BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 11TH, 1917
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 11TH, 1917
Mr. D. L. Higgins.
Beloved Brother, — Yours of April 18th was duly received, and I am sorry indeed to see by it that my letter was disappointing to you. I had hoped that it would meet your exercises.
[p. 139] I made it clear (as in all my other letters) that no one but the Lord answered to the mind of God fully in practice. This, being equivalent to ‘responsibility in measure’ would, I was assured, be satisfactory to you. I pointed out that I had not introduced the expression or taken it up in any dogmatic way. You say ‘your expression’, but it is not mine — others use it: you do yourself in substance. When it is said that no one but the Lord fulfilled responsibility, I objected because the statement was not scriptural. I pointed out in numerous quotations from Scripture (in letters to J.S.G. and others) that responsibility is regarded in the Word as fulfilled, sometimes in detail, and sometimes in the general course, in others beside the Lord. I find that you admit that Scripture (Romans) speaks of the fulfilment of responsibility in Christians, indeed you enlarge on the fact. I fail, therefore, to see the consistency of the complaint you make.
My exercise has been to preserve the authority of Scripture on the one hand, and to guard the truth on the other. I found that statements made on your side as to the ‘rapture’ and ‘responsibility’ did not agree with Scripture, so I objected. I found further that these statements involved a line of thought which tended to weaken the foundations of Christianity, from the subjective side. I pointed this out as simply and as clearly as I could. I have nothing special to advocate except the truth as it has been delivered to us. My attitude has been a defensive one as to the truth, and it remains this. If anything can be shown to be unscriptural in what I have said or written, I will gladly judge and withdraw it. I take the liberty of writing all this so that you may rightly estimate my position as to the matter.
Referring to the substance of your letter, I may say that I am most thankful for your presentation of Christian responsibility. In the third paragraph of your letter you outline substantially what I understand to be the truth taught in Romans in this respect. It cheers me to read it from you, and I hope many of the saints may see it. I think it worth quoting, ‘as regards the point of responsibility I have no doubt that in the divine system of things, which we speak of as Christianity, we have an answer to this as the fruit of the abounding grace of God. In Romans where man in responsibility is treated of as a result of the introduction of this system, the Spirit is able to say “but now being made free from sin, and become [p. 140] servants to bondmen to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life” (Romans 6: 22). There is further the point in the 8th chapter that the intent of “God sending his own Son” was that “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8: 4). The recovery of men for the pleasure of God is found therefore on this line, and it is an important part of Christianity. But it is recovery in Christ and in the Spirit’s power by God and for God. It does not stand to the credit of men but to the glory of God. Just so far as we reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus and just so far as we walk in the Spirit (which is the only proper Christian walk) is this result obtained, but it is all to the glory of God, “for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Romans 11: 36)’. You see, therefore, that I am gladly with you when you are unfolding the truth of the gospel and I hope that the Lord will enable you to enlarge upon this great subject.
But in the paragraphs that follow I find a drop from this healthy atmosphere. There is labour to show that someone is wrong and there is no light or help. You say that there is ‘fear that in your expressions honour is put on the creature that belongs to God alone’. What expression? I have said many times that Scripture teaches that responsibility was fulfilled in others besides the Lord Jesus. That may be called my expression, but it is the truth. It is really yours substantially as well as mine, as any unbiased person will admit who reads the paragraph from your letter which I have quoted. I do not see how anyone who knows and loves the truth can deny what it conveys. It is no question of the walk and ways of others being perfect as Christ’s were (as I have said constantly), but of the authority and accuracy of Scripture and of the truth resulting from the presence of the Holy Spirit in the saints. I hold that to deny that there was fulfilled responsibility in the church as taught in Romans and as seen in fact in the Acts (in passages I quoted in my last letter) is undermining Christianity. This is a very real exercise in my soul, and I hope you will bear with me in stating it in this way. I do not think for an instant that J.S.G. or those who think as he does, hold in their soul what their expressions convey, but wrong expressions can be used of the enemy to damage others, even though those who uttered them are themselves right.
[p. 141] I wish now to say a few words as to the things said at the meeting at Mrs. P———’s to which you refer. It was said that the Lord’s reference to the disciples, “They have kept thy word” was not a question of their fulfilled responsibility, but one of ‘fidelity’, as chosen vessels, to the Father’s name. ‘Fidelity’ according to the dictionary means ‘faithfulness in the discharge of duty or obligation’ and so implies fulfilled responsibility according to the measure of it in any given instance. Besides the words which the Lord uses would mean in ordinary human affairs that responsibility had been fulfilled. If I am responsible to do something and I do it and another says that I have done it, he means that I have fulfilled responsibility. Why should we deny this meaning to the Lord’s words? Such handling of His sacred words leaves the impression on a simple mind that the Lord should have used different words. It is really (without intent, of course) undermining the authority of Scripture — the Lord’s own words. Of course the disciples were weak and failed in many ways as we all do, alas, and whatever they did that the Lord could commend was done by God’s help. No true Christian would deny this. But the Lord must be allowed to speak in His own way, and His word in John 17 has the same authority as it will have at the judgment seat.
You further say as to Paul’s statement, “I have kept the faith” that responsibility did not seem to be the point, that Paul protests elsewhere that he would not be justified in judging himself. What is overlooked here is that 2 Timothy 4: 7 is an inspired utterance. It is not simply Paul as a responsible person passing judgment on himself. The Spirit of God causes the words to be written, and the words plainly say that a certain responsibility was fulfilled, who am I that I should deny it? The matter is really serious. Of course, there is more than fulfilled responsibility in the verse, as you very justly say. The fact that there had been no breakdown in the testimony committed to Paul is the chief thought. But this only emphasises that he fulfilled responsibility. He is, however, speaking of his services and the crown that would be his as given by the righteous Judge. As to the work given to Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13 and 14) you set verse 27 of chapter 14 over against verse 26. There is beautiful moral order in the verses. The Holy Spirit in writing the history says the apostles fulfilled the work, but they tell the assembly “all that God had done with them”. This is as it should be, and is very beautiful.
[p. 142] But did not the Holy Spirit select the right words in verse 26? Did He mean what the words convey? Surely He did, and this notwithstanding that one of the number that had gone to the work had signally failed. So that while (as you justly insist and I heartily join you in this) the glory all belongs to God, He is pleased to honour His servants. Let us not deprive Him of this right. It is part of His glory. As to Acts 2 you speak of your soul not resting in the manner of the saints fulfilling responsibility, but on the fact that divine grace and power kept them in unity. It is right that you should rest in this, dear Mr. Higgins, and I seek to do so myself. Surely it is in what God is and does that our souls should rest. But then we must think of what He rests in also. This should appeal to our hearts. It involves reconciliation. There were the wave sheaf (Christ) and the loaves (the saints) (see Leviticus 23). Both were waved before Him. The loaves refer to Pentecost. They were brought out of the peoples’ houses, baked with leaven. The saints, as having the Spirit and exercised individually and bearing fruit in their ways and walk, are typified here. Hence while we enlarge on God’s grace, and the power of the Spirit underlying all, we gladly allow the blessed God the right to speak as He pleases, He is pleased to enlarge on what the saints said and did. They are not eulogising themselves, the Spirit of God is writing their history. Let us not turn aside the meaning of His words. All was the fruit of divine grace surely, but it worked out through human hearts, minds, hands, feet, etc., and God is pleased to accredit to them the precious results seen in His children. Every item of responsibility fulfilled in them is to His glory, but He is pleased to speak of them as doing it. To say that this is giving to the creature, glory that belongs to God is to impugn Scripture. It may have the semblance of piety, but it really tends to deprive God of His glory. See, for instance, in 1 Thessalonians 1, how He accredits the saints with their “work of faith and labour of love, and enduring constancy of hope of our Lord Jesus Christ, before our God and Father”. To use a figure, we do not honour a father of a well-behaved family by persisting to speak well of him while we ignore his children. He would speak of them (compare Isaiah 8: 18).
This leads me to say a word about John’s epistle where the children of God are brought into view. And here I would remark that the saints are looked at as a generation down here [p. 143] born of God. They correspond with Christ. I quote the following: “If ye know that he is righteous, know that every one who practices righteousness is begotten of him” (1 John 2: 29). “Every one that hath this hope in him purifies himself even as he is pure” (1 John 3: 3). “Whoever abides in him, does not sin” (1 John 3: 6). “He that practises righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 John 3: 7). “Even as he is, we also are in this world” (1 John 4: 17). “Everyone begotten of God does not sin, but he that has been begotten of God keeps himself” (1 John 5: 18). I quote these passages as showing the side of the truth presented. The Spirit is recognised, and all that is subjective is the fruit of His work, but a generation or family is before us. It is a question of what one of this family does — he practises righteousness. To deny that there is fulfilled responsibility implied here is perfectly futile. And to say, that the assertion of this carrying out of the obligation in the practice of righteousness is depriving God of His glory, is still more so. The saints glorify Him of whom they are begotten by the reflection of His nature down here.
As regards my letter to J.S.G., it is true that I approved his statement, as you say, and that I accredited him with holding the truth. This is my mind still. If his letter had on the whole supported that statement or had been in general agreement with it, there would be nothing for me to do but to thank God. But his letter was very far from this, as any one can see who reads it. I feel, therefore, that you did not state the case rightly when you make the difference between him and me a matter of form of expression.
I regret that my letter has lengthened so much. Please pardon this. I trust you will consider that the subject justifies it. My firm belief is that God will bring blessing out of all this exercise for His people.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.