Containing Further Important Quotations from Mr. Raven and Others
In Mr. Hunt’s first letter we have the quotations from Mr. Raven’s writings touching the Person of Christ, as well as Mr. Hunt’s ground for his objections to them, firmly, yet temperately expressed, as follows:—
Mr. Raven himself has written as follows:—“What has characterized the second man could not include all that was true of a Divine Person.” . . . Mr. Raven has repeated this assertion in a stronger form in the same well-known letter, expressing his surprise that any one could think “that the second man covers all that is true of the Son,” and in a later letter (May, 1892 apparently) to Miss B—-, he writes; “I need scarcely to refer you to the many passages in the Word in which Christ is viewed as man and apart from what He is as God.” . . . But the serious fact, which arrested me three years ago, still confronts me—more clearly established by later evidence—that without denying that Christ is God, and that Christ is man, Mr. Raven and, as I must conclude, the brethren who support him have been tempted to look on this awful truth as admitting, at least, of distinction. The effect of this process, unavoidably, is to place certain words and acts of the Lord under one or other heading, and to take away the weight of the Divine from what is held to be only human.
(A Correspondence, pages 2 and 1.)
It is impossible to misunderstand language so definite and distinct, pointing out how the foundation of all truth is imperilled by it. Mr. Raven, however, in his reply, takes no exception to Mr. Hunt’s statement of his views, nor to the citations from his letters; but, on the contrary, insists on the correctness of his views, as so expressed, adding, as explanatory, the following statement
As regards the main point of the letter, I affirm that the Person of the Son is what He ever was and is eternally and unchangeably as divine —the Son in distinction from the Father and the Spirit. But the Son has become man, and as such (having died and risen) He has entered into relations, in regard to men, into which He could not have entered simply as a divine Person; such as “first born among many brethren”—“second man”—“mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus”—“Head of the body”—“High Priest,” &c. &c., and Scripture in presenting Him to us in these positions speaks abstractly, i.e., limits itself to what is appropriate to the particular position in hand, and does not in so speaking cover all that is true of the Person who has entered on those positions. I cannot imagine any thoughtful person contesting this (page 3).
This, however, does not bring in the human nature of Christ as having its distinct part and place in the unity of His Person after He became Man. Consequently it does not in any way afford an answer to Mr. Hunt’s charge, if one may so call it but rather the contrary; for if, when Incarnate, the human nature of Christ had and has its full part in the unity of the Person, “the thought of God” could not be excluded from what He is, and does as man. Neither could it be in any degree irreverent and profane to introduce the thought of God in a “subjective sense” into the value of the offering on the cross.
Further, although Mr. Raven says that, as to His offices as man, “all was effected and could only be effected in one who is in Person divine,” yet, in his subsequent letter, he maintains, that if we admit “such A NOTION” as that of the unity of the Person of the Incarnate and Divine Son, “all,” as to these offices, “is shrouded in mystery, utterly and hopelessly obscured” (A Correspondence, page 10).
Yet we find Mr. Darby, with whom Mr. Raven professes to be in full accord, expressing a very different thought, when he speaks of “The union of the Divine Person of the Son and of the humanity,” and, in the same passage, of “His Person as Son of the Father and man” (Collected Writings 33:452) in these following words
But we have something else to remark here. First, the union of the Divine Person of the Son, and of the humanity of the Savior. . . . The glory that He had, as loved of the Father, before the world existed . . . is the precious truth, which is like a thread uniting all the chapter; but here, that which is put more forward, is His Person, as Son of the Father, and Man, and the association of the disciples with Him.”
(Collected Writings 30:452).
The following extracts from the well-known Dr. Owen, vice-Chancellor of Oxford, will show the views of orthodox Christians on this subject
He (Satan) raised a vehement opposition against the hypostatical union, or the union of these two natures in one person. This he did in the Nestorian heresy, which greatly, and for a long time, pestered the church. The authors and promoters of this opinion granted the Lord Christ to have a divine nature, to be the Son of the living God. They also acknowledged the truth of his human nature, that he was truly a man, even as we are.
But the personal union between these two natures they denied. . . . That the Son of God assumed our nature into personal subsistence with Himself—whereby [the?] whole Christ was one person, and all his mediatory acts were the acts of that one person, of him who was both God and man—this they would not acknowledge. And this pernicious imagination, though it seem to make great concessions of truth, doth no less effectually evert the foundation of the church than the former. For, if the divine and human nature of Christ do not constitute one individual person, all that he did for us was only as a man—which would have been altogether insufficient for the salvation of the church nor had God redeemed it with his own blood.
. . . Who shall undertake to declare what are the chief instances of this incomprehensible effect of divine wisdom? “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Prov. 30:44Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? (Proverbs 30:4). See Isa. 9:66For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)).
It is enough for us to stand in a holy admiration, at the shore of this unsearchable ocean, and to gather up some parcels of that divine treasure wherewith the Scripture of truth is enriched. I make no pretense of searching into the bottom or depths of any part of this “great mystery of godliness, God. . . manifest in flesh.”
They are altogether unsearchable.
There is required . . . an influence of power into all the actings of the souls of believers; an intimate efficacious operation with them in every duty, and under every temptation. These, all of them, do look for, expect and receive from him, as . . . head of the church. This also is an effect of divine and infinite power. And to deny these things unto the Lord Christ is to raze the foundation of Christian religion. . . . The same may be said concerning his sacerdotal office, and all the acts of it. It was in and by the human nature that he offered himself a sacrifice for us. He had somewhat of his own to offer (Heb. 8:33For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. (Hebrews 8:3)), and to this end a body was prepared for him (Heb. 10:55Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Hebrews 10:5)). But it was not the work of a man, by one offering, and that of himself, to expiate the sins of the whole church, and forever to perfect them that are sanctified, which he did (Heb. 10:1414For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)). . . . We can have no due consideration of the offices of Christ, can receive no benefit by them nor perform any act of duty with respect unto them, or any of them, unless faith in his divine person be actually exercised as the foundation of the whole. For that is it whence all their glory, power, and efficacy are derived. Whatever, therefore, we do with respect unto his rule, whatever we receive by the communication of his Spirit and grace, whatever we learn from his Word by the teachings of his Spirit, whatever benefit we believe, expect, and receive, by his sacrifice and intercession on our behalf, our faith in them all, and concerning them all, is terminated on his divine person.
The church is saved by his offices, because they are his.
(Works of John Owen, D. D. “A Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ.” Johnstone and Hunter, London, &c. M.DCCC.L. Vol. 1., pages 40, 44, 99).