THE KINGDOM EMBRACES THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD*
By GEORGE N. H. PETERS
[*
From VOLUME THREE pp. 210-247.]
-------
[Page 210]
PROPOSITION 176.
Our doctrine of the Kingdom embraces
the conversion of the world,
but in Scriptural order.
While rejecting the Whitbyan theory of
a future conversion of the world to the Second Advent of Jesus as unscriptural
and misleading, we at the same time firmly hold to a future blessed and
glorious conversion of the Jews and Gentiles after the Second Advent, as
plainly taught in the Word.
Hence we reject as utterly unreliable that
large class of works which predict “smooth things”
respecting the Church. Take as an illustration Bunsen’s Church of the Future, and it will be found irreconcilable with a large
class of predictions, which it quietly ignores. However valuable some of its
suggestions, they are neutralized by the false motive for effort presented;
however desirable the result advocated, it is vitiated because directly
contrary to the one the Scriptures portray. The “Church
of the Future” instead of converting, the nations, is to be itself under
fearful trial, persecution, and suffering. It is useless yea, dangerous - to
portray a Church as our hope widely different from that which the [Holy] Spirit of God has delineated. A critic of Bunsen, placing his
hope in this direction, remarks: “All hail, to such a Church of the Future! The world yearns for
it; creation groans for it. Society is sick at heart; sick of sore maladies which politics can scarcely cure; sick of many
empires and few physicians. And Christ’s Church alone hits the panacea - the
universal cure.” Alas! thus the Church is
deliberately substituted in Christ’s place, and the Church is
made to do the work which the [Holy] Spirit attributes alone to Christ at His Second
Coming. Thousands of works take this false position, leading the Church into a
state of unbelief, from which some day there will be a terrible awakening.
OBSERVATION 1. Such Scriptures as Ps. 72: 8-11; Zech. 9: 10; Isa. 60: 11-22; Dan. 7: 14, 27; Hab. 2: 14; Isa. 11: 9, etc.,
are undoubtedly
to be fulfilled, being the legitimate outgrowth of covenant promises,
and pertaining to the promised [Millennial] Kingdom, honour, and glory of the Redeemer. The certainty of realization
is apparent not only because given by the Omniscient Spirit conversant with “the deep things” of God, but by its being
bound up with the fulfilment of the Divine Purpose. Hence it is that the
prophecies bearing on this point are among the unconditional (compare Proposition 18),
for such a state of things is connected with the sway, extent, splendour, and
glory of the Theocracy itself. The completeness of redemption, the
perfection of restitution, the greatness of an Almighty Redeemer, cannot and
will not be satisfied with anything less. The Theocratic ordering aims to bring
all into subjection, and when established in its might will proceed in this
glorious undertaking. This conversion is so interwoven with the descriptions of
the
[Page 211]
Dr. Finney, Dis.on the Second Advent,
makes the world’s conversion one of necessity,
being based on the attributes of God. The argument is certainly a very bold one
when applied to the present dispensation, for it proves entirely too much,
making the infinite benevolence of God the sole standard by which to judge of
the number of the saved - the very reasoning that the Universalists employ for
the same purpose. It is, therefore, placing ourselves in the place of judges
respecting the expediency of the divine, purposes, and the manner in which they
should be carried out, which is always a dangerous procedure. We dare not
confine God’s purposes to one dispensation unless it is specifically stated; we
must follow the purpose as it is unfolded and declared, observing how
and when it is to be realized. If Dr.
Firiney’s argument had been used by a Jew before
the first Advent - and it would have been a priori just as reasonable - it
would not have been verified in that dispensation as history demonstrates, and
so now, if we allow the Scriptures to testify, it will still remain unrealized
in the present dispensation. His reasonings, therefore, is only pertinent to
its certainty and accord with God’s own ultimate glory. This we accept, while
the limitation to the present dispensation we reject, because the exact
reverse, as we have shown under the preceding Propositions, is the plain and
decisive teaching of Scripture. Van
Oosterzee (Ch.
Dog., vol. 2. p. 795), speaking of “the
consummation of all things” as presented by Scripture, remarks: “The prospect here opened up is well adapted to put to shame
every optimistic-humanistic dream, as though in this best of worlds things
should grow better, the nearer the stream of time rolls to the ocean of
eternity.” Extremes meet, seeing that Isaac Taylor (His. of Enthusiasm, p. 183) thinks that the
speedy conversion of the world would probably cause evils to arise, etc.,
instead of founding its non-arrival, as the Scriptures, on human depravity.
OBSERVATION 2. This Proposition is the more necessary, since -
notwithstanding the Primitive Church teaching, and the reiterated statements of
numerous Pre-Millennarian writers - works are circulated, like The
Kingdom of Grace, which boldly misrepresent
our doctrine, making us to teach, like themselves or like themselves (i.e.,
Anti-Millenarians), or like the Millerites, some
Second Adventists, and Seventh-Day adventists, that
after the Second Advent there is no more salvation for the race, and no “increase of the Kingdom of the Messiah.” These are
their own deductions and not ours, be discarded by almost every Pre-Millenarian
from the early Church down to the present. The objection is only plausible by
classing men with us, who, aside from expecting the speedy Advent, have no
special doctrinal affiliation with us, but entertain the popular views
respecting the judgment, conflagration, and consequences of the Advent in its
relation to the race. Such misconceptions of our belief might be passed by
without notice, if they were not repeated in respectable reviews, journals,
etc., as e.g. in The Presbyterian Quarterly Review for 1853. Those not conversant with our doctrine, finding the most
positive declarations respecting such a conversion , and God’s own existence
pledged for its ultimate verification, at once conclude that we are in gross
error, and thus become prejudiced against us.
Dr. Brown (Christ’s Second Coming, p. 313), following
others, charges Pre-Millenarians with “sneering”
at Bible and missionary societies, and with indulging in “ill-disguised insinuations - sometimes not disguised at all
- against the Word and the blessed Spirit themselves, as inadequate to
accomplish the predicted evangelization of the world.” This is a perverted,
false
statement, eminently calculated to prejudice others against us. No
Pre-Millenarian speaks slightingly or disrespectfully of the Word or the
Spirit, or refuses to acknowledge the eminent services of Bible and missionary
societies (unless it be some unsound, erratic, or fanatical person belonging to
some small sect, whom Dr. Brown is afraid to quote, seeing that the quotation
itself would prove our defence), for we all ascribe the failure of such
non-conversion, not to the Spirit or Word, not to the lack of abundant
provision or merciful invitation, but to the depravity of man which rejects the
provision made. It is our reverence for the truth which causes us to insist
that a true honouring of the Word and Spirit demands that we receive the
Scriptural teaching respecting the design of this dispensation (Propositions 86,
87), and not ignore the Second Advent and
the events produced by it. Even those
persons who deny any future conversion Pre - or [Page] Post-Advent, do not - as simple justice demands - base the
same on the inadequacy of the Word or Spirit. We, however, accept of a future
conversion, but locate it later, and indorse the instrumentalities specifically
mentioned by the Spirit in the Word as necessary to its fulfilment. The attacks
in his direction are painfully one-sided, and often so sweeping that the
exhibited prejudice and ignorance gives the requisite answer. Thus as
illustrative: The
Princeton Review, April, 1851, contains an article, “Foreign Missions
and Millenarianism,” which speaks of “the
extremely injurious tendency of the Millenarian theory;” of its “restraining and zeal and activity of God’s people;”
of its “forbidding the exercise of faith,” “sweeping away our interest in prayer and our agonizing
dependence on the Holy Spirit;” and of its “baneful
influence on the cause of missions.”
Our refusal to indorse his theory of the conversion of the world and to pray
for that which the Word, in our estimation, clearly condemns, causes the writer
to impute all these evils to us, forgetting the large number of missionaries
who have been and are Millenarian, who have manifested a faith, prayer,
dependence on the Spirit, etc., which he will find hard to imitate. When,
therefore, he eulogizes the missionaries as “the most
successful preachers who haw lived for he last fifteen hundred years,”
he, without knowing it, includes, of course, the large body of
Pre-Millenarians, who have been so successful in founding, and sustaining
missions, and who showed that faith in taking out a people for His name, faith
in hastening the number of the elect and the subsequent glory, faith in
witnessing for the truth whether successful or not, in performing the allotted
work and last command of the Master, etc., was amply sufficient to cause them
to make the heaviest sacrifices and to accept of the severest self-denial “to save them that believe.” (The reader will compare Propositions 78
and 183.)
OBSERVATION 3. The
eschatology in systems of belief, which rejects this future conversion of the
Jews - as e.g. in Millerism, Second Adventism, Seventh-Day Adventism,
Anti-Millennial, etc. - is most certainly defective. It is alike derogatory to
the Word which plainly predicts it, to the completeness of salvation which
requires it, and to the honour and glory of the Redeemer which, in view of the
promises associated with the same, demands it. Fettered by their Kingdom
theory, or by a class of passages disclosed from their dispensational
connection, they see no place for such a Millennium as the
Scriptures present, in which the nations are brought into subjection to the
Messiah’s reign and saints’ rule. Some even take the Millennial predictions, interwoven with the perpetuation
and subjection of the race, which describe an era of blessedness here, on the
earth, and without the least authority transfer the whole to the third heaven.
This is a most arbitrary way in disposing of Scripture, and indicates clearly
that the central doctrine of the Kingdom is entirely misapprehended.
Under various Propositions
these views are presented in detail, and require no special refutation. The
argument alleged (as e.g. by Waggoner,
Ref. of Age to
Come) against the conversion of the world after the Advent derived
from the nature and expressions of Revelation designed for the present
dispensation (such as “the narrow way,” “come out of tribulation,” “some
shall only believe,” etc.) is exceedingly weak and imperfect
(inferential, and wrong in the same) against the impregnable covenants,
postponement of the Kingdom, the perpetuation of the race, the age to come,
etc. Such writers mistake the Kingdom, the relation of the Jewish nation to it,
and various other considerations, which we present in their logical connection,
exhibiting the scriptural basis supporting the same. Such Propositions as relate to the
events associated with the following, the Second Advent, and show that the
covenants, both Abrahamic and Davidic, are unmistakably fulfilled in their
plain grammatical sense, that ages follow this one, that the race is
perpetuated, that Revelation will be continued, that all the forfeited
blessings and not merely a part are restored, etc. - cannot he set aside by
mere inference and an ignoring of Scripture; for over against the denial of
such a future conversion we have God’s promises fortified by oath. This
doctrine is not man’s but is given by God, having reference to His own glory,
and must be received by accepting of, and comparing, all Scripture on the
subject.
OBSERVATION
4. We make the conversion of the world, when it does occur, a sublimer, more enduring and exalted
transaction than that proposed by other [Page 213] theories. Instead of making it a mere
Constantinean era or a Gospel dispensation, or one in which Antichrist and
wicked confederations exist, or one of a mixed condition subject to the curse,
etc., we, under the direct auspices of Christ and His co-rulers, and with the wonder-working
aid of the Holy Spirit, have the age ushered in, and continued on, realising in
all its fulness the ample and complete fulfilment of the Millennial prophecies,
just
as they read, embracing a
world-wide dominion and the richest, blessings. While this, at the close of the
thousand years, gives place to a brief rebellion, yet this dominion, this
subjection of the nations, this supreme acknowledgment of the King, is ever
afterward secured.
The history of man in epochal or dispensational endings, as the
Edenic, Antediluvian, Patriarchal, Mosaic, Personal Messianic, of the past, and
of the present Christian as delineated e.g. in Revelation,
conclusively shows that just such a dispensation, embracing the Personal rule
of Jesus and the saints, as we advocate, is needed to bring about this
submission and allegiance of the nations. This is confirmed by the plain
scriptural statements and the conclusion can only be avoided by displacing or
denying the Advent itself, or by dislocating passages which are united, or by
applying to one dispensation things which belong to another, or by bestowing
upon the Gentiles that which exclusively belong to the Jews. We freely admit
that to obtain a proper, consistent knowledge of the subject, a study of the
Scriptures is required. The importance of it, and its bearing (as we have
repeatedly shown) on related subjects, especially demands such a study from the
ministry, who are supposed to be leaders in teaching Scripture doctrine. A professed
ignorance is culpable; a false modesty under the assumption of a clear logical
announcement by the [Holy] Spirit being a felt want, is a reflection upon the divine teaching. Such
utterances as the following, eagerly seized and paraded by our opponents, are
to be regretted: The
Christian Union (Sept. 19th, 1877) compliments the “good sense from Mr. Spurgeon on the Second Advent,”
by quoting him as saying: “The more I read the
Scriptures as to the future, the less I am able to dogmatize. I see of the conversion of the world, and
the Personal Pre-Millennial reign, and the sudden Coming, and the judgment, and
several other grand points, but I cannot put them in order, nor has any one
else done so yet.” We have only to say that if this is Spurgeon’s
utterance, (1) it is not flattering
to his many utterances where he presents an order; (2) it is contradictory, as e.g. in asserting a Personal
Pre-Millennial reign which involves, of necessity, an order; (3) it indicates a lack of special
attention to the covenants; (4) it
implies that on great leading subjects which ministers are expressly to teach,
they are purposely left in ignorance; (5)
it ignores the labours of others, as e.g. that of the early Church (which had
an order in Eschatology), and will not allow to them that which he himself has
not done; (6) it is misleading,
since (aside from minor details) the Scriptures do give a complete and
harmonious order of the things referred to by him; (7) it deters others from the subject under the false idea that if he,
so great and popular a minister, has failed to make out an order, others cannot
do it, when truth is, as his works abundantly evidence, that, able and useful
as he has been, Pre-Millennial in tendency as various utterances show, he has a
defective and contradictory Eschatology, the radical defect of which is that it
is not rooted and grounded in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants,
but sustains itself by a commingling of literal and spiritualistic
interpretations.
OBSERVATION
5. The position that
we thus occupy is a sufficient answer to those who declare that we dishonour
the [Holy] Spirit by not admitting that the work
of universal conversion will be performed in this dispensation. For we honour the Spirit in first receiving what He
has said on the subject, and, secondly, in showing that His work will
be accomplished more fully and perfectly in the age to come than, as our
opponents are willing to admit, it will be in this age. He is now doing His
work in the process of gathering a people for God, and this, we contend, is
only the
earnest of a greater still to come. (Compare Proposition 171.) May we say to
our opposers that, peradventure, in their efforts to glorify the [Holy] Spirit, they may, unconsciously,
dishonour the Lord Jesus, for as one (Dr.
Cummings) has well said: “The Spirit is not
[Page 214] a substitute for Jesus.” The
Spirit points us to the Christ and teaches us what to await for at His Coming,
and in
implicit trust our hearts accept of the same.
In view of our doctrines respecting
the conversion of the world, the Kingdom of Christ, etc., we are unjustly
accused as “traitors to the Church,” or, at
least, of taking “little interest in her welfare.”
While this is effectually disproved by the zeal, laborious lives, missionary
spirit, martyrdom, sacrifices of thousands of Chiliasts in the past, and by the
fact that our belief, if properly apprehended in their logical connection,
immeasurably exalts the Kingdom of Jesus and increases the number of the ultimate
converted (saving not merely the fragments of a race, but finally the race
itself), yet it may be said that such a charge
is by no means new or strange. When men, accepting of God’s Word, deal in
unwelcome truths, they are thus characterized. Dealing in prophecy, Isaiah and other teachers were branded
as traitors to God’s people. When e.g. Jeremiah
(chapter 27) insisted, in accordance with
the predictions of God, that the Jews should, in order to obtain quiet, submit
to the King of Babylon, he was regarded as unfaithful and a visionary. The
gravest suspicions were entertained concerning him, which finally resulted even
in his imprisonment. Still relying on the
prophetic Word, he declared his faith in the [Holy] Spirit’s predictions, and that safety
and peace depended on the reception of these truths, however unpalatable or
unseemly they were to the masses. The result proved, in the safety of believers
and in the destruction of the [disobedient] unbelievers, that the estimate formed
respecting the prophet and God’s predictions were not only unworthy of faith in
God, but dangerous to those who were faithless. Thus it ever has been. Had the
Church heeded the warnings given by prophecy, many and great evils would have
been averted. Blinded, however, by a worldly policy, guided by human wisdom,
she has been flooded with error and crippled by submission to human inventions
and power. Even to-day, when men arise and point us to the prophetic Word with
warnings of danger, persecution, judgment and bloodshed still in the future,
and per-adventure not very distant, multitudes arise in antagonism, and brand
them as Jeremiah was branded, and would, if they dared, proceed to severer
measures. “Heretics,” and “fanatics” are but mild terms in comparison with some
that have caught the writer’s eye. Threats of Church trial and excommunication
are freely made. Men, too of acknowledged ability and learning, cater to this
opposition by deliberately showing from reason, false philosophy, and wrested
Scripture that such danger does not exist. The plain unvarnished statements of
God’s Word are frivolously set aside, and all events in the future relating to
the Church are prosperously arranged to suit their own ideas of the fitness of
things, or what they deem proper to exist under the moral government of God.
Accepting a portion of the truth and ignoring a larger portion, they bend it in
a manner to accommodate their favourite system of divinity. Such works its Harris’s Great Commission (judged worthy of
a prize of two hundred guineas), filled with illogical and unscriptural
conclusions, are favourites, predicting that which is pleasing to human nature.
We are censured because we condemn that which is exceedingly misleading and
attributes to the Church that which is the work of Jesus after His Second
Coming.
OBSERVATION
6. Our doctrine
making no imperfect conversion of the world, but allying with it a restoration
to a former Paradisiacal condition, augments the glory of the Redeemer.
It gives Him no hesitating, or even general, possession of the world, but an
entire possession. It gives
Him no world still groaning under the works of the devil, and feeling the
direful effects of a constant pervading curse, but a world out of which all
evil shall be rooted, in which the
works of the devil are destroyed, the curse repealed, all things restored and
made new. Our view, therefore, is far from being, as alleged, “derogatory to the power of God and of the Holy Ghost,”
and “a lowering of Christ,” because it demands
and exalts this power and Christship. We honour the same now in the measure
hitherto graciously experienced, but we look for far more in that which is yet
to be realised, and to a degree, so
vast in extent, by manifestations of power, of royalty, of the supernatural,
that our opponents dare not venture to assume. Our whole trust is in the
revealed and abiding Theocratic Ruler, the mighty Restorer.
[Page 215]
When the Theocratic ordering is in
full sway, then this will be forcibly realized. To this period belong such
passages as the following: Ps. 22: 27, 28, “All the ends of the world
shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and
all the Kindreds of the nations shall
worship before thee. For the Kingdom is the Lord’s; and He is the Governor among the nations.” Ps. 9: 1-8; Ps. 21: 7-13, etc..
OBSERVATION 7. Our doctrine makes the saints, [who will be]* ‘counted worthy’ to inherit the Kingdom with David’s Son,
happy participants in this process of converting the nations of the earth. This
opens before us a bright and beautiful aspect of saintly agency in the
future, when “the elect” are manifested as the
revealed kings and priests of the earth.
[* That is, after “the
First Resurrection” (Rev. 20: 5,ff. cf.
Luke 20: 35;
Phil. 3: 11, etc.]
The reader will find this feature
extended in detail, with Scripture Proof, under Propositions 154 and 156.
It is delightful to contemplate, that we who are the redeemed “first-fruits,” shall be able practically to manifest
our supreme love to God by bringing others to experience its blessings in
acknowledgment of the supremacy and majesty of the King.
OBSERVATION 8. Our
doctrine of the conversion of the world coincides with the general tenor of the
Word, seeing that nowhere do we find the language and appeals so prevailing in
modern addresses, sermons, and books pervaded by the spirit of the Whitbyan theory. The Apostles, the
first preachers and missionaries nowhere encourage the
One of the indirect, but most powerful, evidences of the divine
inspiration of the Scripture is found in the fact that nowhere do we find those
eulogistic descriptions of “the triumph of the Gospel
in subduing the world” which now so largely adorn the eloquence of Whitbyan missionary discourses. Nothing
of the kind is exhibited even when reference is made to the rapid extension of the
preached Word over the then known world, for the [Holy] Spirit evidently foresaw, what history testifies to, the
ultimate overthrow and fallen condition of the churches, then so widely
extended. If the hopes and efforts of believers are to be quickened by such
appeals - as men now say - why were they not given at a time when Christians endured the
severest trials from a persecuting
OBSERVATION
9. This doctrine of
ours prominently holds forth, as a cardinal point, the design of the present
dispensation, and insists upon it that wherever the design is specifically
mentioned, it is “to gather out a people for His name,” “to
save them that believe,” or to bring appropriated salvation to “the few” in contrast to “the
many” who reject it - a process which has been going on uninterruptedly
for eighteen centuries.
In direct contrast with this biblical teaching, eminent and
eloquent men teach that its design is the reverse, viz., to gather all people,
to save the many, to convert all nations. Take e.g. Castellar in Old
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 217]
PROPOSITION 177
This doctrine of the Kingdom will not
be received,
in faith, by the Church, as a body.
This distinctly announced in the declarations pertaining to the period immediately
preceding the Advent. The
Church, instead of developing into that condition of knowledge and faith which so
many writers confidently predict, is represented as occupying a position the
very opposite, Jesus significantly (Luke 18:
8) asks: “When the Son of man cometh shall He find faith (the faith) on the earth? i.e. will the Church be in such
a condition of trial, of testing that it will fail to exercise faith in the
very provision made for deliverance?* Faith in a variety of things may indeed be found, but
will it believe in and pray for that “Blessed hope”
which
alone can bring in glorious [and future] salvation?
* Dr. Rutter (Roman Catholic), in his Life of Jesus,
p. 357, on Luke 18: 8
remarks, that at “the latter end of the world the
faithful shall he oppressed by all manner of persecutions,” and adds: “An expression descriptive of the extreme rarity of that
perfect faith which is necessary to perseverance in prayer. In effect, if we
are to judge from the present state of opinionated infidelity in the world, and
from the seeming indifference with which many Christians consider the great
duty of prayer, is there not reason to fear that mankind are fast approaching
to that general apostasy from the faith here foretold by our blessed Redeemer?”
So Lange, and many others, properly
apply this to the Second Coming of Jesus, and the period immediately preceding
and connected with, that Coming. The lack of faith, as the connection demands,
is not simply a denial of the Messiah, but a refusal to believe in Him as
Coming “speedily” to avenge and deliver His own
elect. The question itself, the expressive “ara, indeed,” the analogy of other Scripture, express a
diminution or falling away of faith. Faith has not entirely ceased (for His
elect cry to Him to come), but will be greatly diminished, and that just
previous to His parousia.
OBSERVATION
1. The reply is found
in various predictions. Even the parable of the ten virgins, united as it is by
the word “then” with the time of the Second
Advent, plainly teaches us how the ignoring of the Coming of the King affects
not merely the foolish (i. e. the unprepared), but
even the wise (i.e. those otherwise morally qualified); and this state arises
from a want of faith in “the things
concerning the Kingdom”; seeing that a proper conception of
the Theocratic Kingdom, as still future, and an understanding of the manner of
its re-establishment could not possibly bring them into the situation assigned.
A believer in the Kingdom, as covenanted,
predicted, preached, postponed, connected with the Second Advent, etc., in the
very nature of the case occupies the position of the
Well may we ask those faithless ones who will not believe in
the personal Advent of Jesus and His reign with His saints on earth, to look at
the First Advent. Is our doctrine more astounding or more testing to faith and
reason than that God should humble Himself in the child Jesus, that this
Messiah should suffer and die? Our doctrine has nothing so amazing, nothing so
humiliating, and consequently those who accept of the facts of the First Advent
are inexcusable when they refuse credence to the alleged facts of the Second,
when all the latter speak of a coming honour, dominion, and glory.
OBSERVATION 2. Believers in the Word ought to be startled by the solemn, most
terrible descriptions of the state of the whole world, as found in
the context and text of
Millennial predictions. The
fearful strife, and antagonism with the doom annexed, is stated to arise from “a gross darkness”
of God’s truth. Take even that
splendid prediction of Isa. 60, and when the ‘glory of the Lord’ comes (which cannot be
confined to the First Advent as the context and parallel passages show) it
is added: “Behold, the
darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the people.” The
mighty confederation of wickedness, the
utterly subdued condition of the few faithful ones, the warnings of sore trial, tribulation given to the Church and
exhortations to be faithful, etc., evidence the extent and the time of this darkness. Such a state of darkness, of unbelief in God’s way of procedure, etc., cannot
be suddenly produced; it takes time and in view of the intellectual and moral
nature of man must call to its aid reasoning, eloquence, and
eminent ability. The
opposition that Jesus meets at His Coming, an
opposition already previously organized and terrible in persecution, is of
such a nature that it cannot arise without a long introductory process. Now it
is not only infidels and
semi-believers who prepare the way for the final culmination of unbelief, but men whose piety and integrity (wise
virgins) we, would not for a moment
question; men of great learning whom
we highly esteem for the knowledge imparted on many subjects, [even regenerate] men whose praise is deservedly high in the Church, are also engaged, whether consciously or not,
in producing this unfaithless condition. They by
their spiritualizing system are
bountifully sowing the seeds which will surely spring up into
an
abundant harvest of unbelief. The
first-fruits of it are already beginning to appear - [how much more visible today since
this writing was initially produced] - in the scientific and
intellectual world; the dreadful harvest is still future. It is saddening to read works,
written by talented and good men and containing much that is excellent, which
endeavour to explain away some of the most precious truths and the most
terrible realities, either by confining themselves to one portion of the Word
and ignoring another (thus violating the unity of Scripture); or, by engrafting
another sense not recognized by the laws of language (thus without proof making
the Bible an exception to such laws); or, by regarding the [prophetic] things predicted, etc., as
exaggerated expressions induced by the state of mind in which the writer then
was (thus making the communication a human instead of a divine one through
human instrumentality); or by [Page 219] assuming that due allowance must be
made for the elevated style of poetry, the vivid imagination, and fanciful
language of the Oriental mind (thus ascribing its utterances to human origin);
or, by declaring that all things must be received and explained according to
the teaching of present reason and experience (thus setting up within
themselves the standard by which the Word is to be measured and overlooking
that many things relating to the past and future are beyond present personal
experience), etc. It is not merely the destructive critic like Strauss, Bauer, or Renan, who
undermines the authority of the Bible, but multitudes who would shrink from
such a charge, are virtually doing it by the principles of interpretation
adopted, the doctrine of the Kingdom received, etc., which, when contrasted
with the teachings of the Book and reception of the truth by those who had the
special privilege of being taught by the Apostles and their intimate
successors, lead to a proclamation of a “Gospel of the Kingdom” widely
different from that contained
in the Bible and the early Church. Multitudes, who are no professed
unbelievers, reject the plain, contained grammatical sense, and insist upon
giving a sense which shall harmonise with their own ideas of the fitness of things, thus paving the way for unbelieving
license, forging the weapons for unbelief, and preventing the use of a
consistent, manly Apologetics. Numerous works are issued from the press which
swell the unbelieving ranks and sustain the unbelieving attacks upon the
primitive Church, by openly and directly ridiculing the early hope of the Church
in its view of the
The latter class of writings are to be
found in reviews, periodicals, etc. Works written by talented and pious authors
of this class are painfully illustrated in Dr.
Brown’s Christ’s
Second Advent not Pre-millennial, etc. Reverences under various
propositions are made to others, but these will suffice to indicate the talent
thus directed to an overthrow of the
primitive and commanded posture of faith and watching. Multitudes of works take
passages directly referring to the Second Advent and deliberately pervert their
designed teaching, as e.g. illustrated in Jay
(Exercises,
vol. 2. p. 24), who interprets Mark
13: 33, “Take ye
heed, watch and pray: for
ye know not when the time is,” by no reference whatever to
the time stated in the context, but informs his readers that it relates (1) to the time of duty, (2) the time of danger, (3) the time of trouble, (4) the time of death. Alas! Ten
thousand thousand just as fanciful applications are
given in the present religious literature.
[Page 220]
OBSERVATION 3. This want of faith, is also caused by reason wrongfully
rejecting the past and the future of this Kingdom. In reference to the past, it
forgets the primary step of noticing when it was established, how it progressed and incorporated the
Davidic line, why it was
overthrown, and how constantly the [Divine] Prophets predicted its (same Kingdom) restoration in a glorious form under the Messiah, and in immediate relationship with the
Jewish nation. It closes its eyes
against the preaching of this identical Kingdom (indisputably proven, see e.g. Propositions 70-75),
and the valid reasons assigned for its postponement until the times of
the Gentiles are ended. The past, even in its naked historical connection,
is not received, but in place of it
reason is put under the guidance of an Origenistic
rule of interpretation which makes the Old Testament say one thing respecting
the Kingdom but mean another; and which causes the
Prophets to predict, in the grammatical sense, one thing (believed in by the ancients)
concerning the Kingdom but which must be understood differently. Again, in reference to the future, this Kingdom being still the subject of prediction
and promise, and hence must be received
by faith (for all that we can possibly know of its re-establishment is only
found in the Word), we have eminent writers objecting to the reception of the
plain grammatical meaning of the promises precisely on the same ground occupied
by the most ultra unbelief, viz., that it brings forth too much of the Supernatural
element. Reason they tell us cannot accept of this doctrine, for it is
not credible that such occurrences as are related to the restoration of the
Kingdom can possibly take place. Fully indorsing (as we have shown in the
previous Proposition)
Dr. Alexander’s saying (Evidence of
Christianity, p. 10) that “truth and reason
are so intimately connected that they can never with propriety be separated,”
yet at the same time things which refer to the future must be accepted solely
because God announces them, and their reasonableness must be observed by the connection which they sustain
to the Divine Purpose, to the divine ability to perform, and to the necessity
of their occurring in order to fulfil God’s prophets, and to secure redemption
in the form needed by the world. In relation to things still future, it is to
be regretted that the leaven of infidelity has pervaded the Church to such an
extent that in this particular, many exalt reason above faith. While
reason has its appropriate sphere in the investigation of truth, and is
necessarily allied with faith, yet in things pertaining to futurity we are
entirely dependent for knowledge on Him who is omniscient, and reason
must occupy a subordinate place, willing to accept of and to be guided by
divine revelation. It is sad to reflect that Christians refuse to believe in
the [literal] fulfilment of prophecy, in its true
grammatical sense, in this [coming
Messianic] Kingdom, because in their estimation it involves a
mode of procedure which seems to them incredible and contrary to the
nature of things. Having already met the objection urged by reason against the
Supernatural and miraculous, it is sufficient to direct such a class to the
fact that in no other way is it possible to fulfil the
Millennial descriptions. How can the curse be repealed; how can death be overcome; how can all the fearful evils pertaining to man and nature be removed; how
can the unspeakably great blessings be obtained: all of which are to be
realized in this Kingdom under Messiah’s reign, without a mighty display of
Supernatural power beyond
anything that the world has ever
witnessed, and beyond the understanding of weak, mortal man with his limited
powers. If there is a truth conspicuously displayed in Holy Writ, it is, that
this Kingdom, the tabernacle of David now in ruins but then gloriously rebuilt [Page 221] under David’s Son, cannot be manifested without the most wonderful display
of Almighty energy. Strange to say,
many who refuse. credence in this kingdom and ridicule it, are willing to
accept of the Supernatural in the birth of Isaac and of Christ, of the miracles
of the Old and New Testaments, but unwilling to accept of the Supernatural and
miraculous pertaining to this kingdom. From whence springs this reluctance
which involves an inconsistency of position? Do they simply believe the former
because the past is fulfilled and has become history, and do they reject the
latter because being unfulfilled it is an
open question whether it ever will be in the manner grammatically expressed? Is
this trust in the Word of the Lord?
Is it reasonable, seeing that faith in the past
fulfilment is based on the same antecedently given Word, and should lead to
implicit and extended faith in the things relating to the future. How
painful it is to find e.g. such a talented writer as Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 820. etc.) tell us respecting Zech. 12, that
God’s providence with the Jews has rendered the fulfilment of the prediction “manifestly impossible,” and that “it does violence to reason” to expect a restoration of the families indicated
by the prophecy. And this from one who believes that (as recorded Matt. 3: 9) God would have been able, if requisite, “of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”
The same line of reasoning would hold equally good in the case of Sarah, of the
Virgin Mary, etc. No! with belief in the truthfulness and Almighty power of
God, as evidenced in the past astonishing provisions for carrying out a
definitely stated Divine Plan, we can surely stay ourselves in
faith, that the same power - which now so amazingly for over eighteen hundred years
preserves the Jewish nation (as Moses thousands of years ago foretold), and
keeps Jerusalem itself (as Jesus predicted) under continued Gentile rule - will
be equal to the fulfilment of every prediction. Such lack of faith, such a process of reasoning is dangerous; for
it invalidates whatever apologies or accommodations may be presented to excuse
the non-fulfilment, the truthfulness of the Word, and brings it down to a human
level. Numerous illustrations might be adduced of this method of dealing with
the Word, of receiving just as much as suits the taste, opinions, system, etc.
of the interpreter, or of explaining it most arbitrarily to accommodate it in
some way with a theory. In the eagerness to maintain the position of an
advocate, seeing how largely this Kingdom and relates to the future and is
consequently the subject of prophecy, one of the most prominent of our
opponents (Dr. Brown, Christ’s Second
Coming, p. 60) lays down the faithless principle “that doctrines are not to built upon prophetic or symbolical
Scripture” calling it
“an old maxim in divinity.” He thus perverts
the old maxim, “Theologia proplictica non est argamentiva”
(prophetic theology is not argumentative), which confirms our position
that we are to receive the specific
announcements of prophecy respecting the future as given by God and beyond our power to discern; and he rejects by
its one-sided adoption, if logically carried out, some of the most precious
doctrines pertaining to Redemption, as the Second Advent, resurrection, reign,
glory, inheritance of the saints, renewal of the earth, etc., all
of which are subjects of prophecy. While this is so, yet in relation to the [coming of Messiah’s] Kingdom itself and the Advent which is to introduce it, reason, if it
desires to know something of the expediency and reasonableness of the
establishment of such a Kingdom under David’s Son, will fall back upon the
preliminarily given Theocracy, study
its nature, design, connections, and then regard the utterances of the Prophets
in the [Page 222] light of the
Divine Purpose previously indicated
and determined. Prophecy thus finds itself confirmed by a
solid foundation of noteworthy facts, which calls for unbounded faith
in the things still future. Past and present fulfilment, in behalf of a
divinely ordained Plan, insures future fulfilment in the interest of the same
purpose, and hence the extraordinary consistency (flow by many called “weakness”) of the early Church in its belief based
upon a union of reason and faith, of knowledge and trust.
In the attacks upon us, the foundations upon which our system of
faith is based are entirely ignored, and the early Church view is explained
away as the result of enthusiasm. Thus e.g. Prof, Hopkins in the New York Evangelist, Feb. 6th, 1879, has the “Historical conditions of the Second Advent enthusiasm”
and attributes Pre-Millennial views to the conditions of society and of nations
in the recurrence of natural phenomena, political disturbances, revolutions,
etc. (and in his eagerness to make out a case, actually introduces the views of Post - Millenarians as
identical with ours - thus showing that he never studied the subject). The
spirit of the writer is self-evident; for passing by the Scripture teaching
respecting our doctrine and posture of waiting,
he claims that it is merely enthusiasm excited by the phenomena and disorders
mentioned, and concludes by pronouncing the Prophetic Conference, held at New
York in Dr. Tyng’s
church, “an assembly of heated enthusiasts,”
who expected the Coming of the Lord as “imminent;”
and to give his defamatory opinion some kind of it scriptural aspect, he places
the restoration of the Jews as a preliminary to the Second Advent and asserts
that it will require “several centuries”
to bring about such it restoration, so that “it is
still true that they (Pre-Millenarians) and all now on earth, who love the Lord Jesus,
will have been many years in Paradise before that great and notable day of the
Lord come” - extending its delay “through the
coming ages.” How reconcile this with the commanded posture of
watching? Is this not expressly teaching “My Lord delayeth
His Coming”? Is it not unbelief?
OBSERVATION
4. The Old and New
Testaments describe the same Kingdom - the same Theocratic arrangement under
David’s Son. All the writers, separated by centuries, independent of each other,
residing in various countries but still under the influence of the same [Holy] Spirit, locate this Kingdom in the
future, link it with the Second Advent, and agree in portraying its
distinguishing peculiarities and blessings. In a comparison of their writings,
entering, even into details, there is no contradiction between them. Even the diversity of style, the different modes of
relation and shades of character, only increases the value of the testimony,
indicating an essential quality in witnesses, that of entire independence from
others in giving evidence. The disagreement is found in the interpreters and not
in the writers of the Bible: for the latter all start from the same
point, holding up the same covenant as an everlasting one under which we receive
the promises, and all declare the same provisionary and preparatory process, and
all
insist upon the same literal fulfilment. Harmony of design, unity of purpose is
seen throughout their writings, but only so long - as the infidel even has
forcibly stated and proven - as the plain grammatical sense is retained.
Forsake this sense, find then, notwithstanding all the protests to the
contrary, this harmony is violated, this unity is destroyed to the
confirmation of unbelief. If, as multitudes do, we reject the literal and
engraft a spiritual meaning, foreign to the common usage of language, it may
well be asked how it comes that all the writers employ language which in its
literal adaptation distinctly
teaches the Kingdom that we advocate: and that they did not use the language,
ideas and reasonings now so prevalent and first
introduced about the third century. Why this disruption of marvellous unity? Is
it really necessary for the sake of the truth that such a transformation of meaning
- so hostile to these “Jewish conceptions” - [Page 223] spring up and be cherished in “the consciousness of the Church?”
Is it requisite that such an antagonism should exist
between the plain language of the Bible and that of the dominant Theology? No!
never, for this would at once argue imperfection in God’s Word, a mere accommodation to human weakness, and that
He, the God of all truth, purposely led a host of believing people (both Jews
and Christians) into gross error pertaining
to the leading doctrine of the Bible. Before such a meaning can be adopted, it
must be shown that God Himself directed
such a transformation of the import and signification of language; that He
cancelled the covenant made
with David and the elect position of the Jewish nation; that He recalled the predictions of prophets, and that
He altered the Divine Plan originally proposed. When we ask why this introduction of a sense so
radically diverse from that entertained for thousands of years (and which, the
latter, was a source of confident hope and joy to so many believers), the
answer is given, that as the Kingdom as
predicted by the prophets was not literally established at the First Advent,
the Christian Church being then instituted, the Church must be the Kingdom intended. Upon this presumption
- seized and used against Christianity by the destructive School - the
superstructure of a Kingdom now present is reared, and the language of
covenant, prophet, Jesus, and Apostle is spiritualised to fit the assumed theory.
And in the contest it is strange to find that men materially differing in the
use they make of it (as e.g. the author of Ecce Homo on the one side, and the writer of Ecce Deus
on the other) still agree in taking for granted a premise utterly unproven, actually resisted by the Word, and
which in its nature and tendency makes the Scriptures and Theology
irreconcilable. Did the Jewish nation obey the condition of repentance upon which the Kingdom was offered to them? Did the disciples
preach a Kingdom which was, in their ignorance, “a mere
chimera?” Did Jesus predict the continued desolation of the
Kingdom until His return? These and numerous other questions suggested
by our previous
Propositions must first be reasonably scripturally answered before
the far-reaching and destructive premise, now so confidently paraded and
intrenched in the Church, can be received by the careful student of God’s Word.
With such a sandy foundation to stand on with conclusions drawn from false construction
of the leading doctrine of the Bible: with a host of inferences derived from
such a source making the faith of pious Jews, of John the Baptist: of the
disciples of Jesus, misconceptions of the real truth - need we be surprised at the
want of faith in this [coming Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom of the Messiah. A most
fruitful source of infidelity in Church and world is the making the Church the
predicted
The duke, whose language has been
unduly censured, evidently bases his utterance upon the palpable differences now existing between the prevailing
theology of the day and the belief once so prevalent in the early Church. The
degree of certainty that we now possess is solely derived from the
grammatical sense of the
Scriptures, and so long as there is a continued rejection of this sense and the
substitution of others, just so long will uncertainty continue
and increase. We believe the Word because the astonishing Plan, so well adapted
to secure the redemption of the world, has been all along verified by facts,
attested by history and the experience of man, just as they stand recorded. The doctrine of the Kingdom, being the
burden of the Word and including the blessings of salvation, is no exception to
such faith, as is shown by past and present fulfilments and provisions. To
exercise no faith in a Kingdom once firmly believed in by saints and proclaimed
by them under divine sanction, is at once, with the weak and often
contradictory reasons assigned, sufficient cause to many for denying
the authority of the Scriptures. The large body of the Church is occupying this
very position: the Kingdom believed in and so highly eulogized is, the
direct opposite of that once
universally received by the faith of the Church. The predictions, therefore,
which intimate such a change of faith in the Church are rapidly verifying before our eyes, and correspondingly
no interest is felt in the Advent of the great King by whom this
Kingdom is to be re-established. The extravagant claims set up for the Church
as the Kingdom is bearing its fruit in the denial of the blessed covenanted
Kingdom of David’s Son, under
the mistaken notion that by so doing they really honour the Son. But no one who
ventures upon such a method has been able to designate in what particulars this
supposed Kingdom meets the requirements of the covenant which specifies the
Theocratic throne and Kingdom of David as the one denoted, excepting only by
employing the most arbitrary exposition which by acceptance degrades the
ancient faith to the lowest level of error and fanaticism.
[Page 225]
One reason for this lack of faith in
the Church results from eminent divines, who hold to the cardinal outlines of
our doctrine being afraid to express them with a becoming freedom, or giving
but a faint and indistinct utterance, or when declaring their faith
neutralizing the whole by endeavouring to incorporate the leaven or development
theory. From those who ought to give no “uncertain
sound,” we have but vagueness or silence. We could give several striking
illustrations, but, for the sake of others, forbear. To their own
Master they must give account for the influence exerted; but the fear may be stated,
that while the dread of controversy,
antagonism, loss of patronage, etc., causes the adoption of such a procedure, the pleasantness of the present life is no compensation for “the loss” that will be sustained because of a
concealment, or neutralizing
presentation, of truth. The number that occupy this position is not
a small one, and the plea of “prudence” is presented in order to shield themselves
from the charge of not proclaiming these doctrines, and thus warning the Church and world. What weight such a plea will
have with the Judge Himself, we
leave them to estimate after contrasting it with His expressed commands.
OBSERVATION 5. Another serious cause of unbelief in this Kingdom
arises from the infirmity of human nature, its reliance upon authorities
outside of the Bible. With perverted ideas of the real position and design of
the Church and this dispensation, they will accept of the formularies of some
denomination, or the doctrinal basis of some reformer, or the theological
system of some prominent divine or school, and with scholastic dogmatism lay more
stress upon these than upon the
Scriptures (although professing that the same are based on them), and make them
the
standard of appeal and of
faith; and because these ignore the Kingdom, designate it as “Jewish,” and accept of the Church-Kingdom view, they
do the same. Admitting the great value, the priceless influence of many human
compositions, yet in our search after the truth they should not stand between
us and God’s own revelation; for
as the tree, however lovely and fruitful, standing between us and the sun will
cast its shadow, so, more or less, will be the shading, the interception of the
light when humanity, however sincere and honest, is placed between us and the
divine truth. The source of all true knowledge of the Kingdom is found alone
in God’s Word, and to that Word,
if wise and prudent, we should come for instruction and guidance, seeing that
the words of God are weightier and more truthful than those or men, however pious and
learned. Indeed, in not a few cases, the lack of faith can be traced to a
certain disposition of the heart, mentioned by Jesus (John
5: 44), “How can
ye believe, which receive
honour one of another, and seek not the
honour which cometh from God only?” In this day of unbelief and reproach cast upon our doctrine, it
requires courage to oppose the
sweeping popular current of belief on the subject. Especially when a return to
the early Church faith causes the charge of “credulity,”
“fanaticism,” “heresy,”
etc., to come from the multitude, and even from brethren united by the same denominational ties.
How many have had their attention directed to this subject, have promised
investigation, have been persuaded of the truth, but have recoiled, fearful of the loss of reputation, influence, honour, and preferments. No
one, either in this country or in
OBSERVATION 6. Many refuse faith in the doctrine of this [coming Theocratic,
Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom because of the claimed piety,
sanctity, prayerful spirit, gifts of the Holy Ghost, etc., bestowed upon those
who have
turned away from the ancient
belief. Multitudes are swayed by this sentiment, and numerous illustrations
might be adduced where it is gravely
offered as a motive for the rejection of this Kingdom. Alas, history gives but
too many instances which prove that eminent piety, or goodness of heart cannot
be substituted for knowledge, for
it has been too often allied with error (e.g. various denominational doctrines
in direct opposition to each other, etc.), and with severity, injustice, and
persecution (e.g. Luther and Zwingli, Calvin and Servetus,
Knox and Balfour, etc.). If this is to be the criterion of the
doctrine of the Kingdom - while making no claims to extraordinary sanctity, but
realising that after all that we can do we still remain unprofitable servants,
and while making no great professions of humility, seeing that to God we stand
or fall, and that professions are no index of character, yet - we may point to
the faithful believers in this Kingdom who suffered persecution and death, to
the long list of distinguished confessors, etc., who have manifested a
consistency of life, integrity of character, love to God and man, etc., which
has endeared them in the memory of the Church. Without [Page 227] calling into question the undisputed piety of many of our opponents,
without making (although numbering many martyrs among us), martyrdom
illogically a proof of doctrine, without; denying that doctrine and piety ought
to be connected to make the former more efficient, it is sufficient to say that
piety itself may become enlightened by additional truth or become deformed by ignorance and
superstition. More than this: this
claim is often put forth - mere pretension - in behalf of dangerous error and systems the most
antagonistic. We see it existing in
every heresy from the earliest ages down to the present - towering forth in
Roman Catholicism and lifting its head in the latest development of fanaticism
(as e.g. Mormonism) - appealing, in order to gain strength, to a natural,
honourable feeling in man. It is a cheap claim, easily produced, and
if persistently pressed by numerous names and quasi authority, it will impress
the minds not only of the ignorant but even of the learned. While not
disputing, in many cases, the sincerity and honesty of the parties who present
it, yet a dispassionate view both of them and the contradictory results flowing
from them, evidence to us that it is no criterion of the truth, being
frequently imaginary and often designedly - from misconception - advanced to
protect the weakness of a doctrinal position. Gratefully acknowledging the
connection that holiness, prayer, and divine influence with the truth has in
our study of the Bible - that they are necessary to a comprehension of the
whole truth (for the meek He will guide, etc.,) yet we positively object to our
making the experience of man the measure by which we are
authoritatively to judge the Bible. Experience whatever it may be, moral
qualifications however they may aid in understanding the truth, do not and
cannot change the doctrines as contained in Holy Writ. Admitting the
piety and goodness of others, their statements respecting the contents of the
Bible are to be accepted (as e.g. Proposition 11), only in so far as they
accurately and fully correspond with the Book. Hence, e.g. we must reject as
utterly untenable that philosophical gloss which is so boldly and ably
advocated by a class of Apologists (in order to apologise for the early Church
belief against the Rationalistic party), that the real truth respecting the
Kingdom was to be developed “in the consciousness of
the Church.” And again: this is a virtual endorsement of the
semi-infidel and infidel statement that “doctrines are
of little importance if the life is only right.” How can the teaching of
things which God alone knows and therefore reveals, be transformed into truth
by mere human agency; and how important is the most valuable
life in comparison with the Divine Purpose which involves the truthfulness and
honour of God and the glory of His Son? Let to produce unbelief or indifference
to our doctrine, it is asserted by many that it is, in comparison with other
things, unessential and unimportant. The great leading doctrine of the Bible is
thus designated, but only (for their own theories of the kingdom, with varied
meanings and definitions are alleged to be essential and important), to frame
an argument and excite prejudices against us. We freely admit that so far as
the individual personally is concerned, he might know all truth, and yet
without a personal appropriation of the same, it would do him no good. In this
respect, of course, it is more important to experience the power of truth, and
it is precisely for this reason that we also urge others to accept of this
doctrine, because by so doing they increase their own appreciation of God’s
truth, confirm their hope in covenant promises, open the Scriptures to a better
understanding, give due prominency to the Second Advent, encourage themselves to [Page 228] cultivate the Christian graces to secure an inheritance in the Kingdom, accept
it as a motive to patience, mortification, comfort, etc., and place themselves
in the commanded position of servants looking, watching, praying, loving,
desiring the appearing of the King and Kingdom. Alas, how often are we asked, “what is the practical worth of your doctrine,” just
as if God’s utterances are to be measured by man’s practice. Fortunately, even to meet such all
invalid objection, aside from the numerous (see App. to Dr. Seiss’s
Last Times,
ch. 1, sec. 10, for Scripture references), declarations
of its practical value, the very fact that it is pre-eminently designed to
warn and guard us against placing ourselves in the position stated in the Proposition
- this alone is amply sufficient to vindicate its preciousness to the believer.
Can the man who holds firmly to such a Kingdom, himself feel so little interest
in the coming Bridegroom as to fall asleep, to neglect preparation for His coming, to urge others not to expect His Coming,
to tell the world that it is still distant, etc.? Can such an one aid in
advancing unbelief until it finally bursts in fury upon a Church unprepared
for a terrible persecution? The time will surely come when the neglect
of this doctrine will be bitterly regretted. In the mean time, no
effort is spared to make it something of little estimation and even contemptible. Men tell us that, it is not “the Gospel,” and that it ought not to be
preached from the pulpit. Such forget that the Gospel is “the Gospel of the Kingdom;” that the early
preachers as Philip “preached the things concerning the Kingdom;” that all the Apostles proclaimed
the same, so that the
greatest of them (Paul) said: “I have gone
preaching the
OBJECTION
7. What must we say then
to that large class of professed believers, who establish unbelief in
themselves and others by denouncing our doctrine of the Kingdom (under the garb
of superior piety, spirituality, etc.), as “sensual,”
“carnal,” “fleshly,”
etc. Do they not see that by so doing they not only caricature the faith of the early Church at the expense of Christianity, but
direct a deadly blow at the
preaching of the Kingdom as given in the opening of the New Testament by which
the knowledge, integrity, etc., of the first preachers, specially and divinely
sent forth, are sacrificed? A definite Gospel of the Kingdom was proclaimed by John the Baptist, disciples, etc., and
this is the identical Gospel that
we still hold to, sealed and attested by the death and resurrection of Jesus,
confirmed by the predictions of postponement fulfilled before our eyes. Now if
this Gospel of the Kingdom is thus stigmatized, what is it else but denouncing
holy men of old who were specially commissioned to preach it? What is it, but the denouncing
of the faith of saints, who had particular instruction
and divine guidance, and whose message concerning the Kingdom was confirmed by
miraculous power? What must we think of a doctrine of the Kingdom which is
erected only by invalidating the character of the first ministers? It is
amazing, and illustrative of the power of pre-conceived opinion and unrelenting
prejudice, that men of the greatest ability and piety, are engaged in this destructive
work when heaping such terms
upon us. If Jesus, as He Himself states, was sent to preach the Kingdom and
preached it through His disciples; if the good things, predicted by the
prophets are contained in the Kingdom thus forming “the
good news of the Kingdom,” let such before they censure us, or refuse to
believe explain how it comes that all at that
period held to the Kingdom as expressed in the grammatical sense of the Old
Testament, and that [Page 230] such a belief continued to exist
uninterruptedly for centuries? When this explanation is rationally given
without reflecting upon God who gives the Gospel and commands all men to
receive it (which can only be just if the sense alluded to is the true one),
without calling into question the respect and reverence due to persons who
ought to have known what they preached, then it will be time to sit in
condemnatory judgment over us.
Considering the foundation of our doctrine, established upon the plain
grammatical sense of covenant and
prophets, the consistent historical account of the Theocratic order, the belief
and preaching of the early Church, those men (accepting the Bible) certainly
assume a heavy responsibility who speak and write concerning it so
disrespectfully and reproachfully.* What if it should
after all be God’s own arrangement - as we have shown it is - how can they
excuse the terms of dishonour heaped
upon His own Divine Plan? Surely prudence, if nothing higher, should cause such
to avoid offensive epithets (which are always indications of weakness and lack
of solid argument) to a doctrine thus contained (in the sense we maintain and
admitted even by our opponents), in the Bible, and once the faith and hope of
the churches, lest peradventure they may be found resisting the truth of
God. The sarcasms against “the Jewish,” “degrading,” “worldly”
faith of the
* Whatever views are entertained
respecting the Kingdom, one thing must be self-evident to the reflecting mind,
viz., that because, as our leading critics freely admit, however they may
explain or apologize for it, the literal sense does teach the Kingdom and the
Advent ushering it in, etc., it is the part of prudence not to stigmatize it as “carnal,” etc. Suppose it is spiritual and that
another sense is to be received, then this even is derogatory to the Word
giving it “a carnal” element, etc. But suppose the
Kingdom is as we represent it, and as many eminent and pious men have held,
then, there evidently will be a disparaging of God’s own appointments, a
deriding of our [promised and potential (i.e. conditional Eph. 5: 5)] inheritance and the things pertaining to the [coming] glory of Jesus Christ. Prudence in
view of the language, suggests carefulness. We fear that many who professed
themselves to have been called to preach “the Gospel of the Kingdom,” will ultimately
find themselves to have preached “another Gospel,”
mere human opinions.
** Some recent writers, seeing the inconsistency involved in a
wholesale, condemnation of our doctrine, make concessions that are favourable
in so far as a Churchly position is concerned. Thus Dr. Patterson (Princeton Review, 1878) in an art. against us,
concedes that it is not “heresy,” indorsing the
following: “This doctrine (says the latest Church
History that has come into our hands) though ultimately rejected by the Roman
Catholic Church, was too frequently held by the early Fathers to be ranked as a
heresy.” (Comp. our Propositions on the history of the doctrine, 70-78.)
OBSERVATION 8. But to insure the demolition of our doctrine, to make it
unpalatable to others, argument is laid aside and recourse is had to personal
abuse. We are sorry even to be compelled to notice these attacks, but
since the most eminent and pious men, through weakness, have in standard works,
histories, etc., referred to us as “weak,” “unbalanced,” “credulous,”
“fanatical,” etc., and have linked us with Cerinthus, Montanus, Anabaptists, etc., it is proper to indicate it as a
fruitful source of unbelief. For multitudes who cannot be reached by an
argument appealing to reason, will permit themselves to be influenced by invectives. When, e.g. the author just alluded to,
Prof. Garbett
says of our doctrine, “few opinions have in
feeble minds, created more extravagance, or even in our own time taken
more unhappy possession of powerful though unregulated intellects;” - this
is remembered against us while the antidote given by the same writer -
when he says of our theory that it “has always had and
now has sober and learned advocates - pious ones it has never wanted; and
antiquity it may certainly plead,”
etc. - is forgotten.
* Thomas Harley
said: “Among the many arts practised in order to bring
any truth into discredit, none is more popular than that of exhibiting it to
public view joined with the absurd tenets of some that have espoused it, and
which is not improperly called dressing up truth in a fool’s coat on purpose
to make it ridiculous; and this often succeeds with the undiscerning vulgar, who
judge only from the outward appearance of things.” Dr. Seiss, who quotes Harley,
justly adds (p. 338 Last Times): “It is this
art which has been practised for the most part by the enemies of Millenarian doctrine,
and that, too, with a goodly degree of success. It is to be hoped that the time
is at hand when men will deal with the subject with some degree of that candour
which it really deserves.”
Such candour is manifested by a few learned opponents, but we cannot, judging
human nature from the past, expect it to be largely adopted. For so bitter and unrelenting is the
feeling against us in some quarters that every advantage, however illogical and unworthy, is taken against us. Such
are even more autocratic in their reception of us than Louis XIV, was in his court. The spirit of Dr. Schellwig (Quart Review, Ap.
1874), a Professor in Rostock, discussing the
question whether Spener
was saved and deciding negatively, is still transmitted (as well as that of the
Faculty of Wittenberg in 1695 publishing a tract in which Spencer was charged with two hundred and eighty-three errors) and
as lynx-eyed. May we add that the false attempts made respecting others reminds
one of the “Death-Blow to Corrupt Doctrines,”
published by the Chinese, and noticed in the Dublin University Magazine for
1872, and republished in Litell’s Liv. Age,
under the title, “a Looking-Glass for Christians.”
** It may be properly added: to judge another, who may not
believe in all things as we do, and pronounce him to be no Christian (although
cleaving to Christ and bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit) is evidence of
a narrow, contracted mind and an illiberal heart, and is a virtual disobedience
of divine injunctions and rebukes on the subject. It places the individual or
sect or party in the position to which Paul’s language justly applies, Rom. 14: 4; 1 Cor. 13: 1-13, etc. It savours of the spirit of the disciples
when they wished to call down fire, and is the reverse of that apostolic mind
which rejoiced, even if the whole, truth was not proclaimed, that Jesus was
preached. Enlightened piety is willing to “forbear with
our brethren in love.” We do not overlook the sad fact stated by Guesses at Truth (p. 492): “One of the saddest things about human nature is that a
man may guide others in the path of life, without
walking in it himself; that he may
be a pilot, and yet a castaway.” Men, like Brown, Waldegrave,
etc., may endeavour to overthrow our
position, while neglecting to establish their own or refusing to notice our proofs, but this very omission is
indicative of an eagerness to find fault with us. [Page 235] As Mencius
says: “of men of this: that they neglect their
own fields and go to weed the fields of others, and that what they require from
others is great, while what they lay upon themselves is light.”
OBSERVATION 9. Not content with the motives presented to cause disbelief in
our doctrine, it is remarkable (owing to its contradictory nature) that a prevailing
one urged by the most respectable writers (e.g. Rev. David Brown in Christ’s SecondComing,
etc., Steele’s Essay on Christ’s Kingdom), handed down from one to the other (and
evidently adopted without examination), and found in nearly every one of their
books is the following: viz. - that such a belief in the Kingdom, and of
necessity in the Pre- Millennial Advent of King Jesus, paralyses efforts for
the salvation of others, and is an obstacle to missionary labour.
Those who make the objection forget the activity and missionary labours of the
early Church so extensively Millenarian in view; they overlook the large number
of missionaries; and friends of missions who have been and are Millenarians;* they pass by and condemn some of the
noblest men in their respective denominations (Episcopalian, Lutheran,
Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, etc.), who have been Millenarians,
and yet noted for abundant Christian work; they ignore the numerous practical
writings, the preaching, the success, the founding of missionary organisations,
etc., by Millenarians, and are utterly unable to designate a single
writer of them who have ever expressed a word against missionary effort. Indeed the doctrine we hold cannot, in
the nature, of the case, produce the effect thus confidently proclaimed. Let
them show how it can paralyse
activity and zeal, when its entire tenor and scope is to present us
with motives to increased earnestness, etc., in behalf of the truth. Let them
prove that a servant who watches for the speedy return of his master is
more likely to prove unfaithful and inactive than he who believes that
the master will not return for a long time. Is the proclamation of the truth hostile
to the Kingdom or the Advent? Do the Scriptures urge diligence, piety,
etc., grounded on the fact that the Lord may come at any time? Do those who
unreflectingly persist in loading our faith with such an accusation, even think
that by so doing they are virtually sitting in judgment over and condemning the
motives that the [Holy] Spirit has given? How can this even
be reconciled with the frank concessions in our behalf made by opposers in
sympathy with themselves, as e.g. Waldegrave (Lec. On N. T. Millenarianism, p. 6)
tells us “that the advocates of the Pre-Millennial
Advent are found, as they most certainly are,
among the best men of our day, and the most faithful sons of the Church.”
Desprez (John, or the
Apocalypse), while totally
rejecting our doctrine, still frankly admits that “it was
the impelling power of the first missionaries, which won all the grand victories of early Christianity”
(see Proph. Times, p. 173, Nov. 1870).** In “An
Appeal to the Churches,” issued
in 1867, from Boston, sibscribed by sixty clergymen
with Albert Barnes at the head of the list, reference is made to the first
three centuries as a model for revival and missionary exertions - the very
Church so diffused with the Millenarian
leaven. This obviously intended objection may well be dismissed with the
remark, that a proper understanding of this kingdom, the manner of its
introduction, the gracious purposes involved in its postponement, the fearful
displays of wrath and the wonderful exhibitions of faithfulness and mercy
accompanying it, etc., are amply sufficient to subdue the heart of the behaviour into a glad willingness to
occupy the posture of a waiting, [Page 236] watching and labouring servant, who feels the importance of redeeming
the time and working while it is day - who desires to hasten the restitution by
gathering the people required - who knowing the night, is not discouraged by a
lack of success, but testifies to secure God's approval.
* See David N. Lord’s Theol. and Lit. Journal for
July, 1850, art. 1, where he at length rebuts this charge,
giving the proofs as derived from various denominations, showing that very many
missionaries are Millenarians, that their warmest supporters are such that both
domestic and foreign missions are upheld by them, etc. So also Brookes, Bickersteth, McNeile, Cox and others. Recently
in the Proph. Times, Feb., 1875, p. 36, the editor, Rev. Wilson, referring to the matter, shows that a large proportion
of missionaries in the foreign field - as stated to him by missionaries themselves
- are believers in our doctrine. And reveals
the fact that some were forbidden by the
officers of the societies to express
their views in this country “for fear of discouraging,
our people.” And in reference to the large number, he adds: “This we were told two years ago by a prominent missionary,
who hold this view (i.e., our doctrine) and
lamented to us that he was compelled to be so tongue-tied (i.e. in missionary addresses) in the enunciation this country.” Some missionaries,
as Wolf and others, have written
their views on the subject. (Comp. Prop. on History of Doctrine.)
** It is a matter of reflection how in the biographies of eminent men the
writers have taken leave to strike out all allusions to their faith in our doctrine
or give it a bare mention. Various examples can be given, but a recent one
will suffice. Dr. Wayland account of
Muller’s labours in Life of Trust has, “in a
great measure suppressed or ignored the fact that the apostolic faith and
labours of this faithful servant of God, according to his own testimony, was mainly upheld and
cheered by the blessed hope of the literal Coming and Kingdom of the Lord.”
(See a writer, E. M., in Proph. Times, art.
1, Nov.., 1867.) So e.g. in various Lives of John Wesley, his sentiments on the
subject are quietly ignored, as a recent biographer (Tyerman; see Proposition 78) noticed and rebuked.
OBSERVATION 10. In giving the causes which produce in the Church such want of faith in the Kingdom, prominently may be
noticed “the Whitbyan hypothesis” of the
conversion of the world by the Church, through which it is hoped this
OBSERVATION 11. This lack of faith
in this Kingdom is the more inexcusable since it is not only, protested against in
the plain grammatical sense of the Word, but God has raised up men, in all
denominations, to direct special attention to it. It is true that in many
instances in the past some have fared very much as Jeremiah (20: 10), yet
like the prophet, urged by the commands of the Saviour, the importance of the
subject, and the welfare of others, they continued to testify. In strict
analogy with the past dealings of God, it is reasonable to expect, that, as the
time approaches for the times of the Gentiles to end, and for the setting up of
this Kingdom, the simple early Church view should be revived. It is with gratitude that we notice some of the most
profound scholars and theologians of Europe and this country indorse the
Primitive Church doctrine, while others are veering more and more in that
direction. It is significant (in reference to the latter e.g. that Van Oosterzee seizes upon the doctrine
of the Kingdom as the
basis of theology, embracing
the Divine Purpose, and accords, in his way, a Pre-Millennial Advent of Jesus
Christ, etc. It is expressive, that some of our recent opponents, forced to it
by prophecy (as e.g. Fairbairn,
etc.) leave the former line of argument, and frankly admit that the Kingdom as
represented in Millennial descriptions can never be realised without a special
Divine interference and manifestation of Supernatural [Page 239] power etc. Taking our leading commentaries (as e.g. Lange, Alford, Bengel, Crit. Eng. Test., etc.) -
expositions of portions of the Scripture (as e.g. Elliot, Lord, Ryle, etc.) -
sermons on the subject (as e.g. McNeile’s, Cumming, Cox,
etc.); books written in defence (as e.g. Bekersteth, Shimmeall,
Birks, Brookes, etc.); periodicals published
in behalf of the doctrine (as e.g. Bonar’s, Leask’s, Seiss’s, etc.) besides a large
number of publications,* giving no
uncertain evidence, it is certain that sufficient testimony has been given to arouse an unwilling Church and world to consider
this doctrine. This very testimony fills a landmark of prophecy, fulfilling the
cry “Behold the Bridegroom Cometh,” reiterating the apostolic warning, “the Coming of the Lord draweth nigh,” and holding forth the last
communication of Jesus: “Surely I come
quickly,” etc. If it were wanting, a link in the chain of evidence would also be
missing. Being present - however it may have been used by some for mere
sensationalism or excitement - and held by witnesses of probity and learning,
who find it authoritatively in
the Scriptures, and give the reason for the faith that is in
them based upon Holy Writ it - thus accurately corresponding with the waiting,
longing position of the Primitive Church, with the apostolic cautions, and with
the admonitions of the Master Himself - commends itself to the reason and heart
of, alas, the comparatively few. When Whitby enumerates the noble list of Fathers in the Eastern and
* See Elliott’s Apoc.,
OBSERVATION
12. While it is
unnecessary to exhibit in detail the declining of faith - so triumphantly
paraded by one party, so sadly lamented by another, so weakly denied against
existing facts by still another class - it may be in place to illustrate out of
the abundant material, by a recent and striking case, the practical workings of
unbelief. Let us take, for example, a work (already alluded to, being
highly indorsed) John,
or the Apocalypse of the New Testament, by Rev. Desprez.
This is a singular book, owing to its copious concessions to our
doctrine up to a certain point, and then to its sudden turning to unbelief, casting itself
into the embraces of a destructive criticism. The honesty and candour of the
writer is conspicuously displayed in numerous statements, and affords in
consequence painful evidence, in its contrasts, of the influence of no faith in
Divine utterances. The author fully sustains our position, and proclaims it,
incontrovertible, that our doctrine is fully an explicitly taught in the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypse; that it was held by “the first two or
three centuries,” that
it is so interwoven in the New Testament
and so incorporated [Page 242] with motives to obedience, salvation,
etc., with every form of Christian expectation, hope, doctrine, etc., that
it cannot be denied by lawful interpretation, exegesis,
reasoning, and attention to facts. Although hostile to our views, he fully, freely,
unreservedly admits that they exist in the Word just as we claim, and
that we cannot be confuted from the standpoint of Scripture or history. He takes precisely the same view of
the early preaching of “the Gospel of the Kingdom”
that we advocate in this work, and asserts it to be impregnable, etc. Finding our doctrine so firmly
fixed in the grammatical sense of the Word and in the history of these times;
ascertaining by examination and comparison that it cannot be logically and
consistently eradicated, being part of the Bible itself, he
coolly most deliberately proposes, in the spirit of the Tubingen school, to cut out of the Scriptures all that
pertains to this doctrine, on the
ground, that such a Kingdom never was realized as preached and believed in, and
hence
cannot possibly be true. Even
words put into the mouth of Jesus (as e.g. Matt.
24; Mark 13,
Luke 21, etc.) must be discarded or else,
because the events spoken of did not soon after take place, Jesus is convicted
of error. What a destructive theory! Suppose all the allusions, references,
direct teachings, etc., upon the subject are removed (being incorporated with
and permeating the New Testament as he admits) what is left of the New Testament, and what becomes of the authenticity, credibility, and inspiration of the
Apostles? Does not the whole Bible then become what he pronounces, from his
sweeping procedure, the Apocalypse to be “a grand chimera of
the approaching Kingdom of God” - “the
offshoots of a pious yet wayward imagination the creations of a loving, trustful, yet fevered and heated brain”?
The New is based upon the Old
Testament, and this criticism sweeps away
the Covenant that God swore should
be fulfilled; blasts like a simoon the
inspiration of prophets; convicts the apostles, or at least the
writers, of gross error, weakness, and imposition, and naturally leads (because
this and that is not true) to a rejection of the whole. What reliance can be placed in a
Book, which then (according to this author) contains such palpable falsehoods, which misguided multitudes by shameful
fabrications, and which is crowded from beginning to end with fiction and
untruth. This destructive work, this effort to get rid of our doctrine is not
the performance of Strauss, Bauer and Renan, but of a clergyman of
the Church of England, indorsed by high names in
One of the editors of the Proph. Times,
Nov., 1870, in a just criticism of this work, aptly remarks in the language of
another: “It is a rule with me, the more I hear people
deny the Coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and the conflagration, with
other things of the like nature, the more to hold on to them, for their denial
is to me one of the highest proofs of the certainty of those events.”
There is profound wisdom in this remark, for such denial is predicted and, as
God’s Word is truth and every “jot and tittle”
shall be fulfilled, it is the most reasonable thing in the world to
expect, as confirmatory both of inspiration and our faith, just such works as Desprez’s, and
just such efforts as the Tubingen school puts forth, and just such opposition to our
doctrine as the Church and world
presents. A general unbelief, involving a denial of the Advent and [Millennial] Kingdom, is most certainly predicted; certainly then the state of
Christendom rapidly drifting through such labours into such it state, should
strengthen, and not weaken our faith in the Word, which thus proves its own
inspiration in describing these teachers of unbelief and their success. Simple
faith in what God says is the best protection against all such efforts, and in
this fortunately unlearned are as well protected as the most learned.
OBSERVATION 13. Will our opponents receive in all kindness some suggestions
of the mode of argumentation that is required to fairly meet our
doctrinal position. We desire light; and if we point out what difficulties are
to be explained, and what objections are to be removed, it may enable some one
to deal with the subject in a way that will at least commend itself to us as a sincere
and honest method of answering us. The works issued against us thus
far, will
never influence a single believer
in our doctrine (however much they may establish unbelievers) for the
reason that in many cases they do not answer the objections urged against them
by us in the interpretation of Scripture, but chiefly confine themselves to
their own interpretation, and then take it for granted that we are
answered. We on the other hand, give fearlessly our own and theirs, and compare them. Take e.g. the struggle over Revelation 20: 4,
5, 6, -
now in every exposition of theirs we are [Page 244] told that “souls”
cannot possibly mean persons, etc., and no notice is taken
of the
proof to the contrary alleged
by us. Indeed their exegetical comments are given on
the passage without venturing to contrast ours
alongside of it, for fear of exposing their own weakness. On the other hand our leading expositions boldly contrast the two, and show
by
the very contrast which is most worthy of credence. This line of
thought was suggested by the fact too, that all the
recent works contain without exception the same formula of proof without the least effort to show in what respect our interpretation of Scripture is
defective, saving only that it does not correspond with their own. It was reasonably expected that such a writer as [the
Anti-Millennialist] Dr. Hodge, especially in view of the opinions of prominent men in his own denomination, would meet the questions
at issue in his Systematic
Theology in a new and interesting manner, but to the surprise and
disappointment of not a few, gives but a reproduction (unworthy of his ability)
of Dr. Brown’s Christ’s Second Coming, and Barnes’s Revelation. Let it be understood by all that the
old and oft-repeated statement (harmless to us, but perhaps weighty to the
ignorant) that Revelation 20 contains the foundation (some say the only recital) of our
doctrine must he proven or recalled. Mere assertion - in the
face of the early Church, and all believers since appealing to the covenants
and prophecies, to the gospels and epistles its containing the doctrine -
cannot produce conviction; the mere distinctive mention of the one thousand years
(measuring the interval between the two resurrections and the binding of Satan)
or of the resurrection and reigning of the saints (for these are contained in
other Scriptures) does not make it such. Our appeal,
with Barnabas and all other Millenarians,
for our foundation is in the covenanted
* Dr. Fairbairn and a few others form an exception
here since they believe, with us, that the Divine Purpose of God relating to
the future is to be ascertained through the prophecies
of Old and New.
** We present the following as a fair
specimen of the style of argumentation adopted: Dr. Swartz (Luth. Observer, Feb. 10th, 1882) insists that the
world is far better and cannot fall back into its old sins, as follows: “Those pessimist Millenarians who are evermore prophesying
evil days, and are telling the world that before the Millennium it will be as
in the days of Noah, prophesy of evils which Christianity has made impossible.” Then
Jesus and His Apostles were also “pessimists,”
and grossly mistook the design of the present dispensation, for we take
their own words and believe
in them. Ten thousand just as unscriptural declarations are
popularly proclaimed and received, indicative of the prevailing lack of
faith in some of the plainest teachings of the Word.
-------
To be continued, D.V.