparatively quiet on this side. There are, of course, those who agree with Mr. Boyd and Mr. T. H. Reynolds, but this is not the case generally, the leading ones being quite clear that there is no error being taught, and they have an understanding as to where the Lord is in the matter. Of course, the saints here have the advantage of knowing the persons in question, and many have heard what has been said from time to time, which is not the case with brethren in England. This constitutes the matter rather serious on your side, but clearly the Lord is acting, and there can be no doubt as to the issue, the truth is in question and He will support it. I can scarcely understand how Mr. Bookless can use such strong language to prove from his quotations from my letter anything derogatory to Christ or that another Christ is presented therein different [p. 59] to the one for whom millions of souls had ‘lived and suffered’. He wants to know what I mean; I should like to know what he means. His letter is extraordinary, and leads one to very serious reflections as to what may be the effect on saints on your side of the present agitation — for from what I have heard of Mr. Bookless I should have thought of him as a sober and intelligent brother. I submit to you or any candid brother as to whether the simple meaning of the two passages Mr. Bookless quotes, is not that Christ is to be presented in the gospel as the One through whom alone every blessing comes — in whom every blessing is — and that the blessings are made available practically in virtue of the presence of the Holy Spirit down here; and that the preacher should not only instruct souls as to the former but also as to the latter. Reduced to a smaller compass, it is Christ in glory and the Holy Spirit down here; and these wondrous and blessed facts being announced to men. I cannot understand where some are in complaining so much in regard to what has been said about living water. No one objects that the living water refers to the Spirit, nor that the Spirit is actually here. Why should it be wrong to speak of locating Him? He has His own sphere (’the region of the Spirit’, as you might rightly call it) and why should it be regarded as wrong to seek to make this known to men? How can you preach from Luke 14 or 15 without alluding to it? In chapter 14 the Supper was in the house and in chapter 15 the music and dancing were there. The house refers to what is ‘down here’, for the music and dancing were within the hearing of the “elder brother”. The present ruin does not affect the matter at all. I have been speaking of the gospel as normally presented, i.e. as at the beginning. Further, you cannot preach the kingdom without referring to what is actually down here — for it is down here — “the kingdom of God is ... righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Romans 14: 17). Mr. Boyd evaded this by saying that the kingdom referred to what is established in heaven — in the face of Romans 14 (as I have just quoted) which connects it with the Holy Spirit who is now down here. As to what J.B. says that I have in my mind the little company in Brooklyn, etc., when I speak of the Christian circle, that is not true: when I speak of the Christian circle I speak of the church normally. This has been my point all along. I have been exercised because of the great pretension to gospel preaching without any concern as to the absence of a [p. 60] witness to it; and hence I have sought to call attention to the conditions under which the apostles primarily announced the glad tidings. I have but little difficulty with what you say as to teaching and preaching; this is of minor importance. If the saints are willing to maintain what is fundamental — Christ in glory and the Holy Spirit here, and that present salvation and blessings depend not only on the former but on the latter, I am content and shall only be too glad to confer with my brethren and receive what help I may from them. I am constantly looking to the Lord for you and the saints with you, and those in Great Britain generally, for I see that the present is a time of great anxiety and sorrow. Mr. Boyd’s doings and Heath’s conduct in sending out his paper (which I think is ‘tempting the Lord’ ) must be the occasion of great exercise to you all. I am well aware that many place most of the blame on me; as I said in my letter of January 15th I accept that I have exposed myself and the saints to attack, but I do not admit that error is taught in the ‘Notes’. I have weighed the matter many times, and I cannot find I have had a wrong thought. There are expressions which admit of a construction that would be error, but this would not be my meaning. And I feel certain that I could satisfy any number of unbiased brethren that error was not intended in anything I said in the ‘Notes’. I am a young brother and I feel I need help, and I shall be glad to accept it from anyone on your side who feels free to offer it. If any brother or brethren will put down formally the points that seem to cause difficulty I shall be glad to explain my meaning as to them as well as I can. If it be pointed out from Scripture that I am in any way in error I shall gladly acknowledge it. I wholly repudiate that I am in any way connected with a party. I have no special (i.e. as distinct from the truth of the church) connection with any brother.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.