Papers Regarding F.E. Raven
Hugh Henry Snell
Table of Contents
Extracts of Letters
Glad to hear from you. Christ is “the truth.” Any deviation, therefore, from the holy standard of the written word, must affect Him, whether we discern it or not. When the truth is operative in us by the power of the Spirit, it is always to honor the Son, and glorify Him; but when it is not the truth, Christ is not ministered to us, and souls are damaged, even it may be to “overthrow the faith of some.” No doubt dear John Newton was correct in saying
“You cannot be right in the rest
Unless you think rightly of Him.”
Neither of us, I trust, would seek to make Mr. Raven offender for a word. Far be the thought. On the contrary, where there may be a doubt, we should willingly give him the advantage of it. To do unto others as we would be done by becomes us, and pleases the Lord, if we would be among those who keep His word, and do not deny His name. His word and His name, we may be sure are the weights and balance He has given us for testing every thing that professes to be of Him. If these are forgotten, or laid aside, “reasonings” and “philosophy” soon usurp their place; the former of which we are admonished to cast down, and the latter we are warned against most solemnly. All is to he refused that is “not after Christ,” for “in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Rev. 3:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 2:8, 9). Our place then, clearly, is to cast down reasonings, to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, to beware of systematizing truth by philosophy, to stand firmly for the final and conclusive authority of the written word, and to honor and not deny the name of Him at which, ere long, every knee shall bow. While the Scriptures plainly teach these things, they also give us the most solemn warning concerning those who are “lukewarm,” and, therefore, indifferent as to whether our adorable Lord be honored or dishonored (Rev. 3:16). May we lay these Scriptures to heart as words in season, believe them, and act on them before the Lord as His word which abides for ever. All were, I think, glad to hear your strong condemnation of statements touching our blessed Lord not found in Scripture; so that the question now between us is whether a verbal condemnation is sufficient, or whether the word of God calls us to separation. Of the latter course many of us have had no doubt for some time, and it is my frequent prayer to God that, through His grace and power, you and I may yet “be of the same mind in the Lord.”
Passing by Mr. R.’s objection to the precious doctrine of “the righteousness of God” being now applied to the believer in an absolute way, which I judge to be contrary to Scripture and seriously false; omitting some strange doctrines brought out at Witney in 1888, and statements since as to eternal life, equally untrue and damaging to souls; I now briefly take up one line of Mr. R.’s teachings as not only unscriptural and therefore unsound, but necessarily calculated to result in much dishonor to our blessed Lord.
Mr. R.’s doctrine, brought out in January, 1889, that all the acts of the Lord were not the manifestation of eternal life has been often referred to; and two brothers who were present on one occasion when Mr. R. taught this, informed me that Dr. C. asked if our Lord’s sayings, when on the cross, to His mother and the loved disciple were the manifestation of eternal life? And Mr. R. replied, “No, but consistent with it.” Now where in Scripture do we find such doctrine, such a question, or such an irreverent reply? Are we not told to “hold fast the form of sound words”? (2 Tim. 1:13).
Such teaching necessarily sets souls to consider whether this or that in our Lord’s life manifested eternal life or not; and thus speculate on, define, discuss, and divide the sacred person of our precious Savior. As a fact, we can scarcely meet with one who has been exposed to this teaching, who does not glibly enough speak of this being human and that divine, this the acting of eternal life and that not, to the damage of souls, and the dishonor of our Lord.
We find also Mr. R., in June, 1889, ridiculing the idea that “Christ never ceased to be the exhibition of eternal life from a babe in the manger to the throne of the Father.” He says, “Think of a helpless infant being the exhibition of eternal life!” Where does Scripture speak of the incarnate Son as “a helpless infant?” That blessed One who truly said, “I was cast upon Thee from the womb; Thou art my God from my mother’s belly . . . Thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts (Psa. 22:9- 10).
Again in March, 1890, Mr. R. says, “I pointed out the monstrosity of an assertion of the Major’s {H. H. McCarthy}, that the Lord never ceased to be the exhibition of eternal life from a babe in the manger to the throne of the Father.” These and other irreverent statements that have followed, are, I judge, only the outcome of the new doctrine that our Lord only manifested eternal life in some of His acts. When Scripture speaks of the holy Babe, the Spirit calls Him Jesus, i.e., Jehovah-Savior, Immanuel or God with us, Christ the Lord, the Child born, the Son given, Son of God, the Mighty God, God manifest in flesh, the Eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. John came baptizing that He might “be made manifest to Israel” (John 1:31).
Again, I copy a letter of Mr. R.’s in his own handwriting, dated July 30th ult. The question proposed was, “Could you say that the Lord in His every act down here did not manifest eternal life?” And Mr. R.’s reply was, “The only mention of the manifestation of eternal life which I know in Scripture is in 1 John 1:2, which I judge is referred to as a special grace to the Apostles. Publicly the Son revealed the Father. Eternal life was with the Father.” Many who have fallen under the power of this new teaching have gone still farther in irreverence. I only give a few instances out of many.
Mr. C.’s letter, was said to have been privately circulated for five months as precious truth; but after having been faithfully exposed by one of Mr. R.’s opponents, and said by him to be blasphemy, it was withdrawn by the author, with an expression of sorrow for having written it.
Another well-known preacher, Mr. M., when the evil doctrine was at first exposed by another of Mr. R.’s opponents, acknowledged that he had used the expression eighteen months before, and met the charge by explanations, contending for the soundness of the profane doctrine that our Lord, after talking with the woman, of Samaria, retired into the enjoyment of communion with the Father. Could we have thought it possible that such appalling things were among us?
Another active preacher was, only a few weeks since, confronted with having taught something very similar about our Lord at Sychar. Scripture says, “Jesus,” that is Jehovah-Savior “sat thus on the well.” How clear the written word makes everything!
As to Eternal life, writing to Mr. R., Mr. W. says: It was taught publicly in my hearing more than two years ago, by one of your principal followers, that Eternal life was like a vast estate to which we truly had a title. A very high wall surrounded it however, inside which we never had been, nor had we ever had a dish of gooseberries out of it. It had been taught also from house to house, that Eternal life was like a glass of water on the table, it was for you, but you had not tasted it, nor even taken it in your hand.
And so we might go on, for the increase of such profanities is almost daily made known; so that, as Captain B wrote to me lately, the whole house is becoming leprous, and its defilement can no longer he localized. Carnal ways, and moral failure are often the bitter fruits of evil doctrine (Gal. 6:7, 8; Rev. 2:6, 15).
With these facts before its, and the Scriptures too, the question is, what is the true and faithful course for those who love our Lord Jesus Christ? Would He not have its keep “His word” and not deny His “Name?” Has He not given us the most solemn warning found in the whole compass of Scripture against being lukewarm towards Himself? Are we not familiar with the word for an evil day charging us to purge ourselves front vessels to dishonor? “If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” How full of encouragement! And what then? “Follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord, out of a pure heart (2 Tim. 2:20-22). If we would serve and honor our Lord Jesus Christ, there certainly is no other way open than separation front evil, departing from iniquity. How else could we be loyal to Him, and seek to clear His holy Name from unscriptural doctrines and profane statements which are derogatory to Hin, who is the “holy” and the “true?”
It has been well said that Christ has not been presented to us for our discussion, but for our apprehension, faith, confidence, love and worship. And another was wont to say,
It never was nor I trust ever will be the notion of brethren that the truth of Christ’s person . . . was to be sacrificed to outward unity; it is making brethren of more importance than Christ . . . I must have a true Christ.
I speak not of sides in this painful matter. I know of no side but the Lord’s. May we never forget that “No man knoweth the Son but the Father,” and “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him.”
Our Lord’s reply to the insolent question, “Who is this Son of Man?” has forcibly reminded me of what is being questioned now, and His warning has come with uncommon power. “Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness cone upon you; for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus and departed, and did hide Himself from them” (John 12:34-36). Can we conceive a more solemn warning and dealing of the Lord?
In conclusion, I only ask that everything be dropped that is not according to the written word, and that the peerless, spotless Name of our adorable Lord and Savior may be maintained by us at all costs according to His own infinite perfections and glory. How soon He may come for us!
H.H.S Sheffield.
What Scripture Says About Eternal Life
We know nothing about eternal life but what God has graciously revealed to us by His Spirit in the written Word. May we turn to it with reverence and godly fear, and receive its teaching with worshiping hearts, while remembering that the Spirit searches “the deep things of God,” and makes us “know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
Scripture teaches us that “eternal life” was promised before the world began. We read also of “the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus”; and that “the gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord” (Titus 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:1; Rom. 6:23).
We learn also that “eternal life” was with the Father. “Father” and “Son” being correlative terms, it is impossible to exclude the thought that He who was the eternal life was also the eternal Son. He was “that eternal life which was with the Father.” As with the Father, eternal life was in the person of the eternal Son before He became flesh.
But eternal life has been “manifested.” Precious truth! “The Word of life” has been seen and heard, looked upon and handled. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.” “That eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us” (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1, 2). In His whole life, ways, words, and being, eternal life was so manifested that it was seen, heard, and declared. The life was manifested in the perfection of His person, in perfect love, obedience, and righteousness, in unbroken communion with the Father, and care for others; yea, the very “words” of our incarnate Savior were “spirit” and “life.” He was “the life” and “the truth” seen and heard. A great mystery indeed, which cannot be explained by human language. Like the vessels of the sanctuary which the Kohathites knew were to be borne by them, but were so concealed from their view that they dare not touch, much less uncover them, under penalty of death; they were to bear them as Jehovah had commanded, but not to “touch” them “lest they die” (Num. 4:15). The deep sin of the human mind is attempting to unfold and explain that of which the Spirit saith, “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”; and again, “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father” (1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 11:27). Unfathomable mystery indeed! When the believer thus calls to mind His lowly and lonesome path through this scene, and discerns in “the Man of sorrows” “the true God and Eternal Life,” his heart becomes filled with joy and gladness. He adoringly worships, and finds real delight in confessing and serving Him. In the gospel by John we see eternal life manifested in the Son; the first epistle of John treats of the character of eternal life as communicated to believers.
But though eternal life was promised, was with the Father, and in due time was manifested unto us, how could it lay hold on us who were such sinners? The answer is, Love was also
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9). Thus we learn that, by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, two marvelous blessings have been secured for us
(1) the removal of our sins judicially and for ever by the one offering of Himself, and
(2) that we might live through Him. Here again our souls are touched with the infinite and unfathomable love of God toward us, and are filled with thanksgiving and praise. Divine grace so wrought that we might thus “live through Him”; for our Lord said, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:21). Yes, men must be judicially cleared from their sins by the sacrifice of Christ, in order to stand in true relationship to Cod. What unutterable love, “that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for its!” How impossible to contemplate such grace through righteousness without the heart exclaiming
“Everlasting praises be
To the Lamb that died for me”!
And further. In resurrection—the resurrection of the Son from the dead, by which He was marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness {Rom. 1:4}—we behold Him alive again, and that for evermore, By divine power, and in divine righteousness, God has intervened, and raised Him from among the dead, and glorified Him as Man at His own right hand. Now we read that “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” Not only “through” Him who bore the judgment for it, but “in” Him glorified. What divine wisdom, love, and power are thus brought to view! Are we not ready to cry out, while looking up to Him who said, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”—
“Shall Thy praise unuttered lie?”
The gift of God then is eternal life—nothing less than eternal life. We therefore read of an inspired apostle writing to believers, and saying, “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:11-13). Thus the believer on the Son of God has received the wondrous gift of eternal life, the source and seat of which is, not in Adam, but in the Son. An entirely new life has been communicated to us, and we are to know that we have it. We are said to “have passed from death unto life.” The effects of having this life are love to the brethren, obedience, righteousness, communion, and prayer, into all which the Spirit surely leads; in short, to walk as He walked, for all these ways were perfect in Him who is our life. Nothing can be more clearly set forth in manifested, and reached its immeasurable climax in the death of Christ, God’s Son, His death upon the cross; for in this way God’s gift of eternal life could be communicated to us. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, in that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
Scripture than the present possession of eternal life. “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Though communicated to us, it is in the Son as the Source and Fountain, and enjoyed by us through feeding upon Him.
We were dead, dead in sins, until, by grace, we heard the voice of the Soft of God and lived—“The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” Till we had faith in the atoning work of the Son of man we had no life in us; then such have eternal life; and Jesus added, “I will raise him up at the last day” (John 5:25; 6:53-57). What divine certainty these words give its of being in glory with the Savior! Can we wonder at anyone saying, “Oh, how precious is the truth that the life, such as it was with the Father, such as it is in the Son, is given to me”?
But besides having eternal life, and because we have remission of sins and are sons, the Holy Spirit has been given to us as the seal and earnest of our inheritance, the anointing and Spirit of adoption. Thus we have power for communion with the rather and the Son, and to joyfully serve and honor our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15; 15:13; Eph. 1:13, 14).
Having received the life which is in the Son, we are to manifest it in our mortal body. Holding as we should the flesh for dead, we are to be “always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body” (2 Cor. 4:10). While in a world so contrary to God, with the flesh in us, and Satan blinding and deceiving sinners and tempting saints, we are to reckon ourselves to have died with Christ, and, as created in Christ Jesus, alive unto God, we are to manifest the life of Jesus in our mortal flesh. This is practical Christianity. For such to live is Christ.
We also find that Timothy was enjoined to “lay hold on eternal life.” Had he not received the gift of eternal life? Most assuredly he had. But for such to “lay hold on eternal life” is to grasp it by faith in all its glorious and eternal results when we shall “reign in life” (Rom. 5:17). We thus lay hold of all that eternal life involves, and so make all out own by faith, that all its future reality, as made known to us in the word of God, and to be consummated when we are with Christ and like Christ, may be now enjoyed. This glorious prospect being before us, and the Spirit revealing Him to us, we shall be led on, Christ reproduced in our life and walk, and we detached front what is unsuited to Him.
It is clear, that when the Lord reigns the saved of the tribes of Israel, and Gentiles also, will go into life eternal, in an order, no doubt, suited to people blest on the earth (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46).
But Christ is to be manifested again. When the Incarnate One was on earth, as we have seen, eternal life was manifested. Then He was alone {John 12:24}. But when He is manifested in glory, “the sons of God” will be manifested with Him. “When He shall appear [or be manifested], we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.” And we also read, that “when Christ, who is our life, shall appear [or be manifested], then shall ye also be manifested with Him in glory” {Col. 3:4}. Thus, when the mortal body is changed, and fashioned like unto His body of glory, we shall be conformed to the image of the Son, to the everlasting praise of the glory of His grace. Being already alive spiritually, we look for the Savior to change our body of humiliation, and fashion it like unto His body of glory. We have eternal life already; but when the Savior comes the “hope of eternal life” will be realized in the corruptible putting on incorruptibility, and the mortal putting on immortality. This we know will take place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. “Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed tip in victory” {1 Cor. 15:34}. Precious fruit of divine grace! How can it fail to fill us with unending praise?
While Christianity in truth begins, as we have seen, with the possession of eternal life, and this life is in the Son, “the end” is also eternal life; but all “the gift of God.” We have eternal life, while we are going on “in hope of eternal life.” We find redemption also presented to us in Scripture in the same way. We have redemption now, and are waiting for redemption. Of the believer it is said, “In whom [Christ] we have redemption through His blood,” and yet we are waiting for “the redemption of our body” (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 8: 23). The same may be noticed as to salvation—we are saved, and yet we look forward to salvation. We receive “the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls,” and yet “shall be saved from wrath through Him.” The same inspired writer that says “who hath saved us,” also says, “We look for the Savior . . . who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” Thus change and translation we are elsewhere told will take place when the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. Then, having eternal life in all its glorious issues, we share with Christ the Father’s presence in the Fathers house, in all the unutterable blessedness of eternal glory.
H.H.S., January, 1890.
A Letter
1 Kenwood Avenue, Sheffield, Nov. 19th, 1891
Dear {J. S.} Oliphant,
A four-paged tract has lately been put into my hands containing two letters, one of them written by yourself to Mr. Raven, and the other his reply; about which I cannot forbear offering a few remarks for your solemn consideration.
It is well sometimes that writers should be reminded that when the Spirit of God works in us, or by us, He brings the words of the Son of God to our remembrance, testifies of Him, glorifies Him, takes of the things of the Father and of the Son, and shows them unto us, &c. This we are taught in John 14, 15,
16, as you know. Thus clear landmarks are given us, so that we are able to distinguish between the “philosophy” of men, against which He warns us, and “the truth,” into which He guides.
It was the absence of these marks of the Spirit’s operations that first awakened my fears as to Mr. R.’s writings; but it was his irreverent and unsound statements concerning our Lord, and his persistent refusal for a year or more to judge them to be evil (and, as far as I know, they have not been judged to this day), that made separation necessary whatever it might cost. How else could we have a good conscience toward God? Does not He look for our faithful stewardship of the mysteries of His truth which He has committed to our trust, and command us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints?” (Jude 3; 1 Cor. 4:1-2).
In your printed letter, dated September, 1891, you touch, if I mistake not, the root of R.’s evil doctrines, when you refer to his statement that
“the Son of Man, the Second Man (though not yet revealed) was ever essentially . . . in the Son,” (November 21, 1890),
but you do not appear to see that this statement is necessary to fit in with his oft repeated doctrine, that—
“Eternal life in Scripture always stands in connection with manhood, whether in Christ or in us.”
To justify this, he is obliged to teach what you say—
“that man or humanity existed in some shape or form before the incarnation,”
or, to quote his own words, that—
“The Son of Man, the Second Man, . . . was ever essentially in the Son.”
This is very serious, as everyone knows who is walking in the fear of the Lord, and subject to His word.
It is well you have brought this fundamental error concerning the Person of our Lord before Mr. R., and have plainly intimated to him that one of his statements—
“shows a want of Scripture basis for the thought; or, why not say ‘Scripture teaches,’ and then it has the authority of the word of God?”
But to my mind you spoil all; for what you declare to be “most objectionable,” you excuse by saying, “I am sure you do not hold what it implies.”
How could you pen such a sentence? The point is, what does Scripture say? There we find a teacher is held accountable for what he says. Paul as an apostle delivered two persons to Satan “that they may, learn not to blaspheme.” They had been uttering what was blasphemy. He also refers to some in another epistle, who were “Saying (observe saying) that the resurrection is past already,” and he adds that “their word will eat as doth a canker.” Another Apostle wrote, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the doctrine of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (see 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 2 John 10, 11). Our Lord’s words also were, “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Matt. 12:37).
How could anyone then who was walking uprightly before the Lord, either request, or receive “explanations” of words which dishonor Him?
The principle is most demoralizing and unjust. Moreover, does not the Spirit of God teach us to resent any indignity to the Son, anything that depreciates Him, or either adds to or takes from God’s word concerning Him? The Son of God truly said, “I am . . . THE TRUTH”; to advance any thing opposed to Scripture must therefore dishonor Him, whether it be as!to “the’ righteousness of God,” “eternal life,” or even “saying that the resurrection is past already.” This would, more or less, overthrow the faith of some, and perhaps, sooner or later, plunge them into the whirlpool of scepticism and infidelity.
It seems from the second page of your printed letter, by the words “as to which I wrote before,” that you have more than once asked Mr. R. to “withdraw” this “most objectionable” statement. But suppose he had withdrawn it, which he has not, what about many other statements equally “objectionable”?
For example:—
“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” {F. E. Raven} August 25th, 1890.
I scarcely know how to copy such an irreverent sentence, while I wonder at anyone daring to dissect the great mystery of the Person of God manifested in the flesh.
Here again, instead of at once condemning such utterances, you apologize for him, for what you say he means is the opposite of what he has said. Where is conscience in all this? Your words are,
“I understand you to mean that what the Son always was as a Divine Person, characterized Him as Man when He became a Man.”
Is not this precisely contrary to the statement I have just quoted from Mr. R.? Moreover is nothing more than withdrawal required from Mr. R. for advancing such doctrines concerning our adorable Lord, as if it were merely an inaccurate word, or a word misspelled or misapplied?
IS IT THE CHRIST OF GOD OR A FALSE of which Mr. R, speaks? Is he really speaking of Him who said when He spake of His body, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”? or, “Before Abraham was I am”?
Where in Scripture are we taught that the essence of manhood was ever in the Son?. According to Mr. R., the Son was ever something more than Deity, and His perfect humanity, as you put it in the first page of your tract, “existed in some shape or form before the incarnation.” Thus both the Deity and Humanity the Son are perverted by these new doctrines.
Can we conceive a more flagrant error? What is it but to dishonor the Son of God, and to rob souls of the true Christ? It is certainly an invention of the human mind of the worst possible description, because it dishonors the Son of God, concerning whom it is said, “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him” (John 5:23). How inadequate, therefore, would it be merely to “withdraw” such seriously false doctrines! No true lover of Christ could for a moment entertain it.
Of the soul-restoration of the Corinthian saints, whose errors were incomparably less than what is now before us, we read—
Ye sorrowed after a godly sort; what carefullness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter 2 Cor. 7:11).
This is the divinely given path of soul restoration from evil, and there is no other. Is it not something more than the acknowledgment of inaccuracy, or a withdrawal, as you suggest? Ah, my brother, it is as true as ever, that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” When I think of cases of restoration many years since, I marvel at where brethren have drifted; and when I call to mind your own faithful testimony nearly thirty years ago as to Bethesda fellowship, and compare it with your present letter, I can scarcely forbear asking, “Is it the same man?” while my heart cries, “Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe!”
All this, thank God, I can write without the consciousness of a trace of unkind feeling toward you or Mr. R.
Well do I remember, about the year 1849, that a statement was current among us, and found in one of our hymn books, concerning our adorable Savior; which was pointed out, as unsound. The writer of the hymn {J. G. Deck} was an honored servant of our Lord, and had long been highly esteemed by us, and deservedly so, for his work’s sake. He had, for some years, known what it was to have to do with God, and to be before Him. He therefore, became deeply exercised, especially about one word that he had written {in a hymn}. Not long after, several servants of Christ met at Bristol, when the writer of the hymn stood up, and, in the most solemn manner, before us all, said something like this,
I stand convicted of being a liar, and under God’s reproof.
We were all deeply affected and surprised. He then read,
Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Prov. 30:6).
The moment was solemn beyond description, and I remember being strongly impressed with the thought that he was a man speaking before the Lord. He proceeded,
I have written concerning our Lord, ‘Our mortal flesh and blood partake,’ (Hymn 327), and I have lately gone through the Greek Testament to see if I could find any authority for speaking as I have of our Lord’s body having been ‘mortal,’ and I have found none. Thus I have added to His words, and now stand convicted before the Lord, and before my brethren, of being ‘a liar.’
No doubt it was a time of many tears, but afterwards, of the warmest expressions of forgiveness and confidence towards our beloved brother, Mr. J.G.D., now with the Lord.
We may be sure that when the Spirit works in restoring any who have openly dishonored our Lord, He works in a similar fashion to the examples to which I have referred. We should know too, that in Mr. D.’s case, no serious action had been taken against him, but that most of those in fellowship then saw nothing wrong in it, as is almost always the case. Mr. D. felt truly that his failure called for more than withdrawal, which is certainly, a new and demoralizing principle, and only now matched, as far as I know, by “explanations” of what is false and dishonoring to our Lord. How sweet it is in a time like this to hear God saying “No good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly”; and again “Them that honor Me I will honor.”
There is another point to which I must briefly call your attention. It is this. It has been published far and wide, that Mr. R.’s doctrines are “heavenly truth,” and the same as Mr. Darby and other leading teachers have always held. I can only say, after watching matters among us during 52 years while preaching and teaching the Lord Jesus, that I believe such a statement to be entirely contrary to fact.
I conclude by saying in the words of another, “If the Lord’s name be used by any as a cover for darkness and evil, and the name of the Church be used as the name of a place where those on earth, who are indifferent to Christ’s honor and to holiness in faith, doctrine, and walk, may congregate, His name is put to shame, and the Holy Spirit dishonored.”
That our gracious God may speedily give to Mr. R. and his supporters that godly sorrow which worketh repentance, is the earnest prayer of
Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord, H. H. SNELL.
(Not published)
A Few Observations
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 11:23).
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. 15:11; Num. 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. 12:12); 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. 2:18). 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. 12:37).
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. 2:17; 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.
On another occasion the Son of Man said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19).
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. 4:1-3).
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. 11:27)
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.