THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By GEORGE N. H. PETERS
[* VOLUME THREE (pp. 278-298).]
-------
PREPOSITION 180. This doctrine of the Kingdom
will not be received, in faith, by the World.
Whatever the force of argument
presented, whatever the intellectual or moral
aspect relating to it, whatever the historical attestment bearing upon it,
however even desirable it may be in its meeting the wants of humanity, etc.,
this same Word teaches us that it never will find acceptance with the multitude; that it will be opposed by
successive unbelief, which will finally culminate, at the time this
Kingdom is to be manifested, in asserting its sway (Rev.
19, etc.) over the nations and mighty men of
the earth. The
faith required, from its inception to completion, in the Supernatural, is
alone sufficient to ostracize it in the estimation of a host. But even our opponents must concede that with the guide we have
received, the implicit trust evinced in its teaching thus far, the evidences
adduced in support of our faith in the final accomplishment of the Plan
proposed, it would argue inconsistency
or insincerity in us if we did not also earnestly receive and believe
in the predictions which portray the
extraordinary state of unbelief universally prevailing [from within
the Church of God today] just before the ushering in of this [Divinely
promised (Ps. 2:
8; Luke 2:
32)] Kingdom. Especially so in a
day when it is so widely entrenching itself in the hearts and minds of able,
learned, and eminent men, and from thence reaching for and extending over the
swarming armies of invited followers.
The increase of infidelity is so
palpable in the present day that it needs no confirmation. Van Oosterzee, Christlieb,
Dale, Tholuck, and others have eloquently represented the matter. The
press is throwing off a multitude of evidences which
speak for themselves, and popular [Anti-millennialist] literature is filled with the same. As
an illustration simply of its workings, let the reader turn to art. 3, Westminster
Review, Jan., 1862, which indorses a Free
Religion, (by which it mans that man
can believe and do as he pleases), which appoints intellect
a guide, conscience a judge, and history a guardian and prophet, (not
allowing a superior), and which rejoices over the numerous heresies within the Church pale, declaring that the discoverers and writers in literature and science are
necessarily heretics; that the men of letters
who are either servants of, or worshippers in the orthodox churches are few in
number and minor celebrities at the best; that the popular theology has only a Sunday existence; human nature and
common-sense claim the rest of the week; that among
the working classes indifferentism and utter unbelief extensively prevail,
etc. So art. 8, July,
1861, etc. So e.g. Brookes
art. in March No. of the Princeton Review, 1871), sadly
confesses that unbelief is widely extending both in the Church and outside of
it, becoming a very pervading thing among all
classes, etc.
OBSERVATION 1. Let no fault be found with us by
true intelligence, when honesty, to the principles avowed and to the Book, compels us, aside from lower
considerations that could be urged, to assign the true reason for such
unbelief. This Theocratic Order covenanted can be seen in its historical
standing, its design, etc., and may even be appreciated in its
adaptability to secure [Page 279] the end contemplated, but unfortunately for the few - it sustains more than an
intellectual relationship. viz., a moral or religious, and demands in
view of the latter certain qualifications for
entrance into, and enjoyment of, the
Kingdom which requires a preparation that is humiliating to
man, such as repentance and a faith which appropriates the Gospel of the Kingdom in its gracious provisions, manifested by acceptance and of and obedience
to them. This necessarily leads to a
confession of sinfulness (which the truth of God, adapted to the
receptive powers of man, if received,
enforces by self-consciousness) that is so distasteful to the natural man, so derogatory to the high praises of Humanitarian
ideas respecting the dignity of man, that we are gravely told
by Parker and others that
Christianity degrades man. The very Plan
designed to restore man, the race and the world to forfeited blessings, to remove the curse oppressing
nature, to bring humanity into the most intimate and endearing relations with the Creator Himself, to introduce the
long-desired relief by the
world-wide dominion of the Theocratic King with the first-born of
past generations glorified and reigning with Him; all this, and more
(including the love and mercy displayed
in the gift of Jesus Christ and His death), is an alleged degradation of man!
Why
this express charge against the noblest design of
Redemption and the most glorious manifestation of love that the world has ever
witnessed? The naked truth, which this same Word gives, respecting the
unwillingness of men to receive Divine Revelation in its totality, arises not so much from dislike to
representations made concerning the Plan of Redemption and its blessings as
evinced in the Theocratic arrangement, but in the demands made upon the heart and
life. Pride revolts
at the humiliation that must precede exaltation; pride rebels against the duties
that are enforced before victory is attained; pride turns away from a cross that
must he borne before the wished for glorification can be received; the heart
inclined to love evil, to cherish selfishness, to seek pleasure and
gratification, rejects the denial
of self and of evil imposed by the Word, and hence seeks, in order
to escape the obligations thus presented, to invalidate the Word itself.
Admitting that some (as
we have repeatedly intimated) are swayed by other motives - are honest and
sincere in their convictions against the truth (perhaps moved by surrounding
influences, education, etc.), yet it is also true (even of all when once
brought into contact with the truth) of a large class - the immense majority -
that this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil, hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds
should be reproved, John 3: 19, 20. Here a masterly hand in a few sentences lays bare the leading cause of opposition to the Bible. The
condemnatory nature of both law and Gospel, the requirements of the Bible from
the individual, the humbling doctrines associated with Redemption - alas, these
form the
great stumbling blocks to the Christian religion.
These, as the [Holy] Spirit
teaches us, form the cause why not
only the Biblical idea of God, of the world, of the means of Redemption, but
even the most gracious help afforded through the life and death of Jesus
Christ, are, notwithstanding the appeal made to our necessities and to a
responsive consciousness, set aside for mere theories, often the most
antagonistic and condemnatory of each other. If the
opposition, so natural to man, and for which
he is held responsible, had developed itself into one grand systematic
method - the boasted offspring of pure reason, etc. - then [Page 280] it might
in virtue of its unity at least, commend itself for strength, and thus inspire
respect, but let any one read the history of the diversified views, successive
philosophies, hostile to the Bible, and he must be struck with a marked feature
in them all, viz., a lack of cohesion, a positive difference
forbidding combination, a palpable contradicting of each other, etc., so that
the only bond that really unites them is the same spirit of hostility to the Bible evinced by each of them.
The differences of Christians are alleged (and often with
force and a degree of justness, forgetting, however. that it is predicted by
the Word, and is a resultant of free moral agency) a reason proper to receive
as a rule for guidance, its application to our opponents ought to be even
more forcible, seeing that their differences are immensely greater and
more irreconcilable, extending from Atheism and Theism and Optimism down
through every grade of opinion to its latest revived forms of Pessimism and
Nihilism, affording an index of the heart as well as of the reason. And in this wide range we have the professedly higher scientific
and philosophical attacks which busy themselves with questions pertaining to
man, the world, and the universe (assuming man to be the umpire of truth,
present nature to be the measurer of the past, the Supernatural to be
impossible, what the Absolute only can do, the eternal unchangeableness of
natures laws, etc.) down to those lower attacks (which the former with us
utterly condemn) upon the moral character of Jesus, of God, of Christianity,
outraging all feeling of propriety, and prostituting the moral sense. For, as caricatures of Christianity exist, so, in justice to even
our opponents of intelligence and refinement, we must say that caricatures of
their higher opposition exist in a way that they themselves repudiate with
deserved indignation.*
But candour [i.e., the quality of being honest] requires us to add that
the highest even to the lowest criticism which (as e.g. Modern Christianity a Civilised
Heathenism, which ignores
Jesus in His social aspect, etc.) makes, against experience, etc., it
impossible to live the life required by Christ, originates mainly from the
cause just assigned. Hence the Bible challenges
each one to test the truth by an experimental knowledge of it: If any man will do
His will, he shall know of
the doctrine, whether it be of
God or whether I speak of myself, John 7: 17. It is owing to this simple fact, the adaptedness of
the truth to mans moral nature and needs, and upon its acceptance the
resultant effect upon himself, that the unlearned believer, ignorant of many
things, and even holding to things which are erroneous, is so well fortified against
unbelief; for against all adverse argument which he cannot answer he has one
that triumphantly meets the same, viz., personal
experience of the faith. Intellectual unbelief
(i.e. unbelief derived from reason), while it may and does exist independently,
is greatly prompted and influenced by what the Word calls an evil heart of unbelief (Heb.
3: 12),
i.e. an unbelief springing more directly from our sentient nature, the
affections, desires, etc. - and the reason why so much stress is laid upon the
heart in the question of
receiving and rejecting the truth of the Word (as e.g. Rom.
10: 9, 10; 6: 17, etc.) is because it is the great prompter (as experience shows) of human action, too often overriding the understanding and
will, crushing conscience and judgment beneath its ascendancy. Reason
has witnesses, the understanding has demonstrations, the judgment has evidence,
all given by God, to testify to the truth, but the heart is unwilling to be bound
and controlled by them. God, who knows what is in man, warns us that right here
is
the main, leading difficulty,
and sincere faith in [Page 281] His wisdom leads us unhesitatingly to
adopt this view, corroborated by the united testimony of all who have ever received
and obeyed the truth against the pleadings, promptings, and dislikes of the
heart. The fact is that this very constant appeal to the heart, constituting it
the
main factor of unbelief
laying open its power and influence, is in itself evidence of a divine
knowledge of human nature exceeding that of mere man.**
* As e.g. such outbursts of malevolence as the following: The
Free Thiners (Luth. Obs., Jan. 30th, 1874) of Palermo,
Italy, started
a paper called the Journal of the Disciples of Satan.
The association greeted the paper with, We salute the
birth of a paper which bears the name of the true God, the God of science,
liberty, and progress - the God we worship - Satan. Many intelligent
and refined unbelievers recoil from such exhibitions of - to say the very least
- bad taste. Of course the utterances of the Free-love
branch, the ultra Communistic branch, etc., are in the same category.
** Even as far as reason is concerned, we commend this utterance
of Dr. Sprecher (Groundwork of Theol.,
p. 68), who, after ably showing that the Christian consciousness is independent
of science, being based upon a personal experience of the truth, a spiritual realism, concludes: And, as we shall see in the proper place, there is really no
room for mere rationalism at the present day; that the more complete analysis
of thought has shown that the only consistent ground of an intelligent
opposition to special or miraculous revelation, is that of pure atheistic
naturalism; that in the high stage of thinking to which the human has,
at last, come, the final choice must be between heathenism and Christianity,
down-right atheism or true theism. - the
theism which admits the possibility and
desirableness of special revelation. The Scriptures tell us what the choice will be; and the
tendency, to-day, is seen in eminent scientists and
scholars taking this naturalistic ground and approvingly quoting, the maxims
and lessons of ancient heathen. Bushnell (Nat. and Supernat., p. 453)
speaking of the lack of faith in the Supernatural (which strikes a deadly blow
at Jesus, His claims, and the appropriation of Him) says: The Christian world has been gravitating visibly, more and
more, toward this vanishing point of faith, for whole centuries, and especially
since the modern era of science began to shape the thoughts of men by only
scientific methods. Religion
has fallen into the domain of mere understanding, and so it has become a kind
of wisdom not to believe much, therefore, to expect little. And (p. 21), thus far the tendency
is visible, on every side, to believe in nature simply, and in Christianity
only so far as it conforms to nature and finds shelter under its laws. And the
mind of the Christian world is becoming every day more and more saturated with
this propensity to naturalism; gravitating, as it were, by some fixed law,
though imperceptibly or unconsciously, toward a virtual and real unbelief in
Christianity itself. Such utterances from men of all classes could be multiplied. Indeed, so widespread has this become
that scientific writers triumphantly refer to it as an indication and assurance
of ultimate victory, as seen e.g. in the writings of Draper, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, Fiske, etc.
Professed believers, having no practical belief and experience, having a form
of godliness and denying the power, assist in this work and congratulate
themselves in the efficiency of their agency, as e.g. exemplified in the
writings of the Broad Church party. Christianity
suffers severely from professed friends and adherents, who, Judas-like, betray
with an alleged kiss of peace. Open infidelity is more honest, more honourable,
and less dangerous. The fair and plain statements of the latter, evidence at
least candour. Let the student ponder the concessions of one of these
(corroborative of Dr. Sprechers
preceding statement), Physicus in his candid Examination of Theism. After, in detail, showing how science refutes the idea of the
existence of a God, and how he is forced to such a conclusion, he laments his
inability to accept of the once consoling and inspiring Theism, admits the
chilling nature of his natural faith, refers to its depressing influence upon
himself, and declares that so far as the ruination of
individual happiness is concerned, no one ean have a more lively perception than
myself of the possibly disastrous tendency
of my work.
OBSERVATION 2. There is no doubt that unbelief is largely generated by the opinion, entertained in various quarters, that
the expression given by the Church in formularies, etc., in different periods
of the Church, must be unconditionally
accepted, and that the Bible itself can only
be understood in the light of that faith which we receive from the Church.
This [Page 282] assumption is built upon the
arrogated premise of a universal faith expressed in these formularies. Admitting
a few general truths, as e.g., those pertaining to God, Christ, etc., to exist
in them all, yet when the premise is tested even by fundamental truths it is
found to be incorrect and unverified in the history of the Church, and the
diversity of doctrine pertaining even to the admitted general truths disclose
the same. Thus, to illustrate: take the leading subject of
preaching, that of the Gospel of the Kingdom - the main
doctrine of the Kingdom - and contrast the prevailing views - said to be
derived under this fostering light of the creeds, etc. - these things, with the
faith exhibited by pious Jews and the early Christian Church, and the wide
contrast between ancient and modern faith is seen at once. The
multiplicity of meanings given to the Kingdom of God alone indicates how much reliance can be placed in a universal Church faith which places itself first and
the Bible second; which contends that the Word of God cannot be properly
understood without first receiving the word of man. The faith of others, however valuable and precious, is only corroborative and
not a foundation; confirmative, but not positive proof. It may, or it
may not, be in unison with the Bible. This too, is based on an exaggerated view
of the Church, constituting it the
covenanted Kingdom
of Davids Son and
continuing and manifesting prophetic , priestly, and
kingly offices of Jesus Christ in the ministry, etc. The man
of intelligence with the Bible before him, with the history of the apostolic
and primitive Church, with the evidences of human infirmity in the dogmatic
formulation of Biblical statements, with the changes, modifications engrafted,
with the assumptions of Church authority, etc., feels that if he accepts of the
faith as now generally expressed,
with the variations as existing, he must exercise a belief in a great
measure the very opposite of
that entertained by ancient worthies; and hence, without endeavouring to
account for such substitution on the ground of human weakness, without
considering that such differences do not alter the contents and doctrines of
Holy Writ, without regarding the predictions which describe such a state as
certain to follow, owing to mans imperfection, without reflecting that amid
these differences a bond of union on the practical, experimental side (finding
its responsiveness in the moral nature) still exists - he unfortunately rejects
both the ancient and modern faith, both the Bible and the formulated creeds, both the Word and the Church. And the feeling that there is such
an antagonism between the old faith and the new is deepening and widening,
finding its expression in numerous works, which triumphantly point, e.g. to the
Jewish belief and the primitive Christian, and then to the one introduced later
and now so prevailing, concerning the Church and Kingdom. The
Apologetics, instead of fairly meeting this question of
change by directing attention to the predictions and passages which teach it,
finding no Scripture to sustain the alterations of belief, while admitting the
early belief (forced to it by historical necessity) apologise, for it in a
manner (as an accommodation, as justifiable error, as still containing
a germ to be developed into the produced truth, etc.) which not only excites
the ridicule of our opponents, confirms them in unbelief, sustains their
critical deductions, but actually makes out the multitude of ancient pious
believers to have lived in the grossest misconception of the leading burden of prophecy, that
of the Kingdom.
Instead of faith in the Messianic
Kingdom, they speak (as in a Liberal paper called Man) of the future glorious Kingdom of man. They boast of this departure as e.g.
[Page 283] illustrated in the meeting of the, Free
Religionists at New York, in opposition to the Evang. Alliance, when Tilton (of The Golden Age) and
others eulogized their Church of the Future a
Kingdom of union, love, freedom, etc. At this meeting (Luth. Obs.,
Oct. 31st, 1873) Gannett of
Boston said: They call us infidels and we accept the name. Frothingham in the
Introduction to Freedom and Fellowship, refers
with evident satisfaction to the weaknesses of Protestantism, the history of
the Evang. Alliance, the sectarian divisions, dogmatic prejudices, party
jealousies, pressure and increase of rationalism, modifications of theology,
etc., and says: The Christian World contains more non-Christians than Christians; more
unbelievers than believers; more unworshipful than worshipful; more luke-warm
than ardent; more irreverent people than reverent. The naturalists outnumber the supernaturalists. The
rationalists carry more weight than the fideists. This
is so, at all events, in the centres of thought, and the centres of thought,
are the fountains of thought. The live mind of the world - meaning by the live
mind the inquisitive mind - is deserting Christianity for philosophy, science,
and literature. The conclusion will be that humanity emancipated and
brought into unity of fellowship, will erect a Kingdom of humanity. In Faith and Verification (art.
in Littells Living Age, Nov. 16th,
taken from the Nineteenth
Century) Malllock, after
denouncing the foundations of Christian faith, after saying perhaps the reign of faith is over, still thinks
that there is yet some stuff left in the world as religious
dreams are made of, and that there may - owing to religions elements
still existing - be after a while a return to faith (i.e. a liberal one), and
declares that many now prayerless and creedless, would
exclaim in a moment, could they think such a Coming possible, Even so, come Lord Jesus.
What a condemnatory sarcasm!
OBSERVATION 3. Some late writers (as e.g. D. H. Olmstead in a Ler. on the Protestant Faith), to vindicate their position of unbelief, have endeavoured to show (philosophically) that
faith is involuntary, and that hence man is not responsible for what he believes. Without entering into a
discussion whether faith is voluntary or not, whether the product of reason, or
of reason and the will combined, whether the result of evidence or intention,
or divine aid annexed, it is amply sufficient for our purpose to merely
indicate a few things which clearly demonstrate that
God justly holds us responsible for our belief. Take the extreme ground that it is
involuntary in any sense, yet it is properly demanded from us in view of its
being in some way (explain it as we may) the outgrowth of our nature, so that
the moral sense of the world has always held man accountable for faith
resulting in corresponding action. While human law does not take cognisance of
faith, of belief in the abstract, it, does so when either faith or unbelief
evinces itself in action contrary to law. Thus e.g.
refusal to obey law because of unbelief is never excused; the commission of
crime under the plea of faith is never admitted. It is true that the
faith required by God, in its gracious appropriating power, may not and cannot
be exercised without a certain amount of faith, to which the moral nature
responds, being brought to bear upon the heart, just as intellectual faith
cannot be produced without the evidence adduced which persuades reason to
accept of the same. But in this case, faith being the resultant of a condition in which man can, and is invited to, place
himself, so long as he refuses to place himself in the position favourable to
receive faith and experience its power, man is responsible for the lack of
faith. Faith is both a necessity and an elevator of man,
for while knowledge may and does precede, yet faith is the producer of action. Truth may be
without us, objective, and it may even be coldly received
by reason, but faith makes it subjective, living within us, appropriating it
and sending it forth in action, in works, in teeming volumes, etc. Besides this,
the faith which God calls for and with which alone He
is satisfied, is created by things which God alone can present. Let, e.g. the truth respecting mans sinfulness find (by
meditation, etc.) a response [Page 284] in mans
self-consciousness, then comes the divine
plan, which God has given, through
Christ for deliverance from such a state, commending itself by its
adaptability to meet our necessities and to bestow the promised
blessings, which the heart, softened by the truth through the [Holy] Spirit, receives, gratefully accepts and
conscientiously applies, thus forming (Heb. 9: 1) the substance (ground, confidence) of things hoped for and the evidence of
things not seen, in its corresponding effect upon the
individual.* The Bible, without any scientific
definition of faith, or nice philosophical distinctions respecting its rise in
man, certainly teaches that in some way faith is voluntary (we do not say
necessarily or directly, but at least indirectly), seeing that it is commanded
(e.g. 1 John 3: 23,
etc.), that men can refuse to believe (John 20:
27 etc.), and that they are condemned for
the lack of it (John 3: 18; Heb. 10: 38, 39; Rev. 21: 8, etc.).
Whatever God may do to produce it either in the bestowal of
our mental and moral constitution, or in bringing the truth in contact with our
hearts, etc., it is also said to be excited by the evidence presented in the
Word (John 20: 31),
and by the proclamation of the truth (Rom. 10: 8-17), evincing that reason or the understanding (Acts 8 30-37, and Paul
with the Jews, etc.) and the will (John 5: 39, 40) are
concerned in it. From all this it is proper to
infer that such is the constitution of man, that he is impelled to believe when the
proper evidence is given and it receives due attention, and that, therefore, it
is folly for any one to deny the faith God asks for before he has actually placed
himself in the position requisite
to secure the evidence. The difficulty with the multitude, who hold with Lord
Byron that man is not responsible for his belief,
is, that the responsibility arises from a deliberate rejection of the
evidence, from a wilful choosing not
to pay attention to it, from an unwillingness to place themselves in the only position favourable to its
attainment, because it makes self-sacrifice imperative. The position of the faithless man is well
represented in Rev. 3:
20; Jesus stands at the door and knocks,
i.e. waiting patiently and calling attention to His gracious presence; now if any man hear My
voice and open the door, I will come into
him, etc., i.e. the door will not be forced, but man
himself must hear,
regard the invitations, and manifest willingness to receive the Saviour, and then the blessings will follow. With these prefatory remarks the reason why so many (as the writer
alluded to) excuse themselves from the exercise of faith in Gods Word becomes
apparent, and to confirm the same, claim the right of being the
supreme judge in matters of
faith and of thus making the Bible submit to their own judgment, because of a
universal moral law which is antecedent to revelation. But admitting the antecedency of morality, instead of
elevating man to a supreme judgeship and of giving to him the absolute authority to receive or reject, it places him in
a subsidiary position. For the very conformity of revelation to the demands of the
moral sense, to the dictates of conscience enforcing morality. Is not
merely a proof of the prior existence
of the moral nature, and that an appeal is thus made to it, for judging of its
correctness, but proof, in virtue of its adaptability or suitableness to meet
the conditions of such a nature, of the divine origin of revelation. It
evinces also the claim of Revelation that God has implanted the moral nature, and that having made
it responsive
- constitutionally - to certain truths, when the latter are presented and duly
considered, the former will be duly affected. The relationship between the two,
evidenced by the effects produced (as between the seed and the means of
fruitage, the eye and light, ete.) shows that both proceed from
the [Page 285] Almighty Maker and Governor. The lowest form of
unbelief denies the power of conscience, but latterly numerous writers,
realising that it was utterly untenable, take the
higher form of admitting it, but constituting it the supreme judge over
all things, including the Bible itself. But this, in
connection with what has been said, is disproven by the fact that, judge or
monitor as it may be, its monitions or judgments, its sense of moral fitness
and obligations, are frequently overridden; that its judgments may by repeated violations, etc., become imperfect,
weakened, and
defective, which makes it unsuitable to occupy the position of an absolute
judge, seeing that the decisions are trampled upon and remain
unenforced. The feelings of self-consciousness, arising from obeying or
violating the moral sense or conscience, indicate in self- approbation or
self-abasement the sense of accountability to a higher power. To this God appeals in
the approval of a good conscience and in the condemning of our own hearts, in
the accusing or excusing process. The authoritative decisions of
conscience stand related to both man and God - to man as a
guide if properly received, and to God as a means of enforcing an
acknowledgment of His supremacy and mans accountability to Himself. The
possession of such a monitor is decisive proof that man, is under
moral government, and the
correspondence between the
demands of the moral law as given in the Word of God and the untrammelled
dictates of conscience confirm mans responsibilities by
pointing out the Being under whose government he lives, and to whom he is [divinely held] accountable. But to
make mans conscience or reason the supreme, sole absolute judge under the
controlling influence of a will which, after all, may choose to obey or disobey
its dictates or reasoning, is to say that man is under moral obligation, but
only to himself, and that after all the only law which is binding upon him is
that of his own will. The Word of God takes still
higher ground when it assumes and enforces its authority over conscience,
reason, will, etc., by its declarations of moral obligation existing unimpaired - however violated by man - in
virtue of the relationship that man sustains to God and to his fellow-men, and
to which mans consciousness bears conclusive evidence in the eulogies [i.e., a speech or piece of
writing]
bestowed upon the unchangeableness of moral law. Besides
this, in making up a decision in reference to this matter, the experience of the individual in the heartfelt reception of the
Bible, ought to be taken in account, seeing that, as the Word challenges
every one to the test, the influence of the truth upon the heart, the
evidences of its perfect adaptedness and adjustment to mans nature personally
experienced, the relationship that the moral and spiritual sustain to one
definite Divine Plan, elevates the Bible at once into the supreme arbiter
and sole rule of faith and action. The attack, insidious as it may be; the
excuse, flattering as it is to man, is inexcusable, because based on part of the truth only, considering mans
capabilities only, and then ignoring mans experience and mans relationship to
a higher Being. Hence, owing to the moral aspect of the Word, its moral demands
and requirements, men seek to justify their non-acceptance of it on various and
often contradictory grounds. And this is not confined simply to one
portion of the Word, for with its moral side rejected, of course everything
else falls with it. Therefore it is, that this doctrine of
the Kingdom will find no favour, not because of the Theocratic order assigned,
or the blessings included in it, or the
glory of the reign predicted, etc., but because of the moral fitness, moral
requirements, the believing Christian life that
is so imperatively so authoritatively demanded
by God before it can be inherited by
us. The life of [Page 286] faith required before entrance into
it, is not a life of blind faith, but of seeing faith, of appropriating faith, of
faith resulting in corresponding action; and such a faith being unpalatable to man, forms the secret spring of opposition.**
* While rejecting, on the one hand, the notion that justifying
faith is mere assent, and, on the other, that it is something entirely
superadded, the mean between the two may be stated as follows: Man is so
constituted mentally and morally that truths, when subjected to his
understanding intuitively awaken faith by influencing the will; the relation
between truth and mans consciousness of moral fitness, etc., arousing it. Evangelical truth affects this by
first enlightening the understanding through the Word, applied by the [Holy] Spirit, and justifying faith is such
an acceptance of and confiding in the truth, or in the mercy of God through
Jesus Christ on the conditions imposed
by the Gospel. Therefore it is (1) a voluntary act because largely dependent upon voluntary action
in man necessarily preceding it; (2)
that for the proper exercise of it man is dependent upon God, whose help is
promised; (3) that its exercise,
viewed as an outgrowth of mans nature when brought into contact with the
truth, as a result of God-given truth and divine assistance imparted, is in a
legitimate sense the gift of God.
Apprehension of the truth, however brought about, must stand connected with
faith. In one sense then faith is involuntary, being the product of our
constitution under certain conditions;
in another it is rightly called voluntary because it is optional with man to place himself under the conditions which
produce it.
**Let not the reader think that we enter
too much in detail and defence of the truth and of the [regenerate] believers position. These very
objections will again and again be renewed, and
finally culminate in bringing about the adhesion of the masses to the future
incoming rule and power of the last Antichrist. We only add:
men, unaided, could never have devised, the covenanted Messianic Kingdom with its requirements for inheriting the
same, because opposed to human nature. In mans devising, we have a
variety of kingdoms, but none, that aspire to the purity, majesty, and grandeur
of that pertaining to Davids Son. Man never invented the God of the Bible and
His glorious perfections, brought into direct Theocratic relationship to man in the most perfect of governments. To see what man can
do, it is only necessary to consider Mills
imperfect and impotent God. Man never
concocted the biblical scheme of Redemption, on the one side so humiliating to
man, and on the other so daring that it reaches to the sacrifice of Gods own
dear Son. To see this it is only requisite to notice the naturalistic and
humanitarian schemes of redemption, which exalt man and pride themselves in
rejecting Supernatural aid to get rid of sin and the curse. Men, naturally
loving sin, could never have devised the denunciations of sin and the holiness
of life demanded as given in the Bible. To see this, it is only necessary to
look at that which multitudes of its rejecters have offered in substitute.
OBSERVATION 4. Hume
stated, what is now so often reiterated, that Our
holy religion does not rest on reason, but faith; and
some of the Apologists of Christianity,
overlooking that revelation itself by its very bestowal, indicates the
capability of man to examine,
learn, and know its contents; that it appeals to and makes demands upon reason, have conceded that Hume is correct, and
have endeavoured to confirm it by hypotheses concerning the limits of reason,
making all truth subjective, etc. This, however, is unjust both to the Bible and the experience of true believers. The
Word of God introduces both reason and faith as essential to a true
Christian life, to a correct reception of the truth. Theoretically, i.e. in its
doctrinal aspect, it depends on reason, and hence we are urged to use reason;
practically, i.e. personal experience of the power of truth, it depends on
faith, and faith is enforced. To comprehend the nature, design, necessity, etc.
of the Divine Plan, reason is required, to realise its application to
ourselves individually, faith, leading to personal
acceptance and corresponding works, must be conjoined; to test the whole truth in
its objective and subjective relationship, both are needed, both are commanded. Disconnecting what [Page 287] God has joined together, is the cause why so many
are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth. The Bible
is not afraid of reason for it appeals to reason, knowing that its sacred truths, its
Divine Plan, if apprehended by reason as it should be,
will, by the very laws controlling the intellectual nature of man, commend
themselves to us. It is true that reason may be restrained, turned
aside, or its decisions be rejected by the love of self and darkness, by the
contraction of Bible utterances to the preconceived prejudices entertained or
to the limits of some confessional standard, human system, etc. It is also true
that reason may be so sanctified, brought under the influence of the truth,
that it will still more clearly apprehend the truth through a personal
practical experience of the same. But in the very nature of
the case, as Revelation
is a communication to man in his own language, appeals to
sinners it follows that reason is not to be discarded as some teach, who
(as e.g. Mansell, Miller, etc.) manifest this to be an
extreme by their cogent reasoning on other points, and even in presenting such
a conclusion through a process of reasoning. The application of the laws
of language, the comparing of Scripture
with Scripture, the criticism of the text, the study of analogy, etc., are
all evidences of the intellectual
inseparably connected with faith, fostering and cherishing faith, and
assigning reasons for the faith within us. Moral qualifications,
cannot dispense with the intellectual; purification, so valuable, cannot cast
aside but includes reason. It is owing to the constitution of
man in this respect and his ability to understand Gods Word by using the
capacity, the faculties, given to him, by interpreting the Book according to
the universally, received laws of language, that God justly holds him
accountable for its rejection, and declares that the truth thus refused - owing
to his capacity to understand it - shall judge him in the last day.
While reason is not the rule of faith (as shown by numerous
writers, e.g. Prof. Loy, Evanq. Quart. Review, Jan.,
1871), it is also true that faith is not the rule of reason; for they are sisters, hand
in hand and mutually supporting each other, making the Word of God alone the rule, the guide, as received
by them. Where reason fails, as in things beyond its comprehension, faith steps
in and aids reason to settle down into the reasonable conviction (yea, even to
make it an evidence of the divine), that as there are things nature utterly
inexplicable, etc., so in the things of God, we ought to expect things beyond our power to fully
explain. As Pascal said: the last step of reason is to know that there is an infinitude of things which surpass it. For, the supreme authority of Scripture over both reason and faith
is found, not only in its adaptability to mans necessities, but in the fact
that man, with all his powers, is utterly incapable of presenting a Plan and
devising the means for the removal of the evils and the bestowment of the
blessings longed for by humanity as they are given in Gods Word. A consideration of our needs and that of the
world, and then of the remarkable Divine Purpose in Redemption which so
accurately meets and provides for these, in connection with an
earnest of experimental
knowlelge, the historical evidences, the past and present fulfilment of
prophecy, ete., form such a combination of proof, such
a union of necessity and
provision, that reason and faith acknowledge it as immensely superior to
anything that humanity can produce. Faith, with its
practical results, its invigorating influence, its blessed fruits, confirms and
strengthens reason in its deductions; reason, in turn, by searching the [Page 288]
Scriptures (Acts 17: 11), by proving all things (1 Thess.
5: 21),
etc., enlarges the scope of faith and establishes more firmly its power over
man; while both together recognise, impelled by the unity existing between
intellectual and moral, and between seeing and experiencing, the authority
of Gods Word. Hence, when we say that this [Messianic, Theocratic,
and Millennial] Kingdom of God is a subject of faith, that it can only in its
entirety be received by faith, we do not at the same time discard reason. The meaning simply is that it is a matter exclusively of Divine Revelation, Procedure, and Consummation.
Man could not plan, reveal, prepare for, and finally establish it. This is seen by the divine incorporated with it and forming its
earthly Ruler, and by the Supernatural elements mingled with it. It is above reason in inception, provisions, establishment, etc., and
at the same time it is not opposed to reason, but, on the contrary, when we regard
the Scriptural statements respecting it, the Kingdom appeals to our reason as
most desirable, as perfectly adapted to secure complete restoration from all
evil and as being pre-eminently fitted to bestow, through such a Davids Son, the blessings promised.
Reason, bowing before its covenanted equity, happiness, and glory, gratefully
recognizes the authority, expressing it, while faith appropriates those things,
affecting the heart and life, urging on to such an obedience as insures the
hope of ultimate participation in it. Many things pertaining to the Kingdom,
yea, even the Kingdom itself as still future and to be re established at the
Advent of Jesus Christ, are matters of promise, and therefore can only be received by faith in Gods promises. Such faith,
however, is confirmed by reason, tracing the Theocratic order as laid down in
the Word, seeing its connection with the initiatory and preparatory measures
instituted (of which he himself is a living witness, if believing), and in
beholding the evidences of a progressive and ever advancing Divine Purpose in
the past and the present. Those who exalt reason to the disparagement of faith, who
constitute reason the supreme judge (as e.g, Frothingham in Religious Aspects of the Age) telling us that the only real infidelity which is a sin in the sight of God
is a disbelief in the primary faculties of the human soul; disbelief in the
capability of mans reason to discriminate between truth and error in all
departments of knowledge, sacred and profane, etc. - will not receive
the doctrine of the Kingdom, because they, disliking the requirements attached to it, assign to humanity the capacity of
working out its own destiny and of becoming is own Saviour through the
mediumship of reason. The Kingdom together with the
Theocratic King so mercifully provided, will be to them a source of ridicule
and contempt, a return to the error of the
Primitive Church and to cast off Jewish forms,
because reason - rejecting the authority of Gods Word, refusing to regard the Divine
Purpose as a grand whole, declining to consider the evidences in
behalf of, and the provisions made for, the Kingdom,
repelling all union with co-operative faith, stubbornly resisting the
conditions requisite to know practically the divine truth - regards
itself as eminently qualified to construct a plan for alleviating the
sufferings and removing the evils incident to humanity. Making reason
the infallible guide, man the absolute judge - only so that he is cut loose
from the Scriptures as the authority - is followed, not by uniformity, not by
union of plan, sentiment, etc., but by a whirlpool of varied opinions,
making man the mere plaything of a shifting mass of human theories. Behold to-day the [Post and ever-increasing Anti-millennial] opponents of Christianity and of the
Bible, and we can scarcely find two prominent leaders among them who are agreed
even in
the fundamentals of [Page 289] a system, much less in the details. What reason will do,
unrestrained by any authority outside of itself, uninfluenced by a purifying
and self-elevating faith, is evidenced to-day by the vast number of theories propagated by unbelievers
of all classes, forming more sects
(if they may thus be named) than
Christianity in its unauthorized divisions has created. While the latter
have still a bond of union by their faith in and love for Christ, the former
possess only a bond of affiliation in their common dislike to the authority of the Bible and in
their present exaltation of man.
If the believers may, by way of reproach, be designated Bibliolaters, indicative of their profound reverence
for the supreme authority of Holy Writ, surely it cannot be a matter of
discredit to call the others Reason or Man-worshipers, seeing that such a
phrase is expressive of the elevation of man and the praise bestowed upon him
in the theories presented. In justice to another class (also divided in
opinion), however, it must be added that some manifest no belief either in the
Scriptures or in man; neither possess any authority, neither can produce
anything to ameliorate the condition of the world; both of them are merely the
products of an irresistible destiny.
Everything is bound by unyielding Fate or by a dreamy
Idealism, or by an all devouring Pantheism, etc., but still humanity is
manifesting itself, in spite of its philosophical speculations, in the
utterance of yearnings that cannot be suppressed (Fichte, Goethe, etc.),
and in shrinking back from its own strictly logical conclusions (as in Nihilism
and Pessimism), still heart-hoping against reasoning that something better is
in store for man. There is nothing so sad under the sun as
intelligence fettered by unbelief, as reason bound by pride, as
the intellectual nature held irresponsive to the moral, as
man attempting to stand alone without the counsel and aid of his Maker. In looking over the writings of such, how often does the heart,
knowing the truth through peaceful obedience, bleed at the utterance of longings that are irrepressible and at the expression of hopes
which must forever remain unrealised, unless a Saviour who can control nature and natures
laws is accepted. These significant declarations are more or less common to all
unbelievers in the Scriptures, showing that however they may deny the
authoritative voice of God, they cannot entirely crush
the outgoings of the nature, which God gave, after a still future good. Thus,
e.g. Hennell (An inquiry Concerning the Origin of
Christianity p. 489), after discarding the testimony of Scripture as
unreliable, concludes by indulging the thought that a
time is appointed when, the cravings of the heart and of the intellect will be
satisfied, and the enigma of our own and the worlds existence be solved. It is a remarkable
feature that many in their unbelief, still holding to some First Great Cause,
to an intelligent Creator, anticipate in some unexplained way a Revelation, or
a manifestation, that will explain this enigma and satisfy these cravings, but
they dare not enter into explanations or details, for the moment they do so,
every sentence would condemn their opposition to the Bible, seeing that it
would evince reliance upon, and faith in, the Supernatural,
miraculous, etc. Tied
by their own previous confessions of unbelief, all intelligently expressed
faith in the divine interference in behalf of man and the exertion of creative
power in removing the evils of a groaning creation,
would be so hostile to their assumed position that consistency, if not pride, forbids its indulgence
at any extent. Having given some general features pertaining
to unbelief, it is necessary to enter into
particulars or to specify the varied classes, raging from professed Atheism to
Spiritualism. The last, scorning [Page 290] the authority of the Bible, finds its
authoritative utterances in a spirit world, given in detached and often contradictory
messages, out of which a scheme promising deliverance, etc., is manufactured very
different from the detailed Plan of the Word. Yet it concedes
the Supernatural and the miraculous, in its own way, which makes it
consequently the more inexcusable and dangerous. Inexcusable - because, admitting the necessity
of aid outside side of man and nature, instead of receiving that which God has
provided through His Son Jesus Christ, it seeks it in spirits; dangerous -
because it draws nearer by its admissions of the Supernatural, etc., to the
nature and wants of man than many other systems of unbelief do, and hence binds
him the more effectively in its embraces. The characteristic common to
almost all forms of unbelief is, that denying the authority of the Bible, they
endeavour to find an authority outside of it, either in man or in
nature, or in a philosophical conception of the universe, or in the invisible,
unseen spirit world. It is a serious question how largely believers in the Word
have aided in producing such
unbelief, when they have discarded reason, when eminent men have incautiously
and unwarrantedly declared that no one can possibly understand the Bible
without a superadded aid directly given by God. Forgetting
that Revelation denotes revealed truth; mistaking the influence of the moral
upon the intellectual for the intellectual itself; misapprehending the
relationship that reason and faith must always sustain to each other;
overlooking the fact that whatever advantages and power practical experience
resulting from faith may impart, it does not close the Bible to reason - they
make the Bible a sealed book to all others but themselves.
Making the theoretical and practical identical, causing the knowledge of
special truths to cover the understanding of all, they lay down a criterion which they themselves constantly violate in
appealing to the reason of the unconverted and in presenting the evidences
of Christianity to the disbelieving.
Having treated of this feature under the Proposition pertaining to the
interpretation of Scripture, it is only, necessary to add, that unbelief is not
excused by the standards set
up by man, since Gods appeal and commands are to each one individually (having
so constructed us that every mind and heart when brought into contact with the
truth will respond to it) to study His Word, not in the light of mere human
interpretation, but according to the universally received principles of
language. This is based upon the fact that the Bible
is designed
for all classes and conditions of men, is adapted for the mind and
heart, and finds a corresponding adaptation in
man, which is only true when it is studied in accordance with the laws of
language with which all men are more or less conversant and under which the
processes of communication, reasoning, etc. are, conducted. The simplicity
of such a procedure - a simplicity gratefully
accepted by the ancient pious Jews and by the Primitive Church
- is not suited to the mystical, spiritualistic tendencies of the age. It is too commonplace,
fitted indeed for the unlearned, but scarcely accommodated to that professedly
higher intelligence which seeks the transcendental,
mystical, mysterious. Hence the persistent ignoring of this [messianic
and millnnial] Kingdom - the simplicity
of its government (although connected with the divine), its union with a
despised nation (although its union with humanity ought to form a plea in its
behalf), its provisions, design, order, establishment referring to this world (although standing related
through its Ruler to the universe) - all this is so widely different from the
theorising which undertakes, in its wisdom and sovereignty, to describe what is
expedient
or proper [Page
291] for God to adapt in Redemptive purposes, that the doctrine of the Kingdom is set down, without examination,
as an exploded Jewish conception, originating
in, and carried out by national prejudice and superstition.
OBSERVATION 5. Having already alluded to the unnecessary conflict
raging between science and faith; having pointed out the connection existing
between reason and faith; having shown that the highest proof of divine
communication in the Bible is found when that Book is approached and studied in
the way science is apprehended, viz., by a strictly logical process of
reasoning; having repeatedly intimated that the relationship of truth to the
whole as one great system can never be satisfactorily solved by confining
ourselves to one department of knowledge, or to one side of man and the world -
it may be proper to notice, briefly, the charge of credulity
brought against believers. Having already given the evidences, the
process of reasoning, and the fundamental laws upon which our alleged credulity is based, it is
but reasonable that we should require the same from our opponents. Instead of negation, assumption, hypothesis, speculation, etc., our
position advances the most positive proof in
its support by appealing to facts in the past and present; facts
existing in the nature of man and of truth; facts appertaining to a
developing Divine Purpose which in its totality, design, progress, etc., evince
the intelligent guidance and control of a Creator; facts which when united
the one to the other form a connected chain of Divine Procedure in the
attainment of a definite specified Plan; facts too, which any one can verify
by personal application of the truth; and facts which appertain both to reason
and experience - thus manifesting
the reasonableness of the same. In
comparison with the deductions of science, as given by Darwinism, Buchnerism,
etc., we certainly cannot be charged with credulity, provided our deductions are reasonable. To believe that all creatures are sprung from some low form of
organism, have their common origin in some ancient unknown formation of matter and
force, that man himself is thus originated from a lower bestial form, that
homologous structure and common instincts in man and lower animals necessarily
prove a common descent, that mental and moral faculties were given by gradual
progression, etc., etc., this certainly makes a greater demand on faith than
the Bible statements. Dr. Dawson (before Evange. Alliance
of 1873) expressed this fully: When you talk of
Darwinism you talk of theories that make vaster demands on your faith than on our
science. We confess to incredulity in these accepted
theories of natural development, when ten thousand facts multiplied by
thousands exhibit its extreme ultra reasoning (as e.g. in the continued
smallness of the atomical intelligent brain or head of the ant, the lack of
poisonous fangs in the black-snake, etc.) based on assumptions (as e.g.
hundreds of thousands of years being assumed as requisite for certain processes
of development, successive formation of strata, accumulation of debris, etc.,
which more recently are cut down greatly in figures) founded on reasoning in a
circle (as e.g. man was formed by naturally slow processes; these processes
being slow, the time was necessarily great embracing long ages, etc.), and
established upon data the mere, result of hypothetical speculation (as e.g. in
the intervention of enormous ages between certain supposed definite periods,
the origin of life, instinct, intellectuality, moral sense, etc. Because
we do not forsake the Bible with its Divinely attested
Plan, and receive in its place mere conjectural statements from which conclusions (as [Page 292] in Craniology) are drawn hostile to
the Book, we are called credulous.
Let it be so then, when it is a credulity which speaks to the heart, meeting its
necessities and longings; which provides food for the intellectual and moral
nature of man; which gives a Saviour in all respects adapted to
the need of humanity; which supplies a Kingdom
fitted to secure the blessings desired,
and to remove all the evils so long deprecated, by man; which restores to
us a God again dwelling with man,
and brings us into intimate and endearing relationship with Himself.
How much is this to be preferred to that process of reasoning which
cannot lift us above nature; which binds us to inexorable law; which introduces
us to a great Perhaps, to a probably
Intelligent, but distant, cold, and unfeeling First Cause; which seeks relief
only in the comprehension of natural law and the appropriation of physical
forces; which casts no light into the grave, affords no comfort to the mourner,
bestows no mediation to a self-accusing moral sense, and finds the only Saviour
in doomed man himself, or in enthralled nature. Which
is
the most reasonable, that
which unites, or that which separates, the Creator and the created; that which
makes law the final cause, or that which
gives the maker of law continued power over His creatures; that which makes the
being of God a great central truth, or that which continually tries to obscure it
through that which is created; that which insists upon the ability of God to communicate
His Will as He pleases, or that which asserts that to do so would argue
imperfection; that which views man as having the capacity, intellectually and
morally, to receive. Divine truth, or that which makes
both intellect and morality, to proceed from some unknown source; that which
makes man from the very constitution of his nature the subject of moral
government, or that which makes him merely the creature of progressive
circumstances, from moral obligations to a Higher Power; that which declares
that mans necessities, subjection to evils which fall upon all alike,
imperatively demands Divine assistance, or that which calls upon man to work
out destiny in his own strength; that which allies the Supernatural with salvation,
or that which proposes that it is not needed? Such contrasts bound and
can be supplied by the reader, and a mere comparison of them will at once go
far to prove why it is that the Bible takes such a firm hold upon even the
unlettered man of faith. It is because Divine Revelation in its adaptation to
man finds a response in mans nature, need, and
experience, which stamps it as Gods truth. Admitting that, some are led in their opposition
to the Scriptures by the fascination of some favourite theory (connected with a
low view of Christianity as exemplified in history), yet of many and even
partially, at least, of those just mentioned, it can be said, as Peter states (2 Pet. 3: 5), that they willingly are ignorant of the truth as evidenced both by Creation
and Redemption, and as enforced in the Bible. This is
evinced by three things. First, by the amount
of faith that is required to cover the missing links in their systems;
to fill up the gaps between matter and life, and the material and intellectual;
to receive the wholesale conclusions derived from the induction of a few facts;
to accept of hypotheses, suppositions, conjectures, as demonstrated truths - all
of which indicates such a strain on reason, such a
demand upon belief, that it can only be explained, as the Bible does,
on the ground that men willingly - as suited to their
purpose - accept of it, and reject the Word as antagonistic to their claims.
Secondly, by the special delight and pains manifested whenever it can introduce
any fact or point as a departure [Page
293] from Scripture, without the least regard to the faith, hopes,
feelings, etc. of others, thus exhibiting a wilfulness, a hostility to Holy
Writ, which by the very spirit and tenor of their writings only proves how
willingly and ready they are to be ignorant of a Word which makes such disliked (to them) practical
requirements. Thirdly, by the unwillingness of each and every one of them - taking
the explanation given by the Word of God as our guide - to place themselves in the position to really know and appreciate the power
of the truth. Coming to the Bible with prejudice; rejecting
the means of grace instituted as useless in their case; refusing to acknowledge
as a primary condition the corruption of sin,
and consequently the necessity of some mediation; elevating themselves into
judges, instead of being impartial, teachable students; scorning to bow the
knee in supplication, and to evince that humility which is a prerequisite to a
fair testing of the whole truth; declining to view the Bible as containing a
Plan of Redemption, and therefore to notice the perfect adaptability of it and
the provisions made; confining themselves to detached portions, separated from
their connection with the Divine Purpose; repelling the Saviour who (as they
themselves admit - if it were true) possesses the power to save - all this
certainly denotes an unwillingness to allow the unbiased trial which the importance of the Book
solicits. Let an one read the works that proceed from those who reject
the Supernatural and miraculous in the Bible and many sentences show forth far
more than mere indifference, mere reasoning, for on the very surface appears a delight in being thus antagonistic, a
dislike, and, in not a few
instances, positive detestation of Bible statements. Even the most, courteous of our opponents, who
cannot, and do not, condescend to the lower gross criticism, manifest the same
spirit in the evident gratification
that their theories, hypotheses, etc. afford to them in lessening the
authority of the Bible among the multitude. Flattering as this may be to the
intellectual power of eminent and talented men - to the believer in the Word, it
gives evidence of a willingness, arising from
moral considerations more or less concealed, to remain ignorant of the main
proofs underlying Christianity. Let such give us credit for honest adherence to the Book, and not censure our plainness of speech derived from it,
if we also announce to them, that inspiration foretells, that in this conflict
between unbelief and faith, between reason alone and reason and faith in
harmony, between the authority of man and the authority of the Bible, etc., the
former will be triumphant. Unbelief, led by talent, eminent
ability, eloquence, etc., will gain its adherents until they form a mighty host.
The condition of the world as delineated in the Word just previous
to the Second Advent presents to us the nations under the influence of an
unbelieving Naturalism and self-glorified Humanity, arrayed in open hostility to the
Lord Jesus Christ. The Church largely leavened with the spirit of
the age, shall feel most disastrously the incoming flood, and the pious shall
endure the bitterness of a sifting terrible persecution. The picture tendered to us by faithful
prophecy is dreadful to contemplate; for it indicates the loosening of
moral obligation, the outgoing of the worst passions in man, the formation of a
vast confederation to crush Christianity, and the putting forth of bloody
efforts to effect its destruction. The very last words of Jesus teach us, what
man will yet attempt to perform in his hatred to the Bible and its divinely appointed Saviour. Having
abundantly given scriptural proof to sustain this view of the ultimate (but
short-lived) triumph of infidelity [Page 294] over the Church, may
it not be in place to appeal to a class of opponents who engage in this work of
undermining the Bible without desiring the overthrow of Christianity (which
they still regard as exerting, with all its faults, a restraining moral
influence), without wishing, harm to society, or any member of it without even
considering the tendency of their speculations when once they fall into the
hands of the masses? Those attacks, if only confined
to a class of scholars, if only regarded as hypotheses worthy of consideration
by the intelligent, would do comparatively little harm, but when directed by
another class who advance them in a popular form for the multitude,
they become a destructive social power, for masses (caring little for scientific and philosophical reasoning)
are only too glad to avail themselves of anything that will deliver them
from the
moral and religious requirements imposed
by the Word of God, that will excuse the violations of the moral
sense within them, and that will palliate in any degree their
self-indulgence. The real responsibility of shaping
society in this direction and of the destructive fruits resulting from it,
rests upon men, who - if they ventured to accept of the experience of the past
(as e.g. French Revolution, Communism, etc.), to receive the portraiture of the
future as given in the Word, to weigh the inevitable fruitage that corrupt human
nature will produce when fostered by a release from authority - would themselves
shrink from, their self-imposed
labour. It seems to the writer that the taking away of
a faith which sustains in trouble, bereavements, death, etc., without being
able to
substitute anything better (that
only which cannot comfort, etc.), is bad enough, but in connection with this to
remove the moral restraints
and responsibilities arising
from relationship to a Creator and His revealed Will, and thus making man the supreme
authority - this, with the awful history of human depravity, given in the pages
of history, from the earliest period to the present, is most dangerous and ruinous
in tendency and results. Clinging to the words of the
holy men of old, we must believe, that works are written, which will exert such
an influence in directing the coming outburst of corruption and violence, and
which will introduce by the ascendancy of principles promulgated, such scenes
of misery and horror that the writers, if they could foresee them, would stand
aghast at the appalling spectacle and most bitterly regret their agency in
creating it. Standing upon the sure prophetic Word and surveying the
future, this representation falls far short of the stern reality. Let the sincere, candid, honest
doubter read for himself the delineations given by that Word, and even the
possibility of being in the remotest degree instrumental in bringing forth such
a state of things will cause him to hesitate long before he will lend himself
to the work. If such would consider that the Word predicts
the triumph of itself, and of the Church, not through the power and labour of man,
but through the power and mighty works of a Coming Redeemer (the very opposite
of what man would naturally suggest if he were giving a revelation); that it
makes both the Word and the Church at the last time struggling under a fiery
trial from which it is delivered by the appointed Son of man, they may in such
extraordinary announcements find a reason why the Bible is given in its
present form, grandly simple and unyielding, exhibiting traits most admirably
adapted to allow intellectual pride and presumption to stumble and fall - forming a pit and a snare for the
intellectual as well as the moral - in order to reveal what is in man, and
to what lengths humanity will reach in opposition to the sublimest Plan of Redemption, that
[Page
295] the love and mercy of a God could furnish. If men desire to
find objections to the Word, its very construction and simplicity, its ignoring
of scientific and philosophical preciseness, the gradual unfolding of the
Divine Plan and its details given at different periods and by various writers,
etc., afford them all the opportunity needed. It is left optional with men to receive it as a blessing,
or to convert it into a curse; God Himself will justify it in due time, when every jot and tittle (Matt. 5: 18) shall be fulfilled. In the mean
time the believer, sustained by the
blessed hope and taught by Holy Writ, confidently
looks for the raging flood of infidelity which shall sweep nearly all -
excepting a few faithful ones - before it; which shall introduce a systematic
and stern hostility provocative of martyrdom; which shall strive with fury to
set aside Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world; and shall be guilty of unbounded
wickedness and blasphemy; but He as confidently looks beyond this to the sudden
Coming of the glorious, mighty King of kings, when these raging waters, this
destructive, persecuting career, shall be stayed; when these Antichristian
hosts shall be utterly crushed; and when the foe, so jubilant and proud of
numbers and fancied success, shall fall panic-stricken under the wrath of the
same Lamb whose sufferings, death, warnings, and entreaties they have despised.
OBSERVATION 6. No faith, aside from other reasons, will be
exercised in this [coming] Kingdom because of the manner of its introduction through Supernatural intervention, and of the
Personage Jesus Christ,
through whom it is to be accomplished. To the student of the
Word who carefully notices how this [Messianic] Kingdom is to be re-established at the close of the
times of the Gentiles, it is significant and startling to find that, in strict
correspondence with prediction, the
greatest efforts are now made by the Gentiles to decry the Supernatural, to cast out the
miraculous, and to bring Jesus to the level of erring, weak, fate-bound
humanity. Denying the power and authority of the [Fathers
(Psalms 2. & 110.] appointed King,
as a matter of course the Kingdom is also rejected, virtually saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. How can He thus come and reign when His resurrection, ascension, etc.,
is disbelieved; when the attributes, by which alone
such a Kingdom, as covenanted and predicted, can be set up, are derided? They
never consider that Jesus Christ, the
God-man, must be studied in the light of
this Theocratic [and Millennial] arrangement;
that to invalidate His claims, etc., the Divine
Plan itself, which makes the
Advent of such a Person a necessity, must be logically set aside. They never regard the historical connection existing between Jesus
and the Kingdom as it once existed, and as it is now solemnly covenanted to Him
as Davids Son, unless it is to show (as Renan,
etc.) that the Kingdom not being set up now as predicted and believed in,
it will never be established, deliberately overlooking the passages which
distinctly prove that after His rejection by the Jews and
their conspiring to put Him to death, He proclaimed the postponement of the Kingdom to His Second Coming. We admit that if
Jesus or His Apostles had proclaimed the establishment of the Kingdom, as
covenanted immediately or shortly after His death, then indeed a powerful argument, owing to the patent
dissimilarity between the two, would be presented, but such an establishment
(which the primitive Church totally ignored) is taken for granted, and from a premise thus freely grounded
the most adverse conclusions respecting Jesus are entertained and promulgated.
The existing facts, too, which materially aid, as part of the Divine Purpose, to
confirm such a postponement and [Page 296] hence the certainty of this Coming Kingdom,
are carefully avoided and never allowed to sustain the
utterances of Jesus. A painful lack of candour toward the entire truth,
a specious, unsound form of reasoning, which takes just as much as suits its purpose
and leaves out the most important in its bearing, characterizes the attacks
upon the King and [His] Kingdom. Such a spirit and process are necessarily unproductive of faith.
How largely this is chargeable to the prevailing views in the Church - equally
hostile to the true notion of the [promised] Kingdom and thus making all uncalled for antagonism between
covenant, prophecy, preaching, etc., and the Church - is self-evident, seeing
that a large proportion of argument is derived from the unfortunate conclusions
arrived at by [deceived] believers. For, if the Church is the Kingdom, then the infidel can well
say, and firmly maintain his position, that it is not the Kingdom
which was covenanted to Davids Son; which was predicted by the
prophets, preached by John the Baptist,
Jesus Christ, the disciples, Apostles,
and primitive Church. Logically,
historically, critically, he is correct thus far; but critically, historically,
and logically he is incorrect when he assumes from this that it never will be verified, and from such a deduction endeavours to
undermine the authority, credibility, etc., of the Redeemer. Our doctrine of
the [soon coming] Kingdom
cannot be accused of aiding and strengthening the unbelief thus manifested, for
it receives the unanswerable grammatical interpretation of this Kingdom as
given by eminent unbelievers, and instead of covering it up by pitiful
subterfuges and lame apologies, relies upon it as the God-given truth. It acknowledges the
propriety and the force of unbelieving argumentation respecting the preaching of
this Kingdom by the Apostolic and primitive Church, and instead of making out,
to the gratification of unbelief, that these ancients were entertaining a
harmless and useful error, or that they were unconsciously presenting the truth
in a materialistic husk to be developed into
fruitage, it cordially adopts and defends this very preaching, this
alleged error, as necessitated by the oath-bound Word of God. It admits
the Jewish conceptions and the Jewish expectations incorporated with the New
Testament as joyfully paraded by prominent opponents, but shows that these are demanded by
the nature, design, and plan of the Divine Purpose. On a variety of points, our
doctrine makes the concessions to infidelity which demands,
and in so doing gains power, consistency, and unity which the
prevailing Apologetics lack on account of their fundamental principles. Thus, e.g., we agree with infidelity in the principles that underlie the interpretation
of the Book, viz., that it must he interpreted by the ordinary, universally
received laws of language, and that when the meaning is thus obtained we are
not at liberty to substitute another
and differing sense, which is given as the taste, inclination, imagination, etc.,
of [that which] the interpreter may suggest. This is fundamental; and unbelief has a just right to object to the vast number of interpretations
foisted upon the Word by its constant and flagrant violation. Unbelief occupies a proper position when it requires that every doctrine
taught by us should he found in the plain
grammatical construction of the language; it is not wrong when it says, that if the prophecies are truly
inspired, then they cannot be conditional so far as the purpose of God is
concerned; it is not foolish when it
proclaims that this Kingdom is Jewish - that between the apostolical belief and
the one generally entertained there is a world-wide difference - that if there
is any force in election the Jewish nation ought still to be an elect nation;
that the Kingdom, if manifested as the prophets describe, must [Page
297] have a continued revealed Supernaturalism connected with it;
that the Kingdom as predicted is associated with, even founded upon, a restored
Jewish nation and its subsequent
exaltation; that an intimate relationship exists between the Old and New
Testaments; that in our study of the Bible we should not be fettered by the
alleged authoritative utterances of our fellow-men as embraced in creeds, confessions,
systems, etc. Christianity in the controversies raging, has suffered by
incorporating principles indefensible (unknown to the early Church), and by
endeavouring to defend much that is utterly untenable; unbelief, only too glad
to seize upon such indications of weakness, has taken advantage of the
incautious and unscriptural attitude assumed, and has pressed the prevailing
Theology with a line of argument that, taking the naked Scripture, is wholly
unanswerable and but feebly
met by those who reject the
early Church doctrine of the Kingdom. This feature is beginning to be seen and felt by able writers; and it is with pleasure that
we notice many of the most eminent men (as e.g. Olshausen, Lange, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Van Oosterzee,
last work, etc.) falling back, more and more, to the identical position occupied by the early Christian Church. It is indeed the only ground upon which infidelity can be opposed honourably
(i.e. without apologising for or sacrificing the language of the Bible), and
which fairly meets its argumentation respecting the King and the [coming] Kingdom. In this way
we cannot be censurable for giving unbelief so many advantages in reasoning,
and thus virtually helping it on its efforts of destructive criticism. Admitting fully and freely the weight and authority of a certain,
defined, distinctive teaching in the Bible, and which cannot possibly be denied
without doing the utmost violence to the Book itself, yet the same can he
proven to be - instead of hostile to the truth and the claims of Jesus - essential
to the Plan of Redemption as
developed through the Coming King and
[His] Kingdom.
But relying upon the far-seeing and sure knowledge of the future as contained in this Book, it is certain
that this return to the primitive faith will be accepted by the few; and that the protestations of these, however logically and forcibly
presented, will utterly fail - for
reasons previously given - to stem the torrent of unbelief which now receives
its already swollen tributaries from all sides. Gods previous Plan for
the deliverance of the world through a divinely instituted Theocratic
arrangement will be rejected by the wisdom of the world. Davids
Son, so admirably qualified to bring about, the
golden age of prophecy and human longings, will be despised and treated
with contemptuous scorn. Human nature will again exhibit itself in its nakedness,
its inherit corruption. Analogy, pointing to the past
teaching that providential movement in the progressive advancement of the
Divine Purpose was met by a corresponding condition of unbelief, teaches that
when the last, which finishes the
mystery of God, shall be made, then
it is reasonable to anticipate a period of unbelief - and, may we add, being
the final one introductory to the Kingdom itself, will be answerably great.
The warning that the Apostle Paul gives to the Gentiles, and his
portrayal of the Antichristian power that will arise before, and only to be destroyed
at, the Personal Advent; the fearful portraiture of the corruption of mankind -
[which
we are now witnessing] - just previous to the Advent like in the days of Noah and Lot (Matt. 24: 39, knew not until the flood came,etc.) making a divine
personal interference imperative; the openly hostile attitude of the nations,
of reason and humanity, the oppressed condition of the pious, the lamentable
state of the Jewish nation, the formation
of a vast [Page 298] confederation and its merciless acts
toward witnesses of the truth; and all this at the closing of this dispensation
evinces
such a state of unbelief, such a
fruitage of the seeds now sown broadcast in a too favourable soil, such a continuation and powerful development
of infidelity, such a turning away [and speeding apostasy]
from Gods Redemptive Purpose in Christ Jesus and trust in humanity, that it is
impossible to entertain any other opinion, consistent with faith in the Word, than
that, whatever may be said in defence of the truth, men will resist it and gain
adherents until the time arrives for a violent outburst engendering a
revolution most disastrous to the Church, most ruinous to the moral
interests and eternal welfare of the multitude swayed by it, and most
fatal to those who shall in that day venture to testify in behalf of
the truth. Indeed, so fully persuaded is the writer of
the
certainty of this - judging simply
from past and present fulfilment - that the hope of writing for that very
period - of warning the weak in faith not to yield, of encouraging the believing
to suffer and endure to the end, of cautioning the doubting how to decide, and
of admonishing all, friends and foes, what they must expect - has greatly
sustained him in his labour.
-------
To
be continued, D.V.