ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH, MAY 25TH, 1891

ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH, MAY 25TH, 1891

To Mr. Hewitt.

My Dear Brother, — I am very glad indeed that you have written to me in reference to Mr. G.’s construction of statements of mine — but first I have a right to ask ^[p. 55] that you should not adopt other people’s constructions of my statements. In this way anything and everything may be grossly perverted. For instance, in a printed letter of his which I saw, he would make it appear — because I have used the expression ‘in essence’ or ‘essentially’ — that I have talked of ‘essences’ in reference to Christ. Now anyone a little versed in language would know that the two expressions are commonly used with quite distinct force and sense. It is the effort to fasten on me a term or idea which, applied to the Lord, is offensive.

I have not by me the paper of his to which you refer — but I think I can show you where he is at fault. He seems unable or unwilling in his mind to distinguish, in regard to the second Man, between the form and habit (Philippians 2:7,8) of manhood — and what gives character morally to the manhood. The first (the form and habit — the real human soul) Christ took of a woman and it was ‘perfected’ in resurrection, the second (what gives character to the manhood) He brought into it — hence as incarnate He was the living and true bread from heaven — the second Man is “out of heaven”. The same distinction we have to make as to ourselves for we are ‘heavenly’ in nature as is the heavenly (holy and without blame before God in love) while still here in the form and habit and condition of the earthy.

I think the above will answer the points you have put to me — Mr. G.’s assertion of what I believe I wholly refuse. All that he says seems to me marked by assumption and ignorance.

I am at the same time exceeding sorry for the mischief he has caused in your meeting.

With love in the Lord,
Your affectionate brother,
F. E. Raven.