THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM
PREFACE, BIOGRAPHY & INTRODUCTION
By
WILBUR M. SMITH, JOHN H. STOLL & GEORGE N. H. PETERS, D.D.
-------
[PART 1]
PREFACE
[Page 2 VOLUME 1]
While this work, The Theocratic Kingdom, may well be called the most exhaustive,
thoroughly annotated and logically arranged study of Biblical prophecy that
appeared in our country during the nineteenth century, its author lived and
worked in an oblivion that seems almost mysterious, and experienced so little
recognition at the time of the publication of his work that one must almost
believe that there was an organized determination to ignore its appearance.
In 1942 I became intensely interested
in the life of Rev. George N. H. Peters, but in spite
of extensive correspondence, and many hours of research, I was able to uncover
nothing of significance regarding him, apart from the few lines in the
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. In this brief sketch we are told that Peters was born in 1825,
graduated from Wittenberg College in Springfield, Ohio in 1850 and held
pastorates in Lutheran churches in Xenia and Springfield in that state. The
college was unable to give me any information beyond the fact that he was a
graduate of that institution. One man to whom I was directed
as being an authority on the history of
There is no mention of Mr. Peters in Who Was Who in America or in the Dictionary of American Biography, and Allibone fails to mention him.
Reviews of the work say nothing of the author. Yet, this man must have read
almost everything of value in the area of theology, especially prophecy, as
well as hundreds of volumes of history, science, literature, etc., for an
examination of the index reveals that he has quoted from over four thousand
different authors, from the early church fathers down to the last quarter of
the nineteenth century.
When in 1951 Mr. Kregel asked me to write a preface for his reprint of this work, I again made an
effort to obtain some facts regarding the author, but failed to discover any
additional information. However, the published preface stirred up an interested
[Page 3] friend in Iowa to write to the Chamber of Commerce in
Springfield, Ohio (a source of information I had not thought of), and from them
he secured the date of Mr. Peters’ death, October 7, 1909, a date not entered
on the Library of Congress cards. This opened the way for obtaining
biographical data from obituary notices; but even here this mysterious silence
prevails. Through the kindness of Mrs. Mary Miller, Reference Assistant of the
Warder Public Library of Springfield, Ohio, I have a copy of the obituary
notice from the Springfield Morning Times
for October 9, 1909, which briefly reads as follows: “Rev. George N. H. Peters, aged 84 years, died Thursday at 8
p.m. at the residence of his son Edward Peters, at the corner of Huron St. and
Leffel Lane. Funeral Saturday at 1 p.m. from the residence. Burial at Fletcher
Chapel.” Indeed, though he was buried in the Peters family lot in
After this revised preface had been completed ready for
mailing, light at last fell upon this obscure subject. Professor
Willard D. Allbeek, of the Department of Historical Theology of Hamma Divinity
School of Wittenberg College, most graciously sent me a copy of what is no
doubt the only extensive biographical sketch of Mr. Peters that has ever
appeared, found in the Lutheran Observer of October 22, 1909, and I am sure that
all future readers of this great work will be grateful to Professor Allbeck for
making it possible for a wider circle to know something of a more definite
nature concerning the author of these volumes.
Mr. Peters “studied a short time at
“He was intimately acquainted with
the founders of
“In this ministry, he preached in
nearly every charge of
“In the early history of the
Wittenberg Synod, the congregations were small and poor, and his salary for
years was three hundred dollars and no parsonage. The roads, especially in
beach-timbered localities, were a heavy tax physically.”
Mr. Peters in his early ministry came under the influence of Dr. S. S. Schmucker, one of the great
Lutheran divines of the mid-nineteenth century. Dr. Schmucker was a
pre-millennialist who [Page 5] had been the one who brought also to
this position probably the most forceful exponent of Biblical prophecy in
America in the mid-nineteenth century, Dr.
Joseph A. Seiss. Mr. Peters begins an extended dedication notice with this
personal word: “As a token of personal regard, of due
appreciation for counsel received and words of encouragement given in hours of
deep despondency, of indebtedness for valuable instruction in Theology, rich
suggestions in friendly and Christian converse and for a true brotherly
treatment (when needed because of the views presented within the following
pages.)”
Out of a life-long study of Biblical prophecy came this great
three-volume work, The Theocratic Kingdom. “When the pre-millenarians of
Apparently this author, to whom all prophetic students are so
deeply indebted, had some rather bitter experiences with his brethren, and also
suffered prolonged physical illness. In the Introduction he says (p. 15), “Owing to providences which prevented the writer from
actively prosecuting the ministry, he was directed to a course of study which
influenced him years ago to draw up a draft of the present work.” He anticipated strong
opposition: “That this work will bring upon the
author bitter and unrelenting abuse is almost inevitable, presenting as it does unpalatable truths to a peculiar humanity
... Acknowledging the respectful manner in which we
are spoken of by a number of our opponents, yet the simple fact is that if
anyone dares to arise and call into question the correctness of popular views
and propose another, one too strict in accordance with the early teaching of
the church, his motive is assailed, his piety is doubted, his character is
privately and publicly traduced, his learning and ability are lowered, his
position is accorded a scornful and degrading pity by persons who deem
themselves set up for the defence of the truth” (pp. 18, 20). In
a footnote to the Introduction, probably written after the work had been
completed, Mr. Peters speaks of “the cold
fraternization of ‘brethren’ who had no sympathy for chiliastic study” (p. 27).
No other work in the area of prophetic study with which I am acquainted
contains so many allusions to deep disappointment and loneliness on the part of
the author as does this Introduction by Peters.
“Increasing infirmities forced him to
abandon all public speaking. For several years those infirmities had so
increased by kidney troubles, advancing deafness, etc., as to prevent his
attendance at [Page 6] public
meetings and visitings, and made him lead a very secluded life. With his
friends nearly all removed by death, he felt that he lived in a generation that
knew him not, and was contented to live isolated, being still blessed with
ability to read and study some, and above all with a faith and hope that gave
comfort and endurance and peace.
“During the
last two months of his life he was almost constantly confined to his room.
Living with his son, Mr. Ed Peters, of
The author of this work lived and worked at a time when
America had more great students of prophecy than perhaps any other country in
the western world, among whom, for example, were E. R. Craven (1824-1908), Samuel
H. Kellogg (1839-1899), James H.
Brookes (1830-1897), Arthur T.
Pierson (1837-1911), Nathaniel West
(1824-1906), Ford C. Ottman
(1859-1929), and C. I. Scofield
(1843-1921). There is no group like this today in our country, in
One would like to know something more of the relationship
between the author and the original publisher of these volumes, I. K. Funk and Company, which later
became one of the major publishing firms of our country, Funk & Wagnalls.
The founder, Isaac Kauffrnan Funk
(1839-1912) initiated The Preacher and Homiletic Magazine in 1878,
which became the Homiletic
Review in 1885, and issued Spurgeon’s noted Treasury of David in 1884, just at the time this large
work by Peters was being published. In 1891, Mr. Funk began The Literary Digest
and in that same year, The Standard Dictionary of the English Language. At
the beginning of the century, he undertook the publication of the well-known Jewish Encyclopedia
in twelve volumes, and was chairman of its editorial board from 1901 to
1906. Mr. Funk was apparently interested in prophetic subjects, since it was he
who brought out in 1901 the American edition of George Croly’s (1780-1860) commentary on the Apocalypse under the
title Tarry Till I Come.
In perusing The Theocratic Kingdom I am continually amazed at the author’s
vast reading, evidenced on every page. As mentioned previously, Mr. Peters
quotes from at least four thousand different authors, and apparently almost all
of these quotations were taken from the original source, not from other
writers. Many of these authors are not mentioned in Allibone, or Schaff and scores of [Page 7] titles do not appear in the massive Catalogue
of Printed Books of the Library of Congress, and are not in the major
theological libraries of our country, e.g., Anderson: Apology for Millennial Doctrine; John Cox. Millenarian’s Answers (1832); Edward
Clarke: Dissertation
on the Dragon, Beast and the False Prophet (1814); Manford:
Apology for Millenarianism;
and Swormstedt: The End of the
World Near. This list could be extended indefinitely. (Some of these
works are listed in the exhaustive Dictionary of the Writers of Prophecy which the
editor of The
Investigator issued in 1835, but not all of them). The one criticism
to be made of this bibliographical material is that Mr. Peters generally
neglects to give the first name of the author; e.g., he refers to a work
published in
Several questions are often in my mind as I read Peters: Where
did he consult these books? Did he subscribe to all of these journals from
which he quotes? Did he have a large theological library of his own? - I would
assume that he did. What happened to that library?
Some themes of major importance in prophetic study are given
more exhaustive treatment here than in any other single work published in the
nineteenth century. In directing attention to several of these, I would hope to
encourage all who possess this set to give it careful study: The Faith of the Early Church in the Second
Advent of Christ, I: 449-466; Opposition
to the Doctrine of the Second Advent, III: 134-160; The Second Advent of Christ in the Great Confessions of the Church,
II: 530-537; Signs Pointing to the End
of the Age, III: 109-170; The
Relation of Belief in the Second Advent to Missionary Activity, III:
331-334; Chronological Guesses of the
Time of Christ’s Return, III: 99-100; Growing
Unbelief in Christendom, III: 692-693; The
Failure of Reformation Theologians to Give Adequate Consideration to Prophetic
Subjects, II: 524-527.
One of the outstanding features in these pages is the author’s
listing and careful study of the different views of Antichrist held by the
Church at various times (II: 660-730). Deserving attention also are the brief
notices of subjects, with bibliographical references, such as the Genealogies
of Christ I: 352-355; False Miracles, II: 758, and
Peace Congresses, III: 152. Some of the themes dealt with by Mr. Peters, though
he wrote three-quarters of a century ago, are vitally related to problems
confronting students of Scripture today. I would especially commend the
frequent and scholarly discussions of war in Biblical prophecy (II: 102-116,
751-772; III: 598). Although the author did not think that there ought to be
any action [Page 8] within Judaism to promote the
resettling of Palestine, but that this should be a movement from God at the end
of the age, his examination of the subject of the restoration of the Jews to
Palestine is most interesting (II: 75-91, 101) particularly as it concerns the
prominent part England would play in the final restoration of that land to the
Jews (III: 148). His notations on the relationship of science and religion are
still worth careful study (III: 506-511).
Back in the 1880’s, Peters saw the threat of world communism
(III: 154) and developed with thoroughness the theme now so frequently found in
Toynbee’s writings, the coming times
of trouble (II: 731-750). More than thirty important titles are included in the
discussion of Spiritualism (III: 145-148). A more satisfactory investigation of
the premillennial views of John Wesley
and Thomas Chalmers will not be
readily come upon elsewhere (II:540-541). The second volume of this work
contains the longest and most critical comment on the famous volume by H. Grattan Guinness, The Approaching End of the Age, that I have
seen (II: 716-719).
Here and there I have come upon items which I had not seen
referred to before. For example, Peters quotes the Christian Union of August 28, 1878,
in a statement that the School Board of the City of
Of course no student of prophecy would be expected to agree
with everything set forth in these two thousand pages. Personally, I feel that
on three or four points Mr. Peters has proposed views that would be quite
unacceptable to most [A-Millennial] careful students of these themes today; e.g., his identification of the
kings of the east of Rev. 16: 12 with
saints reigning with Christ on earth, and his strange geographical location of
the Mount of Mageddon. In one area of prophetic
study this work is disappointing, at least to me, and
that is geographical prophecy. This is a subject about which the Old [Page 9] Testament writers had a great deal to say. There is but one reference to
- Wilbur M. Smith
-------
[PART 2]
[Page 10]
GEORGE N.H. PETERS - A Biography
(1825-1909)
by John H. Stoll, Chairman,
Department of Biblical Studies,
In 1883
an obscure work by an unknown author was published in three volumes entitled, The
Theocratic Kingdom. This work
was to ultimately have a profound influence on the eschatological thinking of
students of the Bible. In 1952, Dr. Wilbur Smith writing a preface to the
reprint of this work said in his opening sentences, “No
writer of a major work in the field of Biblical interpretation in modern times
could have lived and died in greater oblivion, and experienced less recognition
for a great piece of work, than the author of these three great volumes devoted
to Biblical prophecy ... Yet, this clergyman,
never becoming nationally famous, never serving large churches, passing away in
such comparative obscurity ... wrote the most
important single work on Biblical predictive prophecy to appear in this country
at any time during the nineteenth century.”
These three volumes of over 2200 pages give an exhaustive
treatise on the whole field of Eschatology. Dr. Smith was quick to point out in
his preface that, “the author of these volumes must
have read everything of importance in the major areas of history, science,
literature, and theology. From an
examination of the index, one learns that over four thousand different
authors are quoted from the Church Fathers of the second century down to his
own decade. No one else has ever written a work on predictive prophecy in which
statements are so heavily supported, with reference to the relevant literature,
as has Peters.”
George N. H. Peters, son of Isaac Cyrus and Magdalene Miller
Peters, was born November 29, 1825 in
After graduation from college, Peters first pastored a
Lutheran church in
Some years ago while teaching at a college in
George Peters, by his family’s evaluation, was a generous man.
He owned a considerable piece of land at the edge of
From those who knew him well, it was said that he was the
kindest and most generous person one could know. However, he did not see eye to
eye with the other ministers in the city of Springfield and consequently never
took an active part in their meetings, though he was the treasurer of the
Wittenberg Synod from 1853-58 and a member of the board of directors of
Wittenberg College from 1855-59. Much of
the disagreement that he experienced professionally with other clergymen in his
denomination centered around the fact that he was pre-millenarian in
eschatology, while the denomination was predominately post-millenarian. The
Theocratic Kingdom reflects very well his position on this subject.
George Peters spent great amounts of time in study, oftentimes
eighteen to twenty hours per day for days at a time. Many nights he wrote all
night long. This is readily seen from this prodigious work on the Kingdom which
is an exhaustive study on the subject. Though The Theocratic Kingdom is his only work in print, there are at least 13 other manuscripts, written in
longhand, which are extant. From a cursory glance of them, I [Page 12] would judge them to be equally exhaustive. They include expositions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, I
& II Thessalonians,
I & II
Timothy, Titus, and the Revelation. In addition there are two other
manuscripts on “The Lord’s Supper,” and “The Predicted Future.”
It is interesting to read what Dr. Wilbur Srnith noted in his
preface to The Theocratic Kingdom (1952
ed.) when he said, “One does not need to agree with
all of his statements, nor even with all of his interpretations, to recognise
the greatness of this work that must have cost him a lifetime of research,
prayer, investigation, and laborious writing - these were the days before
typewriters.”
Through the years the value of this work has manifested itself
in the reception it has received from Biblical scholars. The relevancy of the
Word of God and the continuing interest in prophetical themes is attested to by
the continuing demand for reprints of such lasting works as this. George Peters
gave to the Christian public a memorable work, which testifies to the
everlasting Grace of God in the hearts of believers.
George N. H. Peters
-------
[Page 13]
[PART 3]
INTRODUCTION
In this work it is proposed to show
what the Covenants demand, and what relationship the second coming, kingdom,
and glory of “The
Christ” sustains to the same,
in order that perfected Redemption may be realised. This logically, introduces
a large amount of converging testimony.
The history of the human race is, as
able theologians have remarked, the history of God’s dealings with man. It is a
fulfilling of revelation; yea, more it is an unfolding of the ways of God, a
comprehensive conformation of, and in appointed aid in interpreting the plan of
redemption. Hence God himself appeals to it, not
merely as the evidence of the truth declared, but as the mode by which we alone
can obtain a full and complete view of the Divine purpose relating to salvation.
To do this we must however, regard past, present,
and
future history. The latter must be received as predicted, for
we may rest assured, front the past and present fulfilment of the word of God,
thus changed into historical reality, that the predictions and promises
relating to the future will also in their turn become veritable history. It is this faith, which grasps the future as already present, that can form a decided and unmistakable unity.
This is becoming more profoundly felt
and expressed, and is forcibly portrayed in some recent publications (e.g. Dorner’s His. Prot. Theol.,
Auberlen’s Div. Rev.,
etc.). Seeing that all things are tending toward
the kingdom to be hereafter established by Christ, that the dispensations
from Adam to the present are only preparatory stages for its coming
manifestation, surely it is the highest wisdom to
direct special and careful attention to the kingdom itself. If it is the end
which serves to explain the means employed; if it is the object for which ages
have passed by and are ever to revolve; if the coming of Jesus, which is to
inaugurate it, is emphatically called “the blessed hope;” if it embraces the culmination of the world’s history in
ample deliverance and desired restitution; then it is utterly impossible for us to determine the true significance, the
Divine course, and the development of the plan of salvation without a deep
insight into that of the kingdom itself. Prophets, apostles, and Jesus himself, especially in
his last testimony, continually point the eye of faith and the heart of hope to
this [coming] kingdom as the bright light which can
clearly illumine the past and present, and even dispel the darkness of the
future. Scripture and theology, the latter in its very early and latter development,
teach us, if we will but receive it, that we cannot properly comprehend the
Divine economy in its relation to man and the world, unless we reverently
consider the manifestation of its [Page 14] ultimate result as exhibited in this kingdom. It follows, therefore, that a
work of this kind, intended to give an understanding of a subject so vital,
however defective in part, requires no apology to the reflecting mind. Every effort
in this direction, if it evinces appreciation of truth and reverence for the
word, will be received with pleasure by the true Biblical student.*
* When regarding the large number of
able treatises on various parts of the subject here discussed, the author felt
somewhat like Montesquien, who in
his preface to “The Spirit of Laws,” wrote: “When I saw what so many great men in France, in England, and
in Germany had written before me, I was buried in admiration; but I did not
lose courage. I said with Correggio,
‘I also am a painter.’”
My painting consists in bringing together upon a large canvas the ideas of many
painters; or, without figure, to place in a strict logical, consecutive order
the truths pertaining to the kingdom, truths too often presented in an
isolated, disconnected manner, and thus destroying their force. As to the
ability to perform such a labour of love, the text above contains a sufficient
excuse. For God, passing by the refined and the learned,
first showed forth His wisdom and power in Galileans (Acts
2: 7); He chooses “the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”
(1 Cor. 1:
27); He places His “treasure
in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the
power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor.
4: 7), in
order to evince the often-repeated fact that even humble talents and
attainments may be highly useful in upholding the truth.
In the reaction against Rationalism, Spiritualism, Naturalism,
etc., special attention has been paid to the
The multiplicity and utter inconsistency
of prevailing interpretations of the kingdom; the complete failure to reconcile
such meanings with the preaching of the apostles; the unfortunate concessions made
by able theologians to the Strauss
and Baner school on the subject of the
kingdom; the impossibility of preserving the authority and unity of the
apostolic teaching from the modern standpoint of the [Messianic] kingdom; the honest desire to obtain,
if possible, the truth - these and other considerations led the writer to
repeatedly consider, for many years, the Divine revelation (in connection with
the history of man) with special reference
to this subject, until he was forced, by the last array of authority and the
satisfactory unity of teaching and of purpose which it presented, not only to
discard the modern definitions as untrustworthy, but to accept of the old view
of the kingdom as the one clearly taught by the prophets Jesus, the disciples,
the apostles, the apostolic fathers, and their immediate successors. In a course of reading and study it has been constantly kept in view, and the results,
after a laborious comparison of Scripture, are now laid before the reader. This
work is far from being exhaustive. Here are only presented the outlines of that
which some other mind may mould into a more attractive and comprehensive form. Owing
to providences which prevented the writer from
actively prosecuting the ministry, he was directed to a course of study [Page 16] which influenced him years ago to draw up a draft of the present work. The
need of such an one was then impressed, and this impression
has been deepened by a varied and close observation. Yet, feeling the necessity
of caution, it was held in abeyance to allow renewed
reflection and investigation, until finally a sense of duty has impelled him to
publish it as now given. If it possesses no other merit than that of presenting
in a compact and logical form the millenarian
views of the ancient and modern believers, and in paving the way for a more strict and consistent interpretation of the kingdom, this itself
would already be sufficient justification for its publication. The work, aside from its main leading
idea, contains a mass of information on a variety of subjects and texts which may prove interesting, if not valuable in
suggestions to others. The author is not desirous to play the Diogenes
evincing, under the garb of humility and pretended low opinion of self, the
utmost vainglory; or to enact the Alexander, showing, through an ardent desire
for praise, a strong ambition for honours. A due medium, invoking self-respect and
a sincere desire to secure the approval of good men, is the most desirable, and also the most consistent with modesty. He therefore concluded, that no one could justly suspect his honesty
of purpose, integrity, and desire to promote the truth, if he would publish his
thoughts in the form herein given, even if he went to the length - impelled by
what he regarded as truth - of giving the decided opinion, with reasons
attached, that the views so universally promulgated respecting the kingdom of God
are radically wrong, derogatory to the Plan of Redemption, opposed to the honour
of the Messiah, and a remnant, remarkably preserved, of Alexandrian, monkish,
and popish interpretation. Not that the writer claims
entire freedom from error himself. Imperfection and a liability to err
are, more or less, the condition of all human writings, even of the must well
intended. Therefore, while, in illustrating or defending my own views, the
opinions of others may be brought into review, it is far from me to assert that
in some things, either through inadvertency, or
ignorance, or prejudice, the author may not be ultimately found to be in error.
Seeing that this is our own common lot, it would be unwise to approach each
other’s works with, any other than candid eyes and charitable hearts; so that,
while we may feel to regret what appears to us a mistake, we may at the same
time duly acknowledge the truth which is given. It may be proper to add in this
connection, lest the spirit and motive be misinterpreted, that in the course of
the work the names of authors are necessarily presented
whose views are antagonistic to those here advocated. As it would have required
considerable space to insert in each instance the respect and high regard the
author has for them, although they thus differ from him, he may
be allowed, once for all, to say that, while compelled to dissent from them,
he nevertheless esteems them none the less as believers in Christ. Honesty impelled to differences, and,
in justice to our subject, to criticise the views of eminent men, we still
gratefully acknowledge ourselves largely indebted to many of them for valuable
information, instruction, and suggestions. We have no desire to reproach them,
or, in imitation of some of them in reference to ourselves, to call their
integrity, or piety, or orthodoxy into question. We may even indulge the hope
that this work may elicit renewed reflection, study, and discussion, leading to
the removal of the evident weakness and contradictory statements of the
prevailing Church view. Its publication may, we trust, be provocative of good, sustaining
as it does the humble [Page 17] position of a forerunner of the
truth, or the relationship of being merely suggestive, and thus opening the way
for a more severe and critical examination of a doctrine
which has been too much taken for granted. Defective as our
works are in some respects, yet gifted minds have asserted, with charity and
truth, that no mental toil, no laborious research, no earnestness of effort, to
interpret the Scriptures, however deficient in part or whole, should be undervalued,
or scouted, or denounced, because all such may either present some truth which
may serve to elucidate others, or produce thoughts that may be suggestive to
others in introducing true knowledge. We too often overlook even our
indebtedness to opposers of our opinions and belief. What Julius Muller says should influence us
not only to attempt to labour ourselves,
but to tolerate the efforts of others: “Our attempts
to exhibit the truth in its entirety and connection are only like the prattle
of children, compared with that clear knowledge which awaits us; but woe would
it be to us if, because we cannot have the prefect, we should cease to apply to
the imperfect, in all truthfulness and honour, our strength and toil” (quoted
by Auberlen, Div. Rev., p. 415). This
work is written under the impression, deepened by the
testimony of able scholars, that the love of the truth is one of the fundamental principles given to us by Christianity,
and revived by the spirit of Protestantism and Science. Ignorance, fanaticism,
party prejudice, etc. may indeed at times have obscured it, but intelligent
piety has constantly restored it. Under the influence every inquiry after the
truth, if conducted with reverence to the Word, without animosity, and in
meekness, even if unsuccessful in its full attainment, is regarded by the truly
learned and wise with charity, without an impugning of motives, or questioning
of the religious standpoint of the searcher. This leads of course, to the
position that the credit we desire to be awarded to
ourselves for presenting what we conceive to be truth should be likewise
extended to others. And if the claim, that they are not to decline the
responsibility of holding forth the whole truth from our apprehension of
consequences; that they are not to disguise or withdraw it through fear of
giving offence, of losing reputation and support - we justly claim the same
privilege. More than this: we can say with a distinguished
theologian, who, contrasting the labours of more recent theologians with those
of the older, and pointing out how the Old Testament is beginning to be
appreciated in its relations to the New Testament, and the future - how the
historical and doctrinal features of the primative Church in its relation to
the [coming Messianic]
Kingdom of God is more fully recognised - adds, that there are only “the beginnings of a work in which it is a pleasure and joy
to have any share.”*
*Auberlen, Div Rev., p. 264.
This pleasure, however, is materially affected
by one feature, the natural result of human infirmity. Uprightness demands that we follow the truth
wherever it may lead, regardless of results, keeping in mind the remark of Canstein (Lange, Com., vol. 1, p. 516), “straightforwardness
is best. When we seek to make the truth bend, it usually breaks.” The
doctrine discussed in the following pages being within the field of
controversy, and the subject of varied interpretation, it will become in its
turn, owing to its antagonism to the prevailing theology, the legitimate
subject of criticism. Of this we do not complain, but
rather [Page 18] commend the fact. “History
repeats itself,” and in such a repetition we do not flatter ourselves to
escape the usual fate of our predecessors in authorship. Indeed, we already
have had sad foretastes of the same, confirming the teaching of Scripture, and
corroborating the experience of good men, that no exercise of wisdom, caution,
and prudence will be able wholly to avert the evil tongues and pens of others.
Some men seem to be constitutionally constituted to be “heresy-hunters,” and imbibe largely the spirit of Oslarider of Tubingen, who (Dorner’s Hist. Prot. Theol., p. 185, note),
discovered in Arndt’s writings
Popery, Monkery, Enthusiasm, Pelagianism, Calvinism, Schwenckfeldianism,
Flacianism, and Wegelianism. Arndt
survived the attack and still gloriously lives in the esteem of true Christian
freedom, while his opponent is almost forgotten. This
random illustration* is taken from a vast multitude
familiar to every scholar, and serves to indicate a weakness naturally inherent
in some men, and who, perhaps, are scarcely answerable for its unfortunate
display. [*The Faculty of Wittenberg with John
Deutschman (Kurtz’s Ch, Hist.,
vol. 2, p. 241) charged the amiable Spener
with 264 errors, lynx-eyed are some critics.] Truth itself, however, requires no such picking of
flaws, no harshness of language, no personality of
attack, no bigoted and selfish support. She loves to hide herself in meekness,
humility, and love, while the graces of the spirit surround and accompany her.
The rude grasp, the rough touch even, is sure to mar the neat foldings and to
spoil the downy softness and shining lustre of her garments. That this work
will bring upon the author bitter and unrelenting abuse is almost inevitable,
presenting as it does unpalatable truths to a proud humanity. How can this be
otherwise, when even the institution of the Lord’s Supper, intended as a bond
of union and love, has been made the subject of uncharitable discord, violent
abuse, and miserable hatred between professed [and often regenerate] believers. While we trust that the spirit
which actuated many of the eucharistic controversies may
never again arise, we are only too sensible, from treatment already
experienced, that human nature remains the same. If the amiable Melanchthon did not escape, but most
earnestly wished to be delivered front the rabies theologorum, how can others be safe? Even the Master himself was and is attacked, and the disciple is not above his
Master. The virulence occasionally received from some quarters reminds one of
the utterances of older controversialists, such as Henry VIII.’s work, Luther’s
reply, and More’s rejoinder.
Perhaps, like St. Austin and others,
they regard such a manifestation of spirit is perfectly legitimate, desirable,
and honourable. We do not quarrel with those who have inherited a taste for “bitter herbs.” Expressing
ourselves candidly and fairly toward our opponents, we dare not return the
epithets so liberally bestowed upon us. Two reasons prevent
us: the first is, that dealing as we do “with the
testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of
prophecy,” entering the sacred province of Scripture with the words of
God constantly flowing from our pen, portraying the holy utterances of the Most
High, it ill becomes us, when thus writing of the precious things pertaining to
redemption, the kingdom of the Great King, and the ultimate glory of God, to mingle
with it the painful evidences of human passion. The second is, dealing
with a subject which, in the writer’s opinion, has been misapprehended by talented
men, it is amply sufficient, for the elucidation and confirmation of the truth,
to point out defects and exhibit statements in opposition without [Page 19] defaming, the character or standing of any one. The latter procedure worthy alone of a grovelling Jesuitical
casuistry. Our names
(Millenarian) have been linked with Cerinthus,
heresy, etc., which is only imitating the amiable example of the Jesuit Theophilus Raynaud, who was
noted for coupling his adversaries
with some odious name to render them, if possible. contemptible by the
comparison. It is the same trick resorted to by some Jews to
wound Christ, and can only have weight with the unreflecting.* To hold up the
faults of opinion in others, for the sake of others, for the sake contrasting, explaining,
and enforcing the truth, is allowable to
all; especially when they are published, and thus become a sort of common property,
or at least challenge the notice of others; but to hold up a man’s faults simply to make him odious is a
despicable business. As Fuller
(Eccl. Hist.,
Book X., p.27) has wisely said: “What a monster might be made out of the best beauties in the
world, if a limner should leave what is
lovely and only collect into one picture what he findeth amiss in them! I know
that there be white teeth in the blackest black-amour,
and a black bill in the whitest swan. Worst men have something to be commended; best men, something in them to be condemned.
Only to insist on men’s faults, to render them odious, is no ingenious (sic) employment,” etc. We doubt not the ultimate fulfilment of Isa. 66: 5 in
the case of many who have been thus defamed: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye
that tremble at His word; your brethren that
hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake,
said, Let the Lord be
glorified: but He shall appear to your joy,
and they shall be ashamed.” This
passage suggests that a mistaken zeal for God’s glory may often be the leading motive of
controversial bitterness - that our “brethren” may, through such overzeal, be its
willing instruments. This, alas, embitters authorship on controverted
questions. The opposition and obloquy consequent to and
connected with such a discussion as follows while duly anticipated.**
as a heritage of the studious sons of the Church (the more marked their labours,
the greater the abuse), would be less painful if it came only from infidels or
the enemies of the truth, but much of it comes through those from whom, in view
of a common faith and hope, we expect different treatment - at least
forbearance if not charity.
* Simple candour requires us to say,
that some of our opponents write against us in a style that forcibly reminds us
of the Popish bulls against heretics, or the supercilious language addressed by
sundry ecclesiastical and civil judges, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, against
the Puritans - a style constantly reiterated in history and produced by the
spirit, “I am holier than thou,” connected with
a feeling of personal importance akin to that of the petty constable who felt
that anything in opposition to himself was in opposition to the commonwealth
itself. Yet
philosophy may suggest, that reproach, however bestowed, often answers, like
the dark background or shading of a portrait, to bring out more vividly the
individuality - a principle that Renan recognizes in Christ; the reproaches of
others bringing out, by way of contrast, more prominently and distinctively the
traits and characteristics of Jesus. Would any lover of the Christ wish this
part of the record blotted out? If not, why object to it when related to
ourselves, especially when contrasted with Matt.
5: 10-12, etc.
** When Spalatin, the chaplain of
Acknowledging the [Page 20] respectful and Christian manner in which we are spoken of by a number of
our opponents, yet the simple fact is, that if any one dares to arise and call
into question the correctness of popular views and propose another, one too in
strict accordance with the early teaching of the Church, his motives are assailed,
his piety is doubted, his character is privately and publicly traduced, his
learning and ability are lowered, his position is accorded a scornful and degrading
pity, by persons who deem themselves set up for the defence of the truth. This plainness of speech the reader
will pardon when he is assured that the writer, for the sake of the opinions
set forth in this work, has suffered all this front
the hands of “brethren,” who, by such efforts, reproaches,
innuendoes, etc., have sought to lessen his influence and retard his
preferment. Precisely as the learned Mede and hundreds of others have
experienced* We here enter our
protest, that truth is never benefited by such conduct, and that Christianity
in its most rudimentary form forbids such treatment. But
in justice to le really intelligent class of our opponents, we must say that
such dealings toward us do not come from the truly learned opposer - for among
such the writer has the pleasure of numbering valued friends. One feature of this work will bring upon us the censure of some -
viz., the candid concessions made to unbelievers who attack the Scriptures, and
the acceptance of the principle of interpretation (i.e., the grammatical
sense), the views entertained respecting the [coming Messianic] kingdom by John the Baptist, disciples and
early church, etc. to which the writer is forced by justice, love for the truth,
and the decided, overwhelming proof presented in behalf of the same.
* Compare the ease of Edward Irvine (life of, by Mrs. Oliphant, pp. 337-339) who offered to win the degree of Doctor of Divinity by submitting to an academical examination, etc. Some of
our opponents have received the title for writing books against us. Those
subject to such treatment can, however, condole themselves with such passages
as 1 Cor. 3:
18, when, as Barnes
tells us (Com.
loci., Remark 17) that the Christian “must be willing
to be esteemed a fool; to be despised; to have a name cast out as evil; and to
be regarded as even under delusion and deception. Whatever may be his rank or
his reputation for wisdom and talent and learning, he must be willing to be
regarded as a fool by his former associates,” etc. Alas! this was foreseen and hence the encouragement given by
Jesus, Matt. 5:
11, etc. Bishop Newton remarks (Proph. Diss. Vol. 2, p. 164), that we have but little
encouragement from the Church in studies of this kind, and instances the
neglect bestowed upon two, “the most learned men of
their times,” viz., Mede and Daubuz. The experience of many
corroborates this statement. The writer has now in his mind several men of
eminent ability, who are suffering from the covert and open attacks of “brethren,” and are in danger of losing positions of
usefulness and trust. But we console ourselves with Rothe’s declaration (“Stille Stunde”): “He whose
thoughts rise a little above the trivial must not be surprised if he is
thoroughly misunderstood by most men.” One of the severest trials -
incident to our infirmity - to a sensitive heart, is the loss of personal friends, highly esteemed, through adhesion to what
is honestly regarded as the truth, but which such may suppose to be in error.
It must be acknowledged that many facts pertaining to the kingdom,
as covenanted, predicted, and preached, are either entirely ignored or most
imperfectly (inconsistently) explained by Christian Apologists. But those very concessions form for us a means of logical strength,
of consonant unity, of accordance with Scripture and history, that, meeting unbelief
fairly and honestly
upon its own ground, furnish us with the proper weapons for
defending the integrity of the Word and the reputation of the first preachers
of “the gospel of the kingdom,”
bringing a continued verification of the Divine utterance, that “a man’s foes shall be they of
his own household.” Of course, we expect no special favour from gross Infidels,
Spiritualists, Mystics, Free Religionists, and a variety of others, whose basis
necessarily leads to opposition and whose unbelief is frankly criticised. Yet
even such have dealt far more justly toward us, owing to our honest conceptions of historical facts, than
members who were united with us in
the same church. We may suitably close this section by again referring to that
noble characteristic of candour, which should above all, mark our criticism of
doctrine. We select as an apt illustration of our meaning the honourable
example of Professor Bush. Although
in his writings an opposer of Millenarianism, he endeavours to conceal no facts, however adverse to himself,
but freely gives them, being too much of a scholar to be unacquainted with
them, and too much of a gentleman and Christian either to ignore, or to
despise, or to deny them. Thus. e.g., he fully admits the
universality of our doctrine in the first three centuries and eloquently says: “We are well aware of the
imposing array of venerable names by which it (Chiliasm) is surrounded, as if
it were the bed of Solomon guarded by three score valiant men of
It is a fact,
lamented by some of our ablest divines, that there must be something radically
wrong in our prevailing interpretation of the Bible, which allows such a
diversity of antagonistic exegesis and doctrine, and by which the truth is
weakened and bumbled, so that Revelation itself, by its means, becomes the object
of Rationalistic and Infidel ridicule and attack, and is even sorely wounded in
the house of its friends by its stumbling, conceding, but well-meaning apologetic
defenders. To
indicate this feeling, which prevails to a considerable extent, Dr. Anberlen (Div. Rev., p. 378) quotes Rothe as saying respecting the defects
of exegesis: “Our key does not open - the right key is
lost; and till we are put in possession of it again, our exposition will never
succeed. The system of biblical ideas
is not that of our schools, and so long as we attempt exegesis
without it, the Bible will remain a half-closed book. We must enter upon it with other conceptions than those which we have been accustomed to think the only possible ones; and whatever these may be, this one thing at least is certain,
from the whole tenor of the melody of Scripture in its natural fulness, that
they must be more realistic and massive.” This is a sad confession after the
voluminous labours of centuries, and yet true as it is sorrowful. We may be allowed to suggest, that the
only way in which this key can be obtained is to return to the principles of interpretation
adopted and prevailing in the very early history of the Christian Church, by which,
if consistently carried out, the kingdom of God in its “realistic and massive” form appears as the
reliable interpreter of the Word. In other words, we have
no suitable key to unlock Revelation if we do
not seize that provided for us in the revealed
Will of God respecting the ultimate end that He has in view in the plan of redemption and the history of the world.
A way is only known when the beginning and terminus
are considered; a human plan can only be properly appreciated when the results of
it are fully weighed: so with God’s way and God’s plan, it can only be fully
known when the end intended is duly regarded. How to do this will
be contained in some of [Page 22] the following propositions. That it will be
accomplished we doubt not, and we are encouraged to labour on when such men as Dr. Dorner (p. 4 Introd.,
vol. 2, Hist. of
Prol. Theol.), expressing
the sentiments of many others, says: “There
can be no doubt that Holy Scripture contains a rich abundance of truths and
views, which have yet to be
expounded and made the common possession of
the Church,” and adds
that this will be done as the necessity of the Church requires.* This, however cannot
be accomplished without long and laborious study of the Scriptures, diligent comparison of them, and inflexible abiding within the limits of their plain,
grammatical teaching. We have no sympathy with that
flippant, unargumentative, high-sounding, but unscriptural mode of presenting
theological questions, so prevalent at the present day, by which the merest tyro
of a student endeavours to elevate himself, as a teacher, above men who have
been trained by grave and extended reflection, and which manifests itself by. despising the teachings
of the Apostolic Fathers and of the noble men of the Church, and enforces its
views by an applauding of modern views and modern theories as evidences of
progression in truth. The dignity of religion, the steadfastness
of faith, and the reliability of the discovery of truth, must suffer by such a
style, which lacks the strength imparted by a scriptural basis - a “thus saith the Lord” - being built
upon the deductions of reason, with, perhaps, here and there a scripture
passage thrown in by way of ornament.** Give us men, who, instead of
following their own fancies, or binding their faith to human utterances,
availing themselves of preceding
knowledge, patiently, thoughtfully, and reverently go to the very roots of
questions, and in things revealed by God determinately reject everything inconsistent
with such a revelation. We know that such a course demands courage [Page 23] and study, but in every instance when exhibited by published labours, it
will command, if not the entire assent, the respect of the truly learned; for the latter, from experience, can appreciate, at least, the toil in producing such
a work. Give us such men, and then we can hope to make advancement in Christian
knowledge, in harmonising the difficulties besetting theology, and in widening
the domain of thought, faith and hope. What we want is solidity, and that, in theology, is alone
attainable by having underneath as a foundation to build on the pure declarations of God. What God says is true, what man says
may be true; and the truthfulness of the
latter can be ascertained, its certainty demonstrated,
by comparing it with that which God has declared. If the comparison is
favourable, let us accept of it; if unfavourable, then
let us have the Christian manhood to reject it, no matter under whose name,
patronage, or auspices it is given. Rendering the regard due to the writings of
others, it does not follow that we must elevate them to the position of
competitors of, or peers with, the Divine utterances. Such a test the author
solicits from the reader, bringing to the consideration of the subject an
impartial judgment, and weighing its value and authority in the scripture
balance and not in human scales. Every sincere lover of the truth, even should
his labour be rejected in part or whole, must feel honoured by the institution of such a
comparison.
* See the duty of
contribution in this direction insisted upon, and so eloquently expressed by Van Oosterzee in his address, “The Gospel history and Modern Criticism,” before the
Evangelical Alliance of 1873, and his insistence upon all in the church in a
broad catholic spirit participating, happily quoting Dr. Nevin: “The sectarian spirit is always
fanatical, or affects strength and has none.” Oosterzee in his Ch. Dog. (vol. 1, p. 69),
speaking of an advancing and clearer apprehension of the truth, anticipates,
such “e.g. on the subject of the eschatology of the
nineteenth century.”
** We are reminded of Henry More’s sarcastic remark of
smatterers in theology, who are “parrot-like
prattlers, boasting their wonderful insight to holy truth, when as they have
indeed scarce licked the outside of the glass(e) wherein
it lies.” Human nature always produces a class who think that what they
do not know is not worth knowing, or who suppose that, from the knowledge
professed, they are eminently qualified to judge of those things never examined
or studied. The latter are illustrated by the professor of
Church history mentioned, (Blackwood’s
Magazine, June 1873, in article on Dr. Arnold), who, when questioned as to the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers, and the Apologists of the second century, replied, that he
knew nothing of these writings, but, “what with the
Bible on the one hand, and the human consciousness on the other, he knew very
well what must have happened in that century.” Bishop Berkeley’s saying is still true:
“In the present age thinking is more talked of but
less practised than in ancient times.” In ancient times
the thinkers were the instructors: nowadays nearly every one sets himself up
for a teacher. The tendency now is to despise laborious research and to
substitute tinsel; scholarship must give place to beautiful writing; depth must be sacrificed for a vast range of graceful figures of
speech. The Bishop of Exeter (The Intellectual
Life, p. 46) has well said, confirmed as it is by experience, “of all work that produces results, nine tenths must be
drudgery” - “there is nothing which so truly
repays itself as this very perseverance against weariness.” The
discriminating, the scholarly, the wise, will, over against the large majority,
give due credit to evidenced study and labour, even if unable to accept of all
its results.
It has however, been the fate of some
authors to be so far in advance of their contemporaries that, appreciated only
by the few discerning or candid, it has required time, or the necessity of the
Church. or the endorsements of a line of students to
give importance and weight to their statements. While the deepest
thinkers freely admit that new and
valuable contributions to theology are reasonably to be
anticipated, that such are absolutely required at the present juncture, and
that such can only be found in the rich resources of the Word, yet it is remarkable
that a contribution thus given will, especially in the hands of those whose
minds are controlled by human traditions and by an exalting of Church authority
above that of the Scriptures, be rejected and anathematised on the ground of
its being in opposition to their preconceived and favourite formula of
doctrine.* Others, through indifference or an
indisposition to examination, will pass it by with, probably, a momentary
interest. Others again, the few tried friends of intellectual and
theological effort, will give it a fair, frank, and sincere reception, and from
a candid estimate of its value based exclusively upon its correspondence with
the Holy Scriptures. The latter occupy the real student position - one that Dorner has aptly characterised as of “individual
freedom, that indispensable medium for all genuine appropriation of evangelical
truth” - a freedom [Page 24] only limited by Revelation. Without intending an
imitation of such great writers as Bacon
and others, who declared that they wrote for “posterity;”
and that it would require time to “ripen” their
views so as to cause their due appreciation, yet such is the subject-matter of
this work, so beset and resisted by the torrent of opposing doctrine, so
circumscribed by the intrenched prevailing dogmas, so unpalatable to the licentiousness
of the increasing free-thinking, so
unwelcomed to a proud and self-satisfied reason, that we are justly
apprehensive of an overwhelming opposition to the following propositions. In this belief we are fortified by the predictions of the Word, which
unmistakably teach that they will find but little acceptance with the world,
and even with the Church at large, and that they will only be pondered and
received by the thoughtful few. In this
period of prosperity, of sanguine hope of
continued and ever-increasing peace and happiness, the minds and hearts of the
multitude will be closed against all appeal, all instruction. It is only when the dreadful storm of persecution and death, alluded to in several propositions, shall, when excited and marshalled by the
elements and forces now at work, burst with fearful violence upon the Church,
and beat with pitiless vehemence upon the heads of true, unflinching believers
in Christ, that this work will find a cordial response, a
hearty welcome in the breasts of
the faithful. Time with its startling and terrible events will justify this publication. When
the dreams of fallible man, now so
universally held as the prophetic announcements of God, are swept away by stern
reality; when, instead of the fondly anticipated blessedness and glory to be
brought about by exist ing agencies, the
blood of man shall again stain and steep the soil of earth with its precious
crimson, then will the
doctrine of the kingdom as here taught, be regarded worthy of the highest consideration,
and then will it also become a solace, hope, and joy under
tribulation. But to remove the suspicion of arrogance
or pride in making so strong an assertion, we may be allowed to say, that such
a future estimation is not based on literary or
theological merits or attainments, but solely upon a strict adhesion to and
firm belief in the infallible Word of God as herein delineated under the guidance of a legitimate rule of
interpretation, by which the Divine purposes relating to the Church and world are
plainly and distinctly taught. The possessions of God, even the most
costly, are often given to mere children, and denied to the
wise and noble. The Magi, although babes in knowledge compared with the
Pharisees, came nearer to the truth than those who supposed themselves to be specially set up for its advocates. Numerous examples attest the
same, and reveal the feature, that just
in proportion is a man, learned or unlearned, receives and endorses the
declarations of God, to the same extent will his writings have an abiding value. Especially is this true concerning the things pertaining to the future - that region, those ages known only to
the Eternal, and utterly impenetrable to mere mortal vision.
Hence, the writer consistently claims that his labours will not be in vain; that they will at
least some day be esteemed in the degree that they sustain to the Bible. We firmly hold to the opinion,
confirmed by the providences of God, that the necessity has arisen for a renewal of the
early Church doctrine respecting the kingdom. If the millennial age, as conceded by a host of
antagonistic writers, is near at hand, and if the kingdom in that age is such
as herein portrayed, then is the kingdom itself not very distant, and then too
ought we reasonably to expect - in view of its peculiar nature, [Page
25] prominence, aims, etc., especially of its immediate tremendous
and frightful antecedent preparations, and of its becoming a net and snare for
the unbelieving and wicked - that before its appearance God will raise up
instruments - even if weak Jonahs - who will so distinctly announce the order
of events, so vividly represent the nature of the kingdom, point out its manner
of manifestation, give a precise understanding of the Church’s actual
relationship to the world and this kingdom, that the Church will be prepared to endure the awful scenes
awaiting her, and that the saints - [left to
endure Anti-Christ’s persecutions during the Great Tribulation] - called to suffer the loss of life, may, in
the this revealed will of God, find encouragement and comfort instead of disappointment and despair.
With the hope of being thus honoured with others** as an instrument in upholding the
faith of God’s dear children in the darkest period of the Church’s history, one
will sadly but cheerfully endure the censures of mistaken zeal
and bigotry, and give his days and years of wearisome labour as an inspiring
sacrifice of love.***
* Truth has ever met with bitter
opposition, and the cessation of this condition would nullify the example and
exhortations of the Master, and materially lessen the prospect of future reward
and glory. Emerson, in referring to
a scholar’s duty to afford at least “hospitality to
every new thought of his time,” adds: “The highest complaint man ever receives from heaven, is the
sending to him its disguised and discredited angels.” Advised
by some friends, who take no interest in “the blessed
hope,” to destroy my work (and if such advice had been followed in the
case of others, exceedingly valuable works, the most highly esteemed, would
never have seen the light and secured the admiration of multitudes - Comp. Library News,
p. 145, etc..) because the only books read were those of well-known and noted
men, the writer felt impelled to perseverance for the reasons assigned in the
preface.
** See Propositions
on His Millennial doctrine for others thus honoured.
*** The author of The Kingdom of Grace in his preface
coolly charges the Millenarian view with being a “novelty.”
(Compare Propositions 76-79) over against such
unscholarly affirmations, it is sufficient to present the acknowledgment of Dorner (Hist. Prot. Theol., vol. 2, p.
462-3), that Millenarian doctrines have been successfully introduced into the
province of theology, and that, as in the early stages of the church and in the
days of Spener, etc., they are of
importance to a correct understanding of the kingdom of God.
The doctrine herein advocated, because of its being so
directly opposed to the current theology, and perhaps new in form to some
readers, must not be regarded in the light, of a novelty.* It is, as
we shall show, far older than the Christian Church, and was ably advocated by
the founders and immediate supporters of that Church. It is admitted by all
scholars, that the Apostolic Fathers and many of their successors endorsed it, and that since their time eminent and pious men have
taught it, and that today it is embraced in the faith of some in the various
denominations of the Church. We therefore are not open to the charge of
introducing a “modern novelty.” Again: men of pretensions, without, perceiving the logical
result of its once being universally held by the early Church, may deride this
early view of the kingdom and stigmatise it as a return to “Jewish forms.” But persons of reflection, seeing how
largely it is interwoven with the very life, prosperity, and perpetuity of the
Church in its earliest period, and perceiving how deeply we are indebted to “Jewish forms,” even if unable to accept of its
teachings, regard its faith with respect. Indeed, it is difficult to apprehend
how any one can scorn that which inspired a hope that supported and strengthened
the ancient steadfast witnesses for the truth, the very pillars of the Church
in their sufferings, the dying martyrs at the stake, on the cross, or in the
circus. Cut off the believers of the very kingdom as they existed and testified
in the first, second, and third centuries, and where would be the Church? The really intelligent comprehend this,
feel its force, realise their indebtedness to such believers for the perpetuation
of gospel truth, and hence from such [Page 26] we anticipate no censure, crouched in
derision, in advocating what was
once almost, if not entirely, universal in the Church. They are ready to
acknowledge how, instead of its being a novelty and being held by weak and
unreliable men, it interpenetrated the most significant and remarkable era, and
how widely it was inculcated, by the very teachers to whom the Church owes,
under God, its growth and extension.
* It is saddening to
have, religious ideas - sanctified by the dearest associations of life;
hallowed by connection with suffering, trial, and bereavement; endeared by
study, meditation and prayer; fortified by strength - imparting power in times
of deepest gloom - ruthlessly trampled upon, or branded by cruel terms, but if
productive of comfort, hope, and strength to ourselves and others, such trials
are alleviated by a preponderating gladness of heart.
Some, probably, may
object to the quotations as excessive or pedantic, but the reader will allow me
thus to express my gratitude to and respect for others; thus to avoid the
charges of misquoting or misstating writers (from which he has unjustly
suffered); hence the author, book, and page are adduced to facilitate reference
and indicate an intended fairness in argument, thus to aid those who are disposed
to examine the affirmations in the following propositions; to show how many
great and earnest thinkers have given this subject, or parts of it, their
earnest attention; to evince my indebtedness to others, and avoid the
appearance of so many writers of the present day, who, while under great obligations
to others for valuable material, give no sign of a just recognition; to imitate
the conduct of those who go forth to meet the storms of the sea, taking in a
quantity of ballast to keep the bark steady among the currents and winds; to
emulate the practice of writers of conceded merit, impressed by the fact
tersely stated by D’Israeli (Curios. of Lit.,
vol. 2, p. 416), that “those who never quote, in
return are seldom quoted;” to present a sense of delicacy by avoiding “the odium of singularity of opinion,” adding weight
and authority to what otherwise might be regarded as doubtful; and, lastly, to
avoid even by implication the application of the simile of Swift on “The Battle of the Books”
- viz., of being like the spider weaving his flimsy nets out of his own bowels,
instead of being like the bee passing over the field of nature and gathering
its sweets from every flower to enrich its hive. We may be allowed
to add: like the bee, however, we may justly claim, if nothing more, the industry
and skill requisite in the gathering of the wax, the honey, and the building of
the cells.*
Indeed, such is our infirmity, that we all are more or less influenced by the
authority of names, and in the reading of a work chiefly composed of controverted
questions given in all argumentative form, we reasonably expect an array of
advocates on both sides, which imparts confidence that the author has bestowed
some attention to the subject, and makes his labour, in consequence, the more valuable
as an expression of opinion or a book of reference. At
the same time, important as it is to the student to know and trace opinions, we
are not influenced, either by their commonplaceness, [Page 27] axiomatic
nature, or remoteness in time, to assert, as Glanvil (Leeky, Hist. of Rat.,
vol. 1, p. 132, note) sarcastically charged the scholars of his day, on the
authority of Beza, that women have
no beards, and on that of Augustine,
that peace is a blessing, or to believe that common pebbles must be rare
because they come from the Indies.
*
Finally, the form of propositions adopted avoids repetition and insures
easy reference. It also gives distinctness to the numerous subjects so
intimately connected with the kingdom, and it enabled the writer to abridge what
otherwise would have required considerable enlargement. The design kept in view
has been to give the greatest amount of information within the smallest space, resisting the temptation,
often presented, of extending some salient point. The propositions, separately
treated, are to be examined and criticised in the light which
each one sustains in its connection with the whole. It is but a low polemical
trick to detach one from the rest without indicating its relationship to
others, and upon such a detachment frame a charge of error. It does not require
much cunning or skill to wrest the words of any author from their connection,
to misrepresent their meaning, and to hold them up to undeserved reproach.
Willing to have any fault or error pointed out, it must, to give it adequate
force, be done not only with a consideration of the manner and relation in
which it is set forth, but also of the scriptural arguments, if any, which
profess to sustain it. Otherwise, we take refuge in what Zeisius (Lange, Com., vol. 1, p. 496) says: “If the words of Christ, who was eternal Wisdom and Truth, were
perverted, why should we wonder that His servants and children suffer
from similar misrepresentations.”*
GEORGE N. H. PETERS.
* May the author add: after many years of labour - as the following pages
indicate - and the cold fraternization of “brethren” who had no sympathy for Chiliastic
study, it would be a personal gratification to the writer to learn from
students who have investigated the subjects presented in this work, that the
perusal of this book has given them pleasure and strengthened them in “the blessed
hope.”*
-------
[* NOTE: The following propositions
which follow, have been
selected at random from all three volumes of
the author’s work.]