Since the foregoing pages were in type, a copy of a letter of Mr. Oliphant’s, with Mr. Raven’s reply (published by the latter), have reached the author from England. Extracts from both are printed below. From these it will be seen that Mr. Oliphant’s remarks verify the conclusions that have been drawn in this and other pamphlets, that Mr. Raven’s statements distinctly “imply” the existence of humanity, in some shape or form, before the incarnation. Mr. Raven, in painful consistency with his previous course, declines in his reply to withdraw anything, and denies that he holds what is imputed to him or that his words fairly bear such a construction. Instead of a simple acknowledgment that they are wrong, he attempts a sort of explanation of them, which only indicates how far his mind was carried into this region by his speculations, though now that they are challenged he would fain avoid the discredit attaching to them.
The reader must judge for himself, from the extracts given, how far Mr. Raven’s explanation can be accepted, in the face of his refusal to withdraw the sentences which have given rise to the charge; and his own admission, that he was unwilling to speak in “too positive a way on a profound subject, which is gathered from the general tenor of Scripture.” Speaking of Christ as “last Adam and Second Man,” he says, “He was always such in the counsel, and I could almost say in the presence of God”; and again, in his letter to Mr. White, cited by Mr. Rule, “In resurrection (1 Cor. 15) He is revealed as last Adam and second Man, though ever such in His own person, for the second Man is out of heaven.”
Further, at the close of his letter, instead of judging himself, he brings the charge against his brethren of “lack of familiarity with Scripture habits of thought,” whilst assuming that he and his followers have gained truer and juster views of the real humanity of our blessed Lord!
Extracts From Mr. Oliphant’s Letter Dated September, 1891.
You say nobody thinks that Christ became last Adam and Second Man till the incarnation, and He was not declared such till the resurrection; and you add, “but I believe that He was always such in the counsel, and, I could almost say, in the presence of God, and we find m any allusions to this in the Old Testament, Ps. 8, 40.” Now no one would have any difficulty about the Lord being the Man of God’s purpose, and I have always understood Psa. 8 and Prov. 8 to refer to God’s counsels. But the sentence, “I could almost say,” 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? As it stands, it bears the meaning that you are venturing on speculation, and then what you do say looks like what Chater is refuting on your behalf, namely, that man or humanity existed in some shape or form before the incarnation, though the Person always existed, of course . . . No doubt He who was born brought what He was into the world, but what was born was a new thing in the world – “that holy thing which shall be born of thee” {Luke 1:3535And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)} – and neither man manhood, nor humanity had any existence in fact before the Word became flesh. But this sentence, I must own, gives a handle to those who accuse you of making humanity in some shape or form exist before the incarnation, and I am afraid souls will be stumbled by it, and others kept in a wrong position by it. I wish you could see your way to withdraw it with the letter quoted by Gladwell, as to which I wrote before, and give a distinct and emphatic denial to the accusation that you h old any such doctrine which would weaken the truth of the incarnation.
Extracts From Mr. Raven’s
Letter, Dated Greenwich,
25th September, 1891.
I should be very ready to withdraw the sentences you quote in your letter of September, in deference to your wish; but it is now difficult to take any step in the matter, since though I have no reason to doubt the sentences are mine they have not appeared in any published paper, and I have no recollection when or to whom they were written, nor can I readily trace them. My fear is tha t a construction will be put upon the withdrawal very different from my meaning in it, for though I have no disposition to disregard the judgment of others, the sentences, in my reading of them, do not convey anything contrary to truth and sound doctrine.
The idea that man or manhood or humanity had any existence in fact in Christ until “the Word became flesh,” never entered my thoughts, and I do not believe that any sentence of mine, read in its connection, and without bias could fairly bear such a construction.
In fact the charge against me of making manhood eternal in Christ is monstrous and inconsistent on the part of those who have made it.
I add a word as to the particular sentences you criticize.
I believe the title “Son of man” to be personal. It is the way in which the Lord most commonly referred to Himself; and that He said, “Son of man which is in heaven” by virtue of what He was in His own divine Person; but from the characteristic form in which the expression is couched it has seemed to me to imply a contrast to man as created for earth, and if so, the expression carries the idea of a new order, but I should not press it. The use in the other sentence of the words, “I could almost say,” sprang from an unwillingness to speak in too positive a way on a profound subject which is gathered from the general tenor of Scripture, and on which I felt there was much to learn.
But we must call attention to the fact that the preexistence of humanity in essence is the keystone upon which Mr. Raven’s system rests, to which he is shut up by his own words, and without which the whole fabric falls to the ground. What otherwise was this “something,” which existed in Christ before He took flesh, which was not Deity? Nay more, which he calls “irreverence” to identify with Deity. Distinguishing it also by various expressions from His life and His Sonship as also Mr. Anstey and others have done. That, notwithstanding his disclaimer, Mr. Raven still fundamentally retains the same thought is evident when he says, not only “In the Word becoming flesh it could not but be, as you say that manhood received its character from the Word,” but further, that “manhood is not seen as something added to the Word, but the expression is, “The Word became flesh”
(Letter of 25th September, quoted above).