BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 27TH, 1914
BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 27TH, 1914
Mr. J. Gresswell.
My Dear Brother, — I am very sorry to have delayed so long in replying to yours of January 11th. I have been some-what poorly for some time with a bad cold; besides, my hands have been more than full with work.
As to the application of Old Testament types, I think we have to carefully compare New Testament light as to the subject that may be in question. The first epistle to the Corinthians is, so to speak, the law of the house. There ‘the flesh had worked’ and ‘was working’, and yet the apostle does not intimate that anyone going there would be defiled. Of course, if the evil were not judged, all would be defiled, but the epistle shows that there may be evil in a meeting, and yet all not be regarded as defiled. Many in the meeting may have judged it, but through weakness have not been able to deal with it [p. 114] according to God. They are waiting on God in patience.
God owns this, and they are morally clean, or clear on the matter. The epistle says that there must needs be divisions (or sects) that the “approved may be made manifest among you”. The approved are not unclean, surely. God would make them manifest through divisions, and it is for the saints to recognise this.
In the type you refer to (Leviticus 14) it is said that God would put leprosy in a house; but in ‘shutting up a meeting’, as we speak, we do not assume that leprosy is there; the Spirit of Christ would lead us to hope for the best, and it is not just to assume that evil exists until the proof of it is established. Grace would assume the contrary, and certainly, if there are those in the locality whom God approved, they are not leprous. Therefore I do not see that brethren elsewhere should ask saints in a locality to cease breaking bread unless known evil is there, except as a precautionary measure. It must be, to some extent, a matter of mutual agreement, resorted to in wisdom; for Scripture does not warrant the refusal of fellowship to saints, unless they are committed to evil.
Saints at Boston or Toronto are not to be regarded as unclean, their position is simply precautionary, as they are not committed to evil.
Much more could be said on this point, but I cannot proceed further, as I wish to catch the mail. I hope to be on your side in April, and I may have opportunity of having a word with you. My wife joins in love to you and all in your house.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.