BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 31ST, 1917

BROOKLYN, N.Y., MARCH 31ST, 1917

Mr. C. A. Coates.

Beloved Brother, — Your letter of March 8th was duly received and it has been a great source of encouragement. That you were enabled to take such a hopeful view of conditions on your side is the occasion of much thankfulness in my heart. Certain letters I received lately would confirm this.

I am sorry I did not send you a copy of the correspondence with J.S.G., but I note that you have seen his letter. Possibly you have seen my reply by this time. I have lately received a reply to my letter to Mr. G. It is of such character as to preclude any further correspondence in detail. I am disposed to let the matter rest with my letter of January 12th to him. The Lord is evidently working as your letter shows, and one is assured the truth will stand. I also received a letter from J.H. and one from Miss E. almost by the same mail as that by which Mr. G.’s arrived. They are all written in the same tone. Mr. H. says a good deal about party spirit and extreme views built upon things I have said. He seems to place the onus of what confusion there may be on your side on certain remarks of mine. What strikes me is the absence of any concern upon his part that possibly his remarks and those of J.S.G.’s may have contributed to the confusion. There is no strife on this side of the Atlantic that I know of as to those things, or any party feeling. But it is not to be wondered at that difficulty exists on your side when statements such as those which appeared in Mutual Comfort have been made and contended in a public reading and spread broadcast in print.

Several have requested me to withdraw the expression ‘fulfilled responsibility’. Of course I have no desire to contend for a word and if any better word than ‘responsibility’ is found to express its meaning, I have no objection to its being used. I cannot myself see much difficulty between a fulfilled ‘work’ and a fulfilled ‘responsibility’. The former is literally scriptural, and the latter is substantially scriptural. I have been noticing how the response which God seeks from the saints in answer to the light and grace vouchsafed in Christ is, in the epistles, not only enjoined but also assumed to exist. Sometimes it is spoken of in an abstract way, and other times presented concretely, as in Paul. This resolves itself into what has often been insisted on, viz. That at the outset the testimony was supported in a living expression of it. As I write, the thought presses upon me, that for the last thirty or more years the usual object of attack has been the Spirit and the result of His operations here. From the outset of this controversy it was clear that (however unconsciously) a shade, to say the least, was being cast over the Spirit and His work in the saints. To follow the trend of the remarks no one who did not know better could escape the conclusion that there was a discrepancy between the work of the Holy Spirit in the saints and the light presented in Christ. In answering such a comment, Mr. G. and those who supported him, usually assumed that it was held that individual Christians in their mixed condition could fulfil responsibility as Christ did; whereas there was no such thought held. What was insisted on was that the language of Scripture, and the facts presented therein, whether in an abstract or concrete way, proved the perfection of the Spirit’s work. John’s epistles are a notable illustration of this.

We heard with regret some time ago that you had been very poorly, but evidently you are somewhat better. You are constantly remembered here and I trust the Lord supports you in every way. At present I have given up the thought of crossing to your side. My responsibility in my place of business has been greatly increased and so I am more needed on this side at present but I am waiting on the Lord as to a possible visit.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.