ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH, AUGUST 29TH, 1893

^[p. 83] ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH, AUGUST 29TH, 1893

Dear —, — I am not acquainted with Mr. Hunt (whose letter I return), but certainly what he says does not produce a favourable impression on me. It gives me the idea of disingenuousness. His allusion to an infidel book (which he should know nothing about) as though what was accepted amongst us were tending in that direction, does not approve his letter to my judgment — nor do I understand for what purpose he writes to you at all, save that you should accept his dictum — for explanations on the issues involved are in his view inadmissible. He will not himself pretend to explain what Mr. Darby means in saying that ‘the state described in the Psalm 16 is that of man considered apart from God’ — and yet would convey to your mind that it is something quite different in force from my statement that ‘Christ is viewed as man distinct and apart from what He is as God’ in that and other passages. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:47 according to the authorised version (the second Man is the Lord from heaven) in a form which he must know is wrong, and which begs the question at issue — all this appears to me unworthy. 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 men, the Man Christ Jesus” — “Head of the body” — “High Priest”, etc., etc., and Scripture in presenting Him to us in these positions speaks abstractly, i.e., limits itself to what is appropriate to the particular ^[p. 84] 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. But further, besides presenting God to man in His pathway here, Christ presented man in perfectness before God, and this is the view in Psalm 16, and further, as Son of man, the woman’s seed, He bore the judgment of death that rested on man — by man came the resurrection of the dead. How can you import the thought of God, as such, into all this in any subjective sense? though all was effected and could only be effected in One who is in Person divine. It is really irreverent and profane. The truth is that the moment those who have left us commit themselves to anything, they betray only painful inability to grasp divine thoughts. You may not care to send my letter to Mr. Hunt, but I have thought it best to speak plainly as to his letter to you. I trust you are all well, and remain with love in the Lord.

Faithfully yours,
F. E. Raven.