BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 30TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 30TH, 1932
Mr. Arthur J. H. Brown.
Beloved Brother, — Your letter of the 16th inst. is just to hand and it is all very interesting.
The Herstmonceux matter is peculiar and somewhat sorrowful,
[p. 379] for the cessation of a meeting is usually defeat. But as to the difficulty arising, it seems to me that ‘the nearest meeting’ must imply convenience of access; in this sense time is a factor as well as mileage. If there is subjection in all concerned such a difficulty is easily overcome, but it often brings out the working of will. As to responsibility — if any exercise of it is now called for — it would seem by what you say (Herstmonceux being two miles nearer to Bexhill than to Eastbourne) that it lies with Bexhill, and if the saints at Herstmonceux are subject they will recognise this; thus the question as to whether Eastbourne is more conveniently reached can be easily determined. If Eastbourne is more easily reached, the simple thing would be to allow them to go there.
I follow all you say as to extreme or unscriptural statements in circulation. These are to be deplored, but I think the Lord is helping and there is a readiness for adjustment, which is a great matter. I have written Mr. H——— as to the Melbourne remarks, and he regrets them. The book has not been circulated in this country, but we are trying to cover or delete the objectionable statements so that what is good may be available. Wisdom and example are essential if help is to be rendered in meeting such conditions.
We are thinking of you in view of your service in Scotland and we trust there will be help. I have a list of the meetings to be held during the coming week-end, which is an advantage.
I attended the meetings at Council Bluffs late last month and the Lord gave a good time. H. G. was free and fresh, the Lord helping him. Certain clouds that have darkened the horizon in the West during the last two years have recently lifted, and this is the cause of much thanksgiving, as you can understand.
As to the remarks as to “corner-stone”, “head-stone”, had I used it, could not be objected to. Zechariah 4 indicates that the top or finishing stone is in mind. I am thankful for your remarks; they confirm my general understanding of the metaphor so frequently employed in Scripture, but it (the metaphor) must not be carried too far. In Isaiah 28 the corner-stone is to convey the idea of foundation, but in Ephesians 2 it is more personal — not what Christ is made — and so general prominence, supremacy and binding influence are in view. The mind has to rest on what is actually conveyed and not on the figure. If we understand generally a thing [p. 380] presented we shall not rest on the figure employed to present it. While Zechariah 4 has finish in view, Ephesians 2 is growing, but it is not ‘on whom’, but “in whom”.
Thanks for the expression of sympathy as to our dear little grandson. The little girl remains paralysed, with but little hope of recovery. We are seeking to obtain the gain of the sorrow — especially that the parents should.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.