BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 12TH, 1918
BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 12TH, 1918
Mr. J. G. Deck.
My Dear Brother, — Your letter of August 26th came very lately and I am glad to have it and the correspondence enclosed. Possibly you have seen, by this time, some remarks of mine written to Mr. Potter regarding these matters of Mr. Budd. If so, you will already know something of my exercises.
I had correspondence with Mr. Budd previously and generally enjoyed what he wrote, not suspecting that he was working out some special line of things; but letters and papers which I have seen lately show that this is what he is doing. My earnest hope is that he can be helped and so I have not regarded him [p. 171] as committed definitely to error; in writing I have sought to take account of what I thought good while pointing out the error. B. has evidently followed F.E.R. in what he has given out in 2 Timothy 2, but he has pushed things so far as to make them erroneous. On the other hand, what has been advanced against him, being largely out of agreement with F.E.R., could only confirm him in what he held. It is quite true that 1 Corinthians is “the commandment of the Lord” that should govern us as seeking to walk together even now, but then as children of wisdom we should see that certain conditions preclude our acting in a formal outward way as if we are the assembly.
Partaking of the Lord’s supper was when the saints came together in assembly, but it being the expression of Christ’s love to us and our remembrance of Him it must go on. It is not like 1 Corinthians 5 which involves assembly prerogative and administration. 1 Corinthians 5 speaks of delivering the wicked man to Satan, and of removing him “from amongst yourselves”, but then the “assembly of God” was addressed. If sin occurs in a company of Christians now, they learn from 1 Corinthians 5 that it has to be dealt with, for they cannot go on with it; but they are humbled on account of the ruin of things and so act becomingly. They are cast on the Lord, as the Corinthians should have been, and look to Him, and ultimately (all effort for recovery having failed) they tell the wicked person that they cannot walk with him, that he is unfit for Christian fellowship — as calling on the Lord they refuse to go on with him. While the Lord is with the saints, as in humility they thus seek to maintain the holiness of God’s house, and makes effectual what they do (indeed I believe their action is bound in heaven), yet there is no pretence, either in word or act, to be the assembly. In this way His commandments are kept, and love to Him is thus attested (John 14: 21), and at the same time the failure of the church as the candlestick is acknowledged.
Now while this guards the truth involved in the present situation it in no way endorses L.D.B.’s ideas. As I said, he bases them on F.E.R., but he runs wide afield in saying that J.N.D.’s time was marked by church position in contrast to the present time, when gathering is to the testimony! What he means by the testimony cannot be gathered from the letters or papers I have seen; but certainly it should not exclude the [p. 172] truth of the church, whereas Mr. B. writes as if it does. The church was a great feature of what Paul calls “my doctrine” and unquestionably part of the testimony. Mr. B. says, ‘church position and practices are perhaps done away’ (letter 16th July 1918). Absurd! The breaking of bread is a church practice, and Mr. B. has part in this practice evidently as often as he can. How many other things that we do weekly that are distinctively church practices I need not mention. He says further (letter 19th March 1918), ‘The existence of the local church at Corinth or elsewhere did not, to my mind, depend so much on every saint within certain geographical limits being present, but depended on the absence of any rival body on the same ground in the locality’. This is an unusually extraordinary statement, and as unfounded and wanting of spiritual intelligence as it is extraordinary. Think of the existence of the assembly of God at Corinth being made to depend on the non-existence of a rival company on the same ground! How can rival companies be on ‘the same ground’? Besides the existence of the assembly does not depend on a negative — it is a living organism — Christ’s body. Of course, our brother knows this, and would assert it as strongly as anyone, no doubt, but I write as above to point out the folly of some of his statements.
Then he goes on to say that in J.N.D.’s day there was no rival in Plymouth to the assembly as having come ‘together to enjoy its privileges, prerogatives and responsibilities’. He admits that Romanists, Protestants and others were there, ‘but they did not set forth the true ground of the church of God’. But Rome and the church of England claim church ground, and so are rivals to the true. But the inference here is that the parties formed since 1848 do set forth church ground — but do they? There is imitation, but there is no virtue in this. J.N.D. separated first at Plymouth on account of clericalism — what he left was little different in his mind from the sects around. In truth another sect was added to the number already in the locality, only with more guilt attaching to it than the others. Bethesda was no different; it was hardly an imitation of church ground, for independency and indifference to Christ’s glory marked it. Morally there is no difference between the independent parties and the so-called ‘denominations’.
In truth there is no difference in principle between J.N.D.’s [p. 173] day and ours — there was ruin then as there is now, only, of course, it is more accentuated now. As then, so now, the saints come together and break bread because they love the Lord Jesus, and wish to call Him to mind, according to His request. They pray and read the Scriptures together, as of old, recognising that they are members one of another as of Christ’s body. They do not assume to be the church, but they cherish the light of it as part of the testimony; they hold and cherish in their souls all that is presented to them in the “gospel” and in the “mystery” — the testimony in its varied features. It is true that the ark went before the Israelites “to search out a resting place for them”. It did not change its place in principle, for it returned. When it rested Moses said, “Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel”. (This refers to its place in the holiest — its normal place). It is a touching reference to the love of Christ in going before His people. Indeed, I think His death is involved in Numbers 10: 35, 36. Having scattered His enemies He returned, as it were, to the thousands of Israel on the day of His resurrection.
As regards the analogy of Old Testament times, it should be noted that at the end the Annas and Simeons were found identified with the temple. The same thing marks every true saint now. At the end the Spirit and the bride say “Come”.
With love in Christ, I am Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.