On Mr. Oliphant’s “Remarks”
on a letter to him by H. H. Snell
Few things are more distressing to a servant of the Lord, than being brought into collision with his brethren; especially with any he has long known and respected. But when “the momentous subject of the Person of Christ,” and the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are in question, it is impossible to keep a good conscience by silence. Our Lord’s words were, “He that is not with Me, is against me” (Luke 11:2323He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11:23)).
If when the typical sacrifices were in danger of being devoured by birds of prey, “Abram, drove them away”; and if, when the sons of Kohath had to bear the typical patterns of the Person of Christ, they were not to “touch any holy thing lest they die,” or “see when the holy things were covered lest they die,” with what holy reverence and godly fear should we think and speak of the sacred Person of the Son, whom no man knoweth but the Father? (Gen. 15:1111And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. (Genesis 15:11); Num. 4:15-2015And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation. 16And to the office of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest pertaineth the oil for the light, and the sweet incense, and the daily meat offering, and the anointing oil, and the oversight of all the tabernacle, and of all that therein is, in the sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof. 17And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 18Cut ye not off the tribe of the families of the Kohathites from among the Levites: 19But thus do unto them, that they may live, and not die, when they approach unto the most holy things: Aaron and his sons shall go in, and appoint them every one to his service and to his burden: 20But they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die. (Numbers 4:15‑20)). Are we not admonished to “Hold fast the form of sound words?” And was another wrong when he said, “We are only sure of the truth, when we retain the very language of God which contains it?” I think he was not.
There were two reasons why I replied to Mr. {J. S.} Oliphant’s printed and published letter to Mr. Raven.
1. Because it certainly conveyed to my mind, and to many others, that Mr. O. so disapproved of some of Mr. R.’s statements as to have wished him to withdraw them, and spoke of one of them as “most objectionable.”
2. Because I felt compelled to show that merely withdrawing irreverent and false statements concerning our adorable Lord, was both insufficient and unscriptural.
It now appears, from Mr. O.’s recent strictures on my letter, that he did not mean, when he used the words “most objectionable,” and the like, that Mr. R.’s statements were bad doctrine, but only that they were capable of a wrong construction, or were put forth in an ambiguous style. I confess that I do not perceive a shade of ambiguity in the passages quoted from Mr. R.’s words; on the contrary, they are set forth in plain and unmistakable language.
In calling attention to a few points in Mr. O.’s tract just issued, it will not be my business to notice what is personally offensive. That I can leave. With regard to alleged “misrepresentation,” all I can say is, that I showed both his letter and my reply to competent persons before it was sent forth, and afterward, for the purpose of detecting any inaccuracies that I might have overlooked; for I believe in the membership of the “one body” (1 Cor. 12:1212For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:12)); and I trust I should be the first to condemn any approach to misrepresentation if found in my letter.
All this is short of the grave points at issue. The question of such serious moment is, whether certain doctrines of Mr. R.’s and his supporters are according to Scripture or not. My judgment is that those who turn to the Scriptures as their sole authority in dependence on the Spirit’s teaching, will have no difficulty in deciding; while those who indulge in reasonings, and look at this man or that, on “such a momentous subject,” will lose their enjoyment of Christ. Another has solemnly warned us, that “to separate the Son of Man and the Son of God, is to dissolve Christ.”
The details of Mr. O.’s pamphlet I shall not now take up, but briefly draw the reader’s attention to some of the principles it sets forth, which appear to me to be unsound and damaging to souls.
1. Within the compass of about a page, Mr. O. repeatedly tells us what Mr. R. meant. Now while none of us should be captious, or seek to make another an offender for a word, but be ready to encourage the first sign of self-judgment in one charged with teaching error, yet for one to send forth erroneous statements concerning our Lord, and when charged with them for his chief advocate to say, “I am sure you do not hold what it implies,” is a destructive and demoralizing principle, and cannot for a moment be accepted as according to holiness and truth. Scripture has settled it for us. It holds us responsible for what we say. There we find two persons solemnly charged with “saying that the resurrection is past already,” and its effect was to “overthrow the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:1818Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:18)). It is not difficult to see that nothing could more effectually further the work of Satan in subverting souls, than assuring those troubled about it that the author does not mean what his words imply. Scripture further says,”By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:3737For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:37)).
2. Somewhat akin to this, is another attempt of Mr. O.’s to justify Mr. R. by bringing forward one of his good sentences to meet a bad one. The error of this was pointed out by Mr. {Charles} Stanley in the beginning of this painful and humiliating controversy. It is an old device of Satan, almost always found associated with false doctrine, and dates as far back as the garden of Eden. It is the plea one constantly hears. When a sentence is brought before Mr. R.’s supporters which they cannot defend, they bring one of his true sentences to meet it. But it is a corrupting principle; and it is clear that no amount of truth added to it can neutralize or justify one unscriptural sentence about our adorable Lord. On the same corrupting principle Mr. O. speaks of some taking a sentence out of Mr. R.’s letters, and speaking of it as bad doctrine; as if a thousand additions of the truth could correct one false statement. If this mode of proceeding be admitted, then there will be no end to the propagation of false doctrine. An inspired apostle said, “We are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” And another apostle plainly declared that “No lie is of the truth” (2 Cor. 2:1717For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17); 1 John 2:2121I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2:21)).
3. The entire absence of Scripture proof for Mr. O.’s defense of Mr. R.’s doctrines must strike everyone who is accustomed to regard “It is written” as the sole authority, and only rule for the conscience. It may be easy to use special pleading, and to put sentences together in a clever way to meet an opponent, but cleverness is not the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. When “the momentous subject of the Person of Christ” is concerned, we must have Scripture; for nothing but Scripture can satisfy an upright soul.
4. We are enjoined to be “simple concerning evil,” that is to reject it when found to be not according to Scripture. Many have long since rejected several of Mr. R.’s statements, because they believed them to be unscriptural and dishonoring to our blessed Lord.
Where, let me ask again, do we find in Scripture such words as—
“The Son of Man, the Second Man, (though not yet revealed) was ever essentially in the Son” {F. E. Raven} (Nov. 2/90).
Again, “He is revealed as last Adam and Second Man, though ever such in His own Person, for the Second Man is ‘out of heaven’” (Nov. 25/90).
To justify these statements is impossible; for the thought of the essence of humanity cannot be excluded from them as having been “ever essentially in the Son.” Where in Scripture have we such teaching? Where in Scripture is there authority for writing such sentences?
Again. “What characterized the Second Man could not include all that was true of a divine Person, as self- existence, having life in Himself, omnipotence, omniscience, and many other attributes of a divine Person” (August 25/90).
Now this doctrine comes to me not only as without Scripture authority, but as opposed to its teaching. If we turn to the 16th chapter of Matthew, we find:—“When Jesus asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man am?” (observe “Son of Man”). “They said, Some say thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets” (that is, He was a good man without divine attributes). He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (mark, the Son of Man is the Son of the living God, having therefore the eternal and divine qualities of the living God). And Jesus answered and said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The Son of Man is Son of the Father.
When I wrote to Mr. O, in November last, I had no thought of re-opening the question with Mr. R., which had long ago been judged and settled in a corporate way, by an assembly gathered together in our Lord’s name, owning His authority in their midst {by the assembly at Bexhill, June 1890}. The decision thus Scripturally arrived at, which has been accepted by hundreds of meetings and thousands of saints, puts Mr. R. and his supporters under the discipline of the Lord. Nor can it be ignored without further dishonor to God, and the giving up of the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and every true principle of God’s assembly (Eph. 4:1-31I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:1‑3)).
Those who claim a liberty to speak of our precious Savior and Lord in words not according to Scripture, and confide in reasonings instead of casting down imaginations, cannot fail. to go on from bad to worse; but those who bow to the written word, and own the teaching of the Spirit who glorifies the Son and testifies of Him, will find the Lord Himself increasingly precious to them.
Surrounded as we are in these last days with the superstitions of Popery, refined and flagrant infidelity, the apostasy of Protestantism, with its Ritualism on one hand undermining the truth of the accomplished work of Christ, and its Rationalism on the other hand, refusing the all-sufficiency and divine authority of the written Word, it is impossible for any to walk according to our Lord’s mind, who are not subject to the authority of Scripture as final and conclusive. Nor is it possible to have true thoughts of the Son of God, or of the mystery of His Person, further than it has pleased God to reveal them to us in His word; for “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father” (Matt. 11:2727All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11:27))
H. H. S. 1, Kenwood Avenue, Sheffield. January 13th, 1892.
While the second part of this paper was still in the press it pleased the Lord to take my father, Mr. Snell, to Himself. Brethren desiring copies can have them by applying to me, MRS. W. OXLEY, 1, South Terrace, Rotherham.