'The Champney Letter' continued
Dr. Burton's 'One Instance' Falls to the Ground
Dr. Alfred Burton has just published a pamphlet, one main object of which is to show the uselessness of going to Mr. Raven for explanations when he says "we have his own written statements unjudged and not withdrawn";
- and of these he brings forward "one instance" about sin being "displaced in us by divine righteousness"
- – a quotation from a private letter published without Mr. Raven's knowledge, and which was withdrawn by him nearly a year ago as tending to confuse.
Letters of F. E. Raven – New Series, pages 3, 10-11.
Refusal of Mr. Lowe to meet Mr. Raven
and his False Statements in
Consequence
– New Birth Involves Everything
As to the sad division at Ealing, it would never have taken place if Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lowe had seen Mr. Raven face to face in private, as Mr. Lowe was urged to do, or with one or two others.
- Major McCarthy never saw him at all, and Mr. Lowe not for eight months before the division.
- Mr. Lowe (resting on that which to most present was clearly a misunderstanding), at one of the brothers' readings in London, proclaimed his doctrine as "subversive
of Christianity", and has laboured ever since in vain to prove it.
- When 150 were present, and when he seemed to be satisfied with the explanation given, and was thought to have withdrawn his charge, having failed to prove it.
- Again, Mr. Lowe, speaking on eternal life, prints, as to Mr. Raven's teaching, "Jesus Christ is not it". But Mr. Raven's own printed papers say directly, "It is Christ". HDA'C
- When 150 were present, and when he seemed to be satisfied with the explanation given, and was thought to have withdrawn his charge, having failed to prove it.
- Mr. Lowe was besought to come to a meeting of brethren where Mr. Raven was questioned for five hours, and he refused.
- Consequently Mr. Lowe has stated things diametrically opposed to what Mr. Raven holds: e.g., that new birth does not involve eternal life. At that meeting Mr. Raven distinctly stated that new birth involved everything.
- It was the sovereign operation of God, and thus the foundation of His work in the soul; and that when He thus sovereignly began by communicating life to a soul everything belonged to it in God's eye.
Christ is Eternal Life –
We can have Part in Eternal Life, but Not in His Deity
And at that meeting the first question asked was, "Is that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, the person of Christ?"
- To which Mr. Raven replied that "Christ is that, but He is more; He is the true God and eternal life, and that through grace we can have part in eternal life, but not in His Deity".
They are Robbing us of Christ and Touching His Person
Indeed, I believe that those who assert that eternal life is a person are taking away from us the Person of His (God's) Son Jesus Christ, and substituting eternal life as a Person instead.
- They are touching the Person of the Christ of God in maintaining that that which He gives and can communicate to believers is a person,
- though indeed that blessed person of the Christ of God is the eternal life which was ever with the Father and manifested to us.
A Party Against Supposed Evil
Yes, I may say more; there is a party formed to maintain that eternal life in itself is a person, and that John 20: 22 and John 3: 5 coincide, which is contrary to what JND taught, and against the truth of God;
- and I believe Romans 16: 17 applies to themselves instead of to those against whom they have sought to use it.
- There has been a party formed against what is supposed to be evil. Mr. Darby used to say he would have nothing to do with a party against evil
- This party has been patiently heard both in public and in private by brethren for many months, and they have failed to establish their assertions.
Commencement of the Division
On the 15th of June, at Ealing (no notice whatever having been given to the saints beforehand, and before the breaking of bread), Mr. Whybrow, Mr. McCarthy, and Mr. Lowe, etc., asked those not breaking bread to retire,
- and wished the brethren at once to decide whether they were in fellowship with Bexhill or Greenwich; for that Bexhill had declined a letter of commendation from Greenwich on May 25th,
- A letter, dated May 30, 1890, was sent from Greenwich to Bexhill requesting an explanation, according to The History of the Brethren, 2: 518, by Napoleon Noel.
- and has followed up their act by a judgment on June 8th.
Bexhill replied, June 8, 1890, referring to "your Assembly".
Noel, 2: 520.
But their own printed account (since published by the seceders) shows that the disowning of the assembly at Greenwich did not take place till June 29th (see copy from Hammersmith, published by the Ealing seceders),
- and by other papers we have clear proof that Bexhill was still owning Greenwich as an assembly of God, as also every other assembly in England.
| Letter from Bexhill to Greenwich, June 29, 1890. Noel, 2: 526-27. |
|---|
Action of Bexhill Founded on a False Supposition
Bexhill had simply refused the letter of commendation because they thought the assembly at Greenwich was in a divided state, but in this they were mistaken.
- In their first letter, addressed to the assembly at Greenwich. They say,
- "We believe it is according to the exercise of godly care with those gathered on the ground of the one body when grave charges are brought against a teacher who is sheltered and supported by the meeting with which he is connected, or where a meeting is in a divided state, to request those coming from it to sit back until matters are investigated or settled. We have thus acted, and deeply regret, beloved brethren, the necessity for it".
June 8, 1890. Noel, 2: 520.
No Charge Brought Before the Assembly at Greenwich
by Any Person, Within or Without
– An Undivided Assembly
In reply the brethren at Greenwich showed that both grounds for their actions were erroneous, "no charge against Mr. Raven having been preferred before the gathering at Greenwich by any person whatever within or without the meeting",
- and the supposed divided state of the meeting rested upon the unsupported statement of one person who had been put away for publishing a false and slanderous letter.
| Compare the letter from Greenwich to Bexhill, June 23, 1890. Noel, 2: 523. The texts vary slightly. |
|---|
Bexhill Cuts Off Greenwich
Without Any Investigation or Proof of
Charges
It was not till fourteen days after the Ealing secession that Bexhill assembly brought accusations against the Greenwich assembly, and without any investigation, deliberation, or proof of its charges, acted in the spirit of Romanism and cut it off.
| Letter from Bexhill to Greenwich, June 29, 1890. Noel, 2: 526-27. |
|---|
Then why the hurry? Why did not the assembly at Ealing proceed to the breaking of bread as usual on the 15th of June?
- Answer: The Greenwich meeting had just declared out of fellowship
Monday, June 2, 1890, per Events in Ealing, and Noel, 2: 518. Compare the following sections with the full details below in Events in Ealing.
- the brother mentioned above for printing his false and slanderous letter.
- He also wrote to a Greenwich brother: I purpose, the Lord helping me, to send a copy of my letter, and Mr. L—'s pamphlet, and any other I think fit, to all clergymen and guardians and School Boards in Greenwich, Deptford, etc., and will designate the name and locality of the Greenwich meeting referred to in my pamphlet.
- The false and slanderous letter was read by a brother at the end of the morning meeting in a certain assembly in England. Another brother got up and rebuked him in the name of the Lord, at which he fell back in his chair silent.
- The poor, dear fellow would not confess he was wrong in reading it. Shortly afterwards he lost his reason, but, before his mind actually gave way, he sent a message to the brethren owning that it was Satan who suggested to him the reading of the letter.
- I trust all who read this will pray that the Lord, who has granted him repentance, will, if it be His will, speedily grant him also recovery, and will pause ere they support those at Ealing [i.e. the seceders, Mr. Lowe, etc.], who have sheltered the printer of this lying letter. HDA'C
- The false and slanderous letter was read by a brother at the end of the morning meeting in a certain assembly in England. Another brother got up and rebuked him in the name of the Lord, at which he fell back in his chair silent.
They had also written to Ealing calling their attention to this letter as having been printed by one in fellowship there.
Division Hurried On to Stop Discipline of the Assembly
When the brothers met on the 4th of June to discuss the matter, Mr. Whybrow said, "Greenwich is out of fellowship – under discipline – practically out of fellowship";
- and when on June 9th they again discussed the matter, Mr. Whybrow said they wanted to bring Greenwich back into fellowship.
- Though Greenwich, as the above clearly shows, was not rejected by Bexhill till June 29th, and was acknowledged everywhere at that time. HDA'C
Two more meetings were held on Wednesday the 11th, and Friday, the 13th of June, and for the sake of those who charged them with haste, another was arranged for Monday the 16th.
To stop this dealing with evil, Mr. Whybrow and his party
- They had previously inquired whether they would have the Shaftesbury Hall on the following Sunday. HDA'C
at the beginning of the meeting, and before the breaking of bread on the 15th of June, got up and read papers, and wished the assembly to decide as to Greenwich because they said Bexhill had definitely refused Greenwich, which I have shown to be false. No notice whatever had been given (so that the sisters could have no voice in the matter), and the saints had come to break bread. This went on for at least one hour and a quarter, Mr. Chater says; when his brother said, "If I break bread this morning I break bread in fellowship with Greenwich", to which others assented.
- It has been alleged they were forced into division by his saying "full fellowship", and that he said this at the beginning of the meeting. But Mr. Chater denies both these allegations. What was said was, "If I break bread this morning, I break bread in fellowship with Greenwich".
- And of course, by the principle of the "one body" Mr. Lowe and all of them had been breaking bread in fellowship with Greenwich till that very Sunday.
- Nor had they ever presented any charge against Mr. Raven to the assembly at Greenwich, so that Mr. Lowe's party set aside all principles of assembly action. Besides, nothing (says Mr. Chater) was said about fellowship with Greenwich till Mr. Whybrow, etc., had gone on forcing matters for one and a quarter hours. HDA'C
- And of course, by the principle of the "one body" Mr. Lowe and all of them had been breaking bread in fellowship with Greenwich till that very Sunday.
After that Mr. McCarthy rose up and read 2 Tim. 2: 19, and led the way out of the room, followed by Messrs. Whybrow, Lowe and about half those present, Mr. Whybrow asking them to meet next Lord's Day at Shaftesbury Hall to break bread;
- then, after a word from Mr. Lowe, he said "a meeting would be held there".
- So they really left the assembly for what they thought the assembly was going to do; for there was to be another meeting to deal with the scandal case on the following Monday.
There are many other charges equally without foundation which have been brought against our beloved brother, who has himself quietly kept in the background, leaving himself in the hands of Him who judgeth righteously.
- A repulsive statement on John 4 made by a brother about one and a half years ago, who says that at that time he hardly knew what Mr. Raven taught, has been given as a reason for separating from Mr. Raven!
- The brother has since publicly, and with humiliation, withdrawn his statement. He had never taught it in the assembly, who, till quite lately, never had the matter brought before them.
- On October 26th he was rebuked by them at the Lord's Table, and asked to cease ministering. He has accepted this as holy discipline from the Lord. HDA'C
- The brother has since publicly, and with humiliation, withdrawn his statement. He had never taught it in the assembly, who, till quite lately, never had the matter brought before them.
Before receiving these charges against an elder, may I ask you to write to him for his own explanations, and to see if they are true? (for in many cases he never even said what is alleged).
- I ask you, in fact, to hear both sides with unprejudiced mind before deciding the case.
- Remember, you have been, and still are, in fellowship with Mr. Raven and the Greenwich meeting until you decide to refuse them, and to receive Mr. Lowe and his partisans,
- who have separated from us on the ground that Mr. Raven is a heretic and a blasphemer, charges which they themselves have laboured in vain to prove.
- I would strongly urge you to remain in fellowship as you are with Greenwich, unless the Lord clearly shows you that you are to reject them. "Whatever is not of faith is sin".
- Remember too that if you prejudge the case, and say you will never believe such a good brother as Mr. Lowe can go wrong (as has been said), you will get no light at all.
- All France and Switzerland seem in the greatest danger of following blindly Mr. Lowe and two or three of his personal friends abroad;
- but I believe the Lord will deliver them, and enable them to act in faith, and preserve them from selling their judgment to a few leaders.
Faith is Individual, and Does Not Wait for Others to Act
Still, remember faith is individual, and does not wait till others act. "The meek will He guide in judgment". "If thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light". "If any man will [ desires to ] do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God".
Lettre Circulaire – Spirit of Popery
In Lettre Circulaire (a French pamphlet lately published and signed by three dear brethren, highly esteemed, but who have been, I fear, influenced by personal friendship with Mr. Lowe), the saints abroad are warned against everything written by Mr. Raven's defenders,
- and in it they state, "We possess Mr. Raven's own writings, and have no need that either he or others should explain them".
- This, in other words, is "Hear us. Hear no one else. Judge by our quotations". And yet it is not true that they possess Mr. Raven's writings.
- They have received numerous quotations from letters, in many cases wrongly or unfairly quoted; but they can hardly be said to possess his writings, and certainly the saints in general have not got them. I will here give two instances of their unfair quotations.
Unfair Quotations
1. "Scripture does not speak of Christ having been the eternal life which was with the Father before the world was".
- This is quoted from a private letter which the saints generally have no chance of seeing. Why not quote it fairly?
- The next sentence ought to have been quoted, "That the eternal life was with the Father (as I should say essentially), Scripture says, and I have no doubt whatever that the reference is to the Son".
2. The second unfair quotation is as follows: "Scripture does not, I think, speak of our having had eternal life imparted to us".
- The latter part, which they omit, runs as follows: "What is imparted to us, as I understand it, is life in the power of the Holy Ghost, a well of water in the believer".
In neither case does Mr. Raven say that he would not speak thus, but that Scripture does not speak thus;
- and in both cases he goes on to state distinctly what he does hold and believes to be according to the Scriptures,
- but the latter part in each case, i.e., his own direct statements, are most unjustly left out.
Mr. Raven Refuses to Say that Eternal Life is not Imparted
Mr. Raven himself said to me a few days ago, as to this very point, "I did not say, nor would I say, that eternal life is not imparted, but that Scripture does not say so.
- "Scripture says, 'He that hath the Son hath life'. Christ becomes the life of the soul, and in this sense eternal life is communicated, so that a completely new being is formed in the believer".
M. Favez's Charge (Supported by M. Ladriere, etc.)
In the same letter they quote Mr. Raven's words:
- "In taking part in human life down here (the life to which sin attached), He took part in that which in Him was brought to an end judicially in death, and this assuredly was not eternal life";
- and then they add (evidently with approval) a note by a French brother, M. Favez, a very dear servant of the Lord, in which occur the following statements by him:
- "It is false to say that this life in Him was brought to an end judicially by death". "He did not die judicially, it is blasphemy to say so".
M. Favez thus first perverts Mr. Raven's words, and then attacks his own perversion of them.
- Mr. Raven is speaking of the "life to which sin attached", not of the Lord's own perfect life. He took part in our life, with this difference, that in us sin attached to it – in Him none.
- If His human life had not been sinless, He could not have laid it down for us, and so brought to an end the life (ours) to which sin attached.
- M. Favez accuses Mr. Raven of saying "this life in Him was brought to an end judicially"; that is, M. Favez connects "life" with "in Him", whereas Mr. Raven connects "in Him" with "brought to an end".
- It was not "the life in Him"; i.e., His life, but the life to which sin attached, our life, which was brought to an end in Him judicially and by death.
- Mr. Raven never said that "He died judicially", or that the holy life of Jesus was brought to an end judicially.
- If the life to which sin attached was not brought to an end
judicially, we have no freedom from sin, nor justification of life.
- Surely this is in the very face of the word of God.
- "He died for our sins according to the Scriptures".
- "That He by the grace of God should taste death for everything".
- "He died unto sin once".
- "His life is taken from the earth".
- "There are three that bear record – the Spirit and the water and the blood".
It is contrary too to all Mr. Darby has written. In his Synopsis on John 11 (new edition) he writes:
- "He dies; He quits this life. He is dead to sin; He has done with sin in having done with the life to which sin belonged, not in Him indeed, but in us, and alive in which He was made sin for us. Raised up again by the power of God, He lives in a new condition, into which sin cannot enter, being left behind with the life which He left. Faith brings us into it by grace.
- "It has been pretended that these thoughts affect the divine and
eternal life which was in Christ. But this is all idle and evil cavil. Even in an unconverted sinner, dying or laying down life has nothing to do with
ceasing to exist as to the life of the man within. All live to God, and divine life in Christ never could cease or be changed. He never laid that down, but in the power of that laid down His life as He possessed it here as man, to take it up in an entirely new way in resurrection beyond the grave".
Synopsis, 3: 345, footnote *, Stow Hill edition. - "He has died. All the power of the enemy, all its effect on mortal man, all the judgment of God, He has borne it all, and has come up from it, in the power of a new life in resurrection".
Synopsis, 3: 346, Stow Hill edition.
And again in his Synopsis on Romans 6 (new edition) Mr. Darby says:
- "He was made sin, underwent the forsaking of God, and, glorifying
God, died in and to the place, to the whole condition of being in which
we were, and in which as made sin, He stood for us before God.
Synopsis, 4: 108, footnote *, Stow Hill edition.
- "Dying, He died unto sin. He went down even to death rather than fail in maintaining the glory of God. Until death and even in death He had to do with sin … but there He has done with it all for ever. We die unto sin by participating in His death".
Synopsis, 4: 111, Stow Hill edition.
Again, on 1 John 5, JND says, "It is the judgment of death pronounced and executed on the flesh, on all that is of the old man, on the first Adam. Not that the sin of the first Adam was in the flesh of Christ, but that Jesus died in it as a sacrifice for sin. Sin in the flesh was condemned in the death of Christ in the flesh. Our purification as to the old man is its death …
- "… He came by water – a powerful testimony, as flowing from the side of a dead Christ, that life is not to be sought in the first Adam; for Christ as coming for man, taking up his cause, the Christ come in flesh had to die else He had remained alone in His own purity … Purification is by death".
Synopsis, 5: 353, 2nd paragraph, Stow Hill edition.
| Synopsis, 5: 352, last paragraph, Stow Hill edition. |
|---|
That Christ was forsaken by God when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit", would surely be blasphemy to affirm.
- But in His death surely there was the judicial end before God of the first man, so that the believer's whole history, as man in the flesh, is gone before God in having died with Christ; and
- it is very solemn that M. Favez should use the blessed truth, as to Christ's communion with God when com-mitting His spirit to the Father, to virtually deny that expiation and cleansing from the old man are in death.
He is Also Eternal Life
The same letter also exposes Mr. Raven (on page 10) for saying that, in addition to being eternal life Jesus was God, and yet quotes (on page 8) Mr. Darby as saying the same thing:
- "He is the true God … He is also eternal life".
- I think too it is very unjust on page 9 of Lettre Circulaire to translate the word "exhibition" by "expression" when they know Mr. Raven did not use that word. And then they endeavour to fasten a lie on Mr. Raven. (See a full account of Mr. Ord's charge, and the answer to it [following]. ) HDA'C
The Goodness of the Lord to Mr. Stanley and Mr. Pinkerton
I cannot help expressing my thankfulness too that our beloved brethren, Mr. Stanley and Mr. Pinkerton,
- Mr. B. F. Pinkerton laboured in Egypt for many years. There are a number of meetings of the Lowe-Continental connection in Egypt which are now affiliated with the reunion party. GAR
who had written much against Mr. Raven, were permitted to labour to the end of their days in fellowship with the Lord's people gathered to His Name.
- I believe it is a special mark of the Lord's love to them, and that He had not forgotten their long and blessed service in the gospel, that He should have taken them from the evil to come, and have preserved them from the danger which I think they were in of scattering the sheep they had so long helped to gather.
- Would that others had not fallen into the terrible sin of causing divisions! I gather, however, that unless the Lord had come in they were in great danger of being thus ensnared from the following facts:
On the morning of dear Mr. Stanley's death he got up and made a statement at the Lord's Table to the effect that
- "a brother had taught heresy, and that those who aided and abetted it were coming (i.e., to the conference on the Friday following), he therefore could not be present except to oppose".
- On being asked to whom he referred, he mentioned the Lord's servants, Mr. Stoney and Mr. Turpin.
- Mr. Arthur G. Brown wrote to me on June 20, 1973, "It is of special interest to me that" [A Review of Certain Statements of Doctrine] "is a paper by my grandfather W. T. Turpin which fully supports FER's 'eternal life' teaching and shows from extracts from JND how FER's teachings were fully in accord with those of JND.
- "Incidentally my grandfather left brethren in 1896 and went back as an evangelical clergyman to the established church [Church of England] from which he had come out many years earlier. Only one of his family of seven followed him … It was not anything to do with the FER teachings, of this I am certain and have some proof".
- From Part Two of The Departure from the Truth after its Recovery, No. 14' in my 'The Historical Reference Series'. GAR
- Mr. Arthur G. Brown wrote to me on June 20, 1973, "It is of special interest to me that" [A Review of Certain Statements of Doctrine] "is a paper by my grandfather W. T. Turpin which fully supports FER's 'eternal life' teaching and shows from extracts from JND how FER's teachings were fully in accord with those of JND.
- In less than two hours after he was called to be with the Lord, and his body was buried the day before the annual conference, at which he had been present for so many years.
- This refers to the conference at Rotherham, Yorkshire, where CS was local.
- The Rotherham conference is referred to several times in Biography: J. B. Stoney: His Closing Days, suggesting that most, if not all, of the brethren there were not led astray by Mr. Stanley's misunderstanding of Mr. Raven's teachings.
- The List of Meetings – 1963' showa Rotherham as a subdivision of Sheffield. GAR
- This refers to the conference at Rotherham, Yorkshire, where CS was local.
Mr. Stanley, also writing on the 8th of last March to a brother, said,
- "I have counted the cost of standing true to Christ. Indeed, if I had not stood true to Him as kept at this time He would have taken me away in mercy. He would not have allowed me to deny the gospel which he has enabled me to preach for these fifty-five years, come the 29th of this month". (He died on the 30th.) "It would have been the same with dear Pinkerton. I have a letter from him this post, and he feels the same thing".
Mr. Pinkerton, shortly before his death, received a faithful letter on the part of Mr. [T. H.] Reynolds, in which he denied its being "well known that there are innovations of doctrine among us", and said
- that Mr. Pinkerton, before publishing his tract against Mr. Raven, should have written to his brethren, and that, if indeed it was his place to take up the question, it would have been worth his while to have come to England and conferred with the brethren he attacked;
- and that, were he in England, he would find there is a small minority who persist in printing and circulating statements which are really perversions, misstatements, and insinuations as to their brethren,
- which show that we are in the midst of a system of perversion which is wanting in moral integrity and uprightness, and that he would be very sorry to see Mr. Pinkerton entangled in it.
In answer, Mr. Pinkerton, who wrote in the hurry of packing up for a considerable journey into Mesopotamia,
- twice appealed to God as the One to whom he must "one day render a solemn account for all his behaviour here, especially in the Church", as the One "Who would one day show who are right and who are wrong in this matter".
Two days after the writing of this letter, he was taken ill of inflammation of the lungs and in twelve days was taken home!
- Well, thank God, they both are with the Lord, which is far better; and if in excessive zeal perhaps, even in their devotion to the interests of Christ, they (like the apostle Paul on one occasion, Acts 19, 20) overstepped the mark, and
- perhaps through haste or not sufficiently informing themselves spoke or wrote unadvisedly, yet, thank God, this much may be said, they never took part in division.
- No, nor do we know that they would have done, but till the end of their days they were in fellowship at the Lord's Table with all the saints gathered to His name.
- "Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving-kindness of the Lord".
Mr. Ord's Pamphlet
– Mr. Ord's Allegations Fall to the Ground
Mr. [A. C.] Ord in his pamphlet quotes some repulsive statements as made by individuals whom he does not mention, which if true,
- do not touch the case, for neither Mr. Raven, nor any who are in touch with him could help but be shocked at them.
- The one about "taking hold of the Lord's hand" has been withdrawn, and the brother has expressed, at a large meeting of brothers, his sorrow for having written it.
- With regard to another charge, that against one whom Mr. Ord calls "an active proselytising agent", Mr. Ord, after being repeatedly asked to give the name,
- refused to do so; and there are grave reasons for be-lieving that he did not even himself know who he was!
However, it has been unexpectedly brought to light in spite of this refusal, and independently of Mr. Ord.
- The alleged blasphemous and Unitarian statement was reported to the printer by a man not now in fellowship with us, and he told Mr. Ord, who without making the least investigation, inserted it at once in his pamphlet.
- And the one of whom it was alleged (on the evidence of one man only) has indignantly denied saying it!
- Now this supposed quotation has, I believe, done immense harm in scattering the saints of God.
- It is very solemn that one who, whilst trying hard to fasten prevarication on Mr. Raven, should have himself stated, as fact, what he had little or no evidence for at all, and then when challenged refuse to have it all brought to light.
His Second Charge of Unitarianism
Proves the Exact Contrary
Once again Mr. Ord charges a leading evangelist with making such statements as to the manifestation of eternal life at a Scripture reading, that "a simple unlettered man asked, 'When then did Jesus begin to be God?' "
- It turns out on undeniable evidence, including that of the "simple"
man himself, (1) that nothing was said as to the manifestation of eternal
life; (2) that till then this poor brother had thought that Jesus was not God till His resurrection;
- but through the evangelist's teaching that night he learnt that "there never was a time when He was not 'God over all blessed for evermore' ".
- How terrible to try and fix Unitarian teaching on an evangelist who, on the very occasion alluded to, taught the very opposite, and saved the poor brother himself from Unitarian thoughts!
An Opposer of Mr. Raven would say, "God Wept"
A prominent brother, speaking against Mr. Raven, mentioned with abhorrence some one having asked whether eternal life wept, and said, "I would say, God wept".
- I replied, "I think that is blasphemy". Scripture says, "Jesus wept", though of course His Godhead was always there.
- It no more speaks of God weeping than of God sleeping. All such expressions as to God are revolting, even though said by one who is opposing Mr. Raven.
Major McCarthy's Misquotation of Mr. Raven's Letter
Since much has been made by Major McCarthy of a quotation incorrectly given by him, "Fancy a helpless babe an expression of eternal life", I here append the letter from which it was professedly taken.
- It was written by Mr. Raven to Mr. [ W. ] Rudling [ of Ealing ], June 29th, 1889:
- "Then again, as to life, he says Christ never ceased to be the exhibition of eternal life from a babe in the manger to the throne of the Father. Think of a helpless infant being the exhibition
Underlined by Mr. Raven. HDA'C "of eternal life, whatever might be there. Infancy, and all connected with it, does not find place in John. It is simply there, 'The Word made flesh'. The fact is, there is a tendency to lose sight of the truth that as well as being eternal life, Jesus was God, and exercising divine prerogatives down here. 'The Word was God', and further, in taking part in human life down here (the life to which sin attached),
Not in Him indeed, but in us. HDA'C "He took part in that which in Him was brought to and end judicially in death, and this assuredly was not eternal life".
Mr. Raven's Remarks on this Letter
On this Mr. Raven has remarked as follows:
- I wrote as above because, to my mind, the statement of Major McCarthy was confusion.
- To begin with, the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger, was "a sign". Who and what the babe was, was specially made known.
- The exhibition (though the word is an objectionable one as applied to the Lord) was of the condition of weakness and humiliation (in the likeness of sinful flesh) into which the Son of God had entered to accomplish God's will through suffering here.
- In His own Person He was the last Adam, the second Man, the eternal life, and such as truly before the cross as after.
- But this came out into display, or exhibition, in resurrection, when He was declared to be the Son of God, with power according to the Spirit of
holiness by the resurrection from the dead.
- Hence it is that God's Son, Jesus Christ (who came through water and blood), is said to be "eternal life"; i.e. as the full revelation of it.
Charge of Prevarication
– Mr. Raven's Satisfactory Explanation
– Mr. Raven Withdraws the word "Helpless'
Mr. Ord accuses Mr. Raven of prevarication in denying in a letter to Mr. Barker, having used the words alleged by Major McCarthy:
- "Fancy a helpless babe an expression of eternal life".
- The charge has been lately mentioned at a meeting of about five hundred brethren at Park Street, when a full explanation was given, which seemed to satisfy most.
- He said Mr. McCarthy had never seen the letter from which he quoted and yet he professed to give the exact
- Mr. McCarthy stated, "The above [sentence] is taken from a circulated document amongst Christians". Both of these statements were untrue. He only had it by hearsay, and the document was never printed or circulated. HDA'C
words by putting them in inverted commas. This he considered immoral, and therefore he had denied having used the words as quoted by him; at the same time he had proceeded in the same letter to show what he did say, but purposely without giving the actual words.
- He continued that Christ in Glory, not as Major McCarthy had put it, "A helpless babe in a manger", was the exhibition (or display) of eternal life;
- whereas Mr. McCarthy's quotation of Mr. Raven's comment on his (the Major's) words makes him deny "a helpless babe" being "an expression of eternal life", as well as adds the word "fancy", which has an air of lightness and irreverence about it.
I may add also that the "secret letter", which appeared at first sight to condemn Mr. Raven (especially if not quoted in full),
- would never have come to light had not Mr. Raven himself alone, and without pressure from others, published it,
- which he certainly would not have done if it convicted him of a lie, unless indeed he had the intention of confessing it.
- I may also add that he has withdrawn the word "helpless" as possibly tending to irreverence.
Questions put to Mr. Raven at Ealing, and his Answers
Before closing my letter I will here insert some questions put to Mr. Raven at a large meeting of brethren at Ealing, and his answers as then given and afterwards approved by him.
Q. What do you mean by mixed condition?
A. Believers are in a new order of things; but also still here in
responsible life on earth. In the new creation, in Christ, there is neither
male nor female. Down here there is. We are a new creation, of that order
of things; but also still of this, as to responsibility.
Q. Are we absolutely the righteousness of God in Christ now?
A. Yes, now absolutely in Christ; but not yet perfected in glory.
Q. Is it absolute, Christ our wisdom, righteousness, etc.?
A. Yes; Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, etc.
(1 Cor. 1: 30).
Q. Are we now a new creation?
A. Yes, in Christ now, as truly as ever you will be; but not yet in the
image of the heavenly (2 Cor. 11: 17; 1 Cor. 15: 49).
Q. Was Christ always the eternal life?
A. Yes.
Q. What is meant by eternal life being in essence before the
incarnation?
A. It was not yet in form, that is as man. Christ Himself is eternal life, and that revealed as Man in glory.
Q. Would you explain to us what is meant by the statement that
eternal life is not Christ, but that Christ is eternal life?
A. In such a statement as "The Word was God", the personality covers all that God is. If you say eternal life is the eternal Son, it won't do. He is the true God, and eternal life. This includes more. Godhead is not communicable. Eternal life is given to believers in the Son. The eternal Son is the eternal life; that is right, but some have sought to make eternal life and the ever-blessed Son of God equivalent. This is derogatory to His person. You must distinguish His deity, but not separate it. If anyone denied the personality of the Word he ought to be put out.
Q. Have you said that all believers have not eternal life?
A. Every believer has. Everyone who has the Son has life. All babes, young men, and fathers have eternal life, as the gift of God.
Q. Is not eternal life a title?
A. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life". Resurrection is not a title. And "I am the way, the truth, and the life". He is all, but they are not titles.
Q. When you think of life and resurrection you think of Christ, do you not?
A. Yes. By nothing else could I get the faintest idea of eternal life or the resurrection.
Note: It has been reported that I said in public prayer (at Eastbourne), 'Thou wert the Son of Joseph, but art now the Lord of life and glory'. This horrible statement is simply a gross perversion of my words. [ FER ]
On another occasion Mr. Raven was asked the following question:
- "Can an evangelist use John 3: 16, or John 5: 24, in preaching to sinners, or can he only preach forgiveness? If so, where is the change marked in Scripture?"
- To which he replied: "I must leave the question of what an evangelist can preach to himself. The thought of God's love to a perishing world is eternal life, and for this the Son of man was lifted up".
Why Mr. Darby has been Quoted
In this letter I have quoted freely from JND to show that it is not true what Mr. Lowe and his part persistently repeat, that there are innovations of doctrine amongst us.
"The Lord will not forsake His people
for His great Name's sake", 1 Sam. 12: 22
Now I would, in deep sorrow, yet with confidence of hope, commend this poor effort in the cause of truth (done entirely on my own responsibility to the Lord, and unsuggested by any one)
- into the hands of Him who is the Good Shepherd, and who still cares for the sheep,
- and fully believing that our God, up to the moment of the return of our blessed Lord, will never cease to give Him the joy of having a company here on earth, into the midst of whom he can come in precious grace and lead them in singing praise to the Father,
- How encouraging this word is to those who seek to main-tain the Lord's Supper and the service of God, in faith-fulness and freshness, in these days of division, humili-ation and weakness – such days as Mr Champney and brethren of that time, and for another 70-80 years, could not have foreseen or, perhaps, even conceived. GAR
- at the same time earnestly praying that you and I may, whatever it cost us, be found in that company till he comes for his own, and with love to all the saints, Believe me,
Affectionately yours in the Lord Jesus Christ,
H. D'Arcy Champney.
31 October [ 1890 ], Ebor House, Cambridge