JANUARY 20TH, 1910
JANUARY 20TH, 1910
Mr. J. Henderson.
Beloved Brother, — Yours of January 4th came this week. I am very glad to have the opportunity of seeing D.L.H.’s remarks on my letter of December 6th to you, and also your letter to Mr. H. as to them.
I am sorry that Mr. H. felt it necessary to write so strongly, and, of course, I am concerned lest I am responsible for this [p. 80] in any way. My earnest desire has been that anything said or written on the important and interesting subject that has been brought up should not go beyond brotherly interchange of thought. Kept within this limit nothing but good can come out of it; for I am sure we all desire light and help on the blessed truth of Christ’s relation to the assembly. The Scriptures are in our hands, and we may count on the Holy Spirit throwing light on what must be of such infinite import to each of us.
By this time you will have my last letter, and I hope you will show it to Mr. H. so that he may be assured that I fully recognise that the assembly may be viewed in an abstract way. Had he this assurance earlier he would not be under the necessity of writing most of his paper; but I am sorry my letter to you was not clearer on this point. Scripture views it sometimes in an abstract way; for instance, the “pearl” and “treasure”, and in many other connections, as D.L.H. and P.R.M. say; with this I have no difficulty — indeed it is impossible to set forth the truth of the assembly now except we have the liberty of speaking of it thus. But when I speak of it thus I think of it as it was at the beginning, or as it shall be in the future — that is, the concrete thing is in my mind all the time. It may be that my mind is not formed to take in abstract ideas, but I cannot conceive of a thing that is concrete (and the church cannot be other than concrete, as formed of living persons) in itself being viewed abstractly in any other way. In saying that ‘I do not see that we are warranted to speak of things in an abstract way which in Scripture are presented concretely’, I had John 20 in my mind. But, taken by itself, the statement is clear enough, as you say, and I feel sure it expresses the truth. I was writing a brother, in answer to some inquiries, a few days after I wrote you and I used the same expression, only supplying the word ‘only’ before ‘concretely’ so as to guard against him thinking that I held that the church could not be viewed in an abstract way. As John 20 presents what was strictly concrete I am quite unable to see that it is a pattern of something abstract. If it had been said that we had to view the chapter in an abstract way now (because the concrete is not fully in evidence) so as to understand it fully, I could have accepted the thought; but this was not the way ‘In the Midst’ treated it.
In view of what I have, said you can understand how easily [p. 81] I would concede that Hebrews 2: 12 might be viewed in an abstract way, providing it be understood that the Lord had in His mind, in uttering these precious words, His being actually in the midst of the assembly of His brethren.
As to J.N.D. being ‘pressed into service’, I cited his alleged remark, considering that it was worthy of mention, being so direct in its bearing on the point, and more especially as evidently quoted by J.B.S. I am sure Mr. Higgins must have bowed at times to the judgment of such honoured servants. Of course, their statements are not Scripture, but they aid us greatly (and are intended of the Lord for this purpose) in the understanding of Scripture. I may say that I am continually exercised that I may get all the gain available from the ministry of those who have gone before. But at the same time, the Scriptures are the test of what is of God and the contrary.
I may as well quote from Readings in Crieff (1889) as the matter has been so referred to: Mr. Darby has said that we ought to know when the Lord comes into our midst and when He goes out. ‘For my part, I often feel that I know when He comes in’ (page 31). Mr. H. says, ‘If J.N.D. did as J.B.S. reported I am convinced he never thought his remark would be resolved into a dogmatic pronouncement such as the one now made. I should understand him to refer to the apprehension of spiritual persons of the Lord’s presence rather than of His actual coming and leaving’. Now there was no thought of resolving the statement into a ‘dogmatic pronouncement’. My understanding of the subject has been for many years (indeed since I have apprehended anything of the truth) what it is now, and I do not recall having seen this remark of J.N.D.’s till last November. But Mr. H.’s understanding of the remark is very peculiar. J.N.D. says, in effect, that the Lord comes into our midst and goes out; Mr. H. says he understands him to refer to the apprehension of spiritual persons of the Lord’s presence. In other words, J.N.D. speaks of the Lord doing something, and Mr. H. understands him to mean by this that spiritual persons do something — i.e. they apprehend His presence! I am sorry Mr. H. has committed himself to such a mode of interpretation, for it is far below his ordinary level.
I feel that Mr. H. is fully justified in saying he would like to ask me for a scripture for the Lord ‘leaving’ the assembly. He notes, however, that I would give John 14 as one for His ‘coming’. In using the word ‘leaving’ I was alluding to Mr. Darby’s remark cited. I said, ‘If the Lord is in the midst whether the saints are convened or not, of course there can be no coming in or leaving‘ — that is, J.N.D.’s remark is wrong. But if we consider the matter impartially I do not think we can deny that there is scripture for the Lord leaving, if we allow that there is scripture for His coming more often than once. What I firmly believe Scripture teaches is that the Lord, so to speak, holds Himself free, and comes to the assembly at His pleasure; but His coming shows His love for us, and thus His care. It is presented in John 14 as one of the great re-sources we should count on. Mr. H. will be satisfied, I am sure, if I make this (His leaving) ‘clear from scripture’. I confess I do not feel very happy in being called upon to prove the negative side of which the positive is so blessed. If a loved one announces that he is coming to see you, you are anxious to make sure that he is indeed coming, and every proof that he is is cherished — his leaving will be left to take care of itself We are sure to feel it when it occurs. I think the Lord occupied His own with His coming, not with His leaving in John 14: 18 - 21. But if it can be shown that the Lord came more than once to the same company of His own after His resurrection and ascension (for John 20 contemplates the latter), I submit that it is ‘made clear’ from Scripture that He must have left them in some way in order to come a second time. John 20: 18 and 36. I am not overlooking what Mr. H. says as to the dispensational teaching in this and the following chapter; I go with it fully, and enjoy it much. As I said in my last to you, the Lord is here “the hind of the morning” (Psalm 22), and He is free in His divine agility to go anywhere, to visit all families or circles, in the vast domain into which He introduces the blessing of God. This is all most true, but then there are other great thoughts as well in the chapters. The commandment is exceeding broad. The fact is there undeniably that the Lord came to the same company on two consecutive first days of the week. Why are we not warranted in regarding this second visit as church privilege — seeing that it was, historically, a visit to the assembly — as well as pointing to the Jewish remnant in Thomas? I believe we are. Here Mr. Darby helps me again: he says (referring to this visit), ‘The Lord here, by His actions, consecrates the first day of the week for His meeting together with His own, in spirit here below’ (Synopsis, Volume 3, pp. 525, 526). Mr. H. says Thomas is the characteristic [p. 83] member of this company: I do not think this is fair to the others; nor do the facts show that it is so. They had seen the Lord the week before and had been made glad. But there can be no doubt that Thomas sets forth what shall mark the remnant of Israel before the Lord reveals Himself to them.
I may add that I feel very deeply concerned that a brother like Mr. Higgins should say that my ‘line of argument is a dangerous one’, especially as it involves what I have always held on the subject, and have spoken of it in many ways and places for years past. I do not think he could have given full consideration to my remarks on John 14, otherwise I do not see how he could say that ‘J.T.’s thought is as plain as can be that the Lord Jesus comes and leaves the little meetings ... and that this is the present and only fulfilment of John 14 and 20’. In my letter to you I sought to show that chapter 14: 18 was normal — ‘things were in every way according to His mind, as we see in the Acts’. Then I said that subsequently the manifesting and coming were made conditional — there would be defection and unfaithfulness, but to the faithful ones would be vouchsafed the privileges enjoyed when things were in order at the beginning. Surely there is plain discrimination here as to normal and abnormal conditions in the church, and this is in strict accord with the passage.
Then Mr. H. says he hopes I ‘would hasten to repudiate that these specified meetings have the privilege of the Lord’s blessed presence all to themselves’. I never understood that any company, even the whole church on earth, could have the Lord’s presence all to themselves. The Father has a claim on His presence, and angels enjoy it in a measure, also other families. But although all share it, the Lord’s presence is vouchsafed now to the very smallest companies of His own, who seek and are prepared for it in as real and blessed a manner as it was known in the church at the beginning. Note the Lord’s words even as to an individual. “We (the Father and He) will come unto him and make our abode with him”. I fully recognise with Mr. Higgins the danger of arrogating to ourselves what belongs only to the assembly as a whole, but we do ourselves great wrong if we allow this danger to deprive us of the privileges which the Lord has graciously promised to His own for a day such as ours. The more we enjoy them the less exposed we are to the threatened danger. In Laodicea the Lord was ready to go in to any one that would open to [p. 84] Him. This shows that there is movement on His part in response to movement on our side. As far as I understand Mr. Higgins there is no movement on the Lord’s side; He has taken up a position in the midst, and we move to Him; now, we do move to His side — that shows our love; but then He moves to us, and this evidences His love. I am greatly interested in what you said as to the Song of Solomon. I love the thought of the Lord coming — His is active love, not stationary love. I believe this is behind His word coming in every connection.
But I have made my letter very long.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.