p148 [J H Gilmour] MY DEAR BROTHER, - The divine nature and place of Christ must be held above all question. All men shall "honour the Son, even as they honour the Father": He and the Father are one - all the fulness of the Godhead in Him bodily: "the Word was God," and created all things. I might quote texts without number to shew it: it enters into the very warp of the whole truth of scripture. I put this in the forefront of my reply. The ADONAI JEHOVAH of Isaiah 6 was Christ.

This is not the question, nor do I believe it to be a question with our dear brother M. Taylor. Did I suppose he denied this as I have heretofore said, I might seek his restoration, but I should as so holding, disown him altogether. But we must remember that no man knows the Son but the Father; that this - all concerning Him - was when in the form of God He made Himself of no reputation ("emptied himself") and took the form of a servant and was found in the likeness of men [having] laid aside the form of divine glory, and for our sakes and for the Father's glory humbled Himself even to death. "Wherefore God also has highly exalted him"; through which having accomplished redemption He now sits as man at the right hand of God. He has received the glory as man though He had it with the Father before the world was. Hence we find that in the days of His flesh, with strong crying and tears He made His supplication unto Him who was able to save Him from death; that He could say "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit," and now risen can and does say to His disciples, My Father and your Father, My God and your God.

If this humiliation of Christ be lost, all is lost with it. In our relationships, therefore, we say, "to us there is but one God the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ." I cannot doubt that M. Taylor has made unadvised and undesirable statements, the effect certainly being to turn away from the worship of the Lord Jesus. I have found this cropping up in Pennsylvania. But I regret deeply the way in which it has been taken up; and, it may seem strange, but I attribute much of the effects, such as existed in Pennsylvania, to the way in which what he said was taken up: because what may have been rash and unadvised was pushed to the utmost possible extreme of heresy, and others from favouring him defended this. … It is possible, too, he may have sought too much to defend himself.

I do not see any contradiction in these two letters. My present conviction is, that he did not deny worship to Christ, but that he did decline addressing himself to Christ at the Table, though leaving liberty to others. This happened in my own case in Brooklyn. There is a great difference between the worship there being addressed to Christ and to the Father; the whole tone of the meeting is changed by it: this I have long noticed. Though with no formal intention, I seldom give thanks without being led to both, but quite sensible of the difference; and worship, when met for it, is more suitably to the Father, if people are up to it. But if it was taken as objecting to addressing Christ I should resist that. I dare say Taylor made a kind of system of this without being clear. But I doubt a little that the mass of brethren are quite clear as to the real bearings of the question. I believe a little wisdom would have made it the occasion of all getting clearer on what spiritually is practically important, instead of its being a ground of conflict and attack. I have no sympathy with the way it has been done. If Taylor repelled any address to Christ in breaking bread, I think he would have tied himself to a system which marred the liberty of the Spirit in himself; and this, though leaving others free, I cannot doubt he did: a general denial of worship to Christ I doubt; and I somewhat doubt, but from my general acquaintance with the state of souls, that the brethren understood the bearing of insisting on worshipping the Father. There was a system, instead of the guidance of the Spirit in Taylor's mind, and then I fear, some self-defence, as there had been unguarded and exaggerated statements; and the whole thing has degenerated into moral charges.

As I see things now, were I at -, I should object to the charge of any intended falsehood in these letters. I do not think the explanatory one clear, and I doubt that - was clear about it; but that is another question: and ill as he is now it would be quite unseemly to press the matter against him. This is a mercy from God for you all. But you must be careful at - if you decline endorsing the attack of the others, not to get into a separation outward or inward from the rest. … I trust the Lord may restore peace and mutual confidence; but this is easier lost than restored.

Your affectionate brother in Christ.

I doubt there was any definite doctrine as to the Lord in Taylor's mind, but I apprehend there was a theory and system as to addressing Him at the Lord's table, and that it was not the leading of the Holy Ghost at the time.

April, 1881.

[53127E]