BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 11TH, 1905
BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 11TH, 1905
Mr. J. S. Allen.
My Dear Brother, — I am in receipt of your letter of July 18th and I now send a reply.
Your comments on the ‘Chicago Notes’ [See Volume 1, New Series J.T. — Editor] did not reach me through any one on this side: they were inserted in a letter from Mr. J. Henderson of Clapham. Mr. Henderson, however, did not say they were yours, and up until the time I replied to his letter I did not know whose they were. Subsequently I learned you had written them.
In saying two of your statements were untrue I did not, of course, mean to say you were untruthful; I was simply dealing with the statements. I felt the writer of the criticism had either read the Notes very cursorily, or else his memory had failed him. As to your letter just received: Although the expressions are strong, I cheerfully accept the admonitory element in it. I accept fully that you mean nothing but good, and I feel a warning of this kind has its own voice and cannot injure me; on the contrary, it can but be of help. But your letter is not only admonitory: it is also condemnatory. In the following statement you adjudge me as very decidedly reprehensible in regard of the truth: ‘These Notes indicate ... a systematised teaching, and it is my distinct conviction that some of it is not only unbalanced but dangerous in its tendencies’. Nor am I alone involved in this: the brethren who were present at the Chicago meetings, all of whom, I may say, professed to enjoy what came out; and also those in different parts of this country, and Canada, who have read and received the Notes without adverse criticism are also responsible. This may not have occurred to you, but it is nevertheless a very glaring fact. It is true indeed that most of the saints on this side are much [p. 17] younger than yourself, and have not had the advantages you have had of acquiring a knowledge of the truth, but they have had this advantage in this case, that many of them know me and have heard what I have had to say, and can thus judge as to what I intended to convey and its object. Of course, you will understand that I am not endeavouring to shelter myself behind my brethren on this side, for I am not; but as your letter is almost wholly on the ground of personal judgment, I have to make it clear to you that I feel bound to respect them equally with you. Some points have been questioned by certain ones on this side, but no one that I am aware, has condemned the Notes. And even on your own side, while I accept that there are those who share your view, yet yours is the only condemnatory criticism I have heard of. I mention all this only to call your attention to the fact that, while I respect your judgment, yet it manifestly does not comport with the judgment of my brethren as a whole. And you will allow that the pre-ponderating verdict of the saints (all the “judges”) is bound to command the respect of my conscience.
But I am not attempting to settle the matter in this way: the Scriptures alone are to be the test, and I am prepared to reject everything that is not in accord with them. What I said to Mr. Henderson I say to you now: that if any brother will go over the Notes and point out the errors, I shall gladly remove them. This I consider would be a service not only to me but also to the saints and to the truth itself. I am utterly unconscious of any ‘systematised teaching;’ indeed, this involves such natural (for it could not be of the Spirit) ability as I am not possessed of. There are those who have mental ability and education sufficient to formulate a system of teaching, which I have not. As opportunity offers, I give expression to my thoughts as to any side of the truth that may be under consideration, according to the circumstances existing at the moment. When any question arises I always look to the Lord, and my mind turns to the Scriptures I may call to mind that bear on it, and answer accordingly. That I have given expression to thoughts on certain points somewhat different to what is held currently, I am aware, but I have felt that these were not only scriptural, but that the Lord encouraged me to present them. Still I am open to correction, and if you will show from the Notes and from Scripture where the error lies I shall be glad, as I said, to remove it. But where error cannot be [p. 18] proven you cannot blame me for holding to what I believe Scripture teaches.
You say, ‘By the grace of God I am not going to give up what I was greatly helped in by dear Mr. Raven, and what I believe Scripture teaches’. If Mr. Raven stood for anything, he stood for the authority of Scripture and the right of every brother to appeal to it in regard to what he may have said. As this is the point I am making, I trust you will bear with me in what I have said. Mr. Raven was a man of sterling fairness and would not write and brand a brother as a teacher of error without first pointing out from Scripture to the brother himself where the error lay. Now I hope you will bear with me in this: I do not intend it as vindicatory of myself, nor as striking, back at you, but I have in mind how serious the effect might have been of the course you have pursued. You have written different persons in this country, and if these had acquiesced in your view, a most serious state of things might have ensued. I do not mean to say that you meant to cause discord for I do not think you did, but I am dealing with the facts.
I will now refer to certain objections which you advance in detail. You say, ‘Christ’s present position and action either in reference to the individual or the assembly, seems lacking’. In answer to this I quote from the Notes on 1 Timothy 2, page 8: of course Christ is the subject of the gospel, but Christ according to what He can do. What has He done? The gospel explains what He has done. Peter tells what has been brought to pass through Christ in the 2nd of Acts. He tells them that God has made both Lord and Christ, that same Jesus whom they had crucified; and He, having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which ye behold and hear. And so in the 4th chapter Peter tells them salvation is in none other than Christ. Every Christian can tell how salvation came to him — Christ has effected it for him, but through what He has established down here. Now, I think the above speaks very decidedly about Christ’s present position and action. If Scripture teaches something different, I shall be glad to know it.
Then you say, ‘The believer’s heavenly blessings and hopes are almost ignored’. I do not know what you may define as ‘the believer’s heavenly blessings and hopes’, but suppose you would turn to Ephesians for an account of them. If so,
[p. 19] I appeal to you, or any candid person who reads the ‘Notes’ on chapter 2 to say whether the place of the church in the divine counsels, as seen in that epistle is ignored. I believe the church’s place in the world to come is distinctively heavenly; but then we must not overlook that she “comes down from God out of heaven:” and that finally she is seen as the tabernacle of God with men.
I hardly know what to say as to your remark: ‘Scripture never gives it (the assembly) the place of Christ, even for us’. I cannot but think that you believe that the church takes the place of Christ down here in many respects. Take for instance, the “temple of God”. Christ was this when here; now the church is it. When the Lord was here it could be said, “God had visited His people”. Now God is here in the church; (I need not quote the Scriptures supporting this). When Christ was here the kingdom was here: “The kingdom of God is among you;” now it is here in the church. Christ had “authority” to forgive sins: He committed this authority to the church. Finally, according to Acts 9 and 1 Corinthians 12, the church is Himself. To my mind the statement I am referring to tends to weaken the whole truth of Christianity. I regard it as fundamental that there was a revival in the church of the power that came out in Christ personally when here in the flesh; and in an excessive way. “Greater works shall ye do, because I go to the Father”. I cannot understand how anyone can read the early chapters of the Acts without seeing this. The power of God was here for good as it had been seen in Christ, only in a more extensive manner, as I said. Of course, it was still exercised by Christ, but He accredits them with it. “Greater works shall ye do”. You say, ‘Even for us’, the ‘even’ of course means that if not for us, certainly for no one else. The weakness of this strikes me greatly. I feel how that which the Lord intended to represent Him, and which was to be the expression of Himself down here (that which He calls “MY assembly;” this body: that which had walls great and high, and bulwarks and towers of strength, etc.) is slighted. Did not the man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3) find those who took the place of Christ down here? If the Lord had been there He would have healed him; but Peter says “Look on us ... such as I have give I thee”. And so later, the shadow of Peter. The power was in the name of Jesus but it was identified with the saints. Of course, this [p. 20] refers to the apostles; but they are included in the church. But the power by which they were in this way a blessing to man is the same by which greater things (the oracles of God, salvation, eternal life, etc.) were available in the church.
I note your remarks as to a spirit existing here of looking down on those (especially English brethren) who have not been able to endorse what has been done. I am not aware of any such spirit, but many do very decidedly resent the almost dictatorial attitude on the part of several in England in regard to matters in this country and Canada during the last three years. It has been fruitful of much sorrow and scattering the Lord’s people, and those responsible should feel this before the Lord.
With love in Christ, I am Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.