Prophetical Landmarks

I do not mean this volume for a controversial one. It touches, no doubt, upon controverted points, and to that extent must partake of this character. But I have striven to avoid the attitude of disputation as much as possible, and to treat with respect the judgment of brethren in Christ who differ from me.

I have read most of the works written against the system here maintained. They are very few in number. What may be the reason of this, I do not undertake to say. I have not referred to any of them by name, nor quoted their language; but I have endeavoured to state fairly the substance of their arguments.

In reading these, I have been struck with the peculiar method of reasoning which they adopt. Their object is rather to disprove our hypothesis than to prove their own. They take for granted that if Millennarianism be overthrown!, then their system must come in its place as a matter of course, without any further proof. They do not build up nor fortify their own system so much as they try to overturn that of their opponents. Hence their theory does not stand upon direct textual proof from Scripture in its favour, but upon the supposed absence of proof for the opposite.

Assuming that Millennarianism is in its very nature impossible, and therefore not capable of being proved, they endeavour to turn the edge of Millennarian expositions, and to shew that a different sense is possible. But surely this is not all that is needed. Millennarianism may have no foundation in Scripture; but still Anti-Millennarianism may be equally baseless. What I desire of our opposing brethren is, that they would produce the direct positive texts on which they ground their theory; not on which they rest their opposition to our theory, but on which they build their own. All the length they have advanced as yet is, that our system is false, and that theirs may be true. It remains that they prove from Scripture that theirs must be true. They have not done this. But surely, both logically and theologically, their reasoning is at fault till they do so.

Besides, in reference to most of the disputed passages, the ground which they take up appears to me very narrow and insecure. Our position is, that the texts in question must be interpreted in a certain way, and do not admit of another sense. We may be wrong in this; but such, at least, is our position. What, then, is the counter position? Only that they may be interpreted differently; that certain doctrines (supposed to be in jeopardy) demand a different sense, and that the passages themselves admit of it. Now, these passages are the hinges of the whole question. They can have but one true meaning; a meaning to be determined not by general inferences from collateral doctrines, but from the examination (textual and contextual) of the words themselves. If, then, we maintain that the principles of sound interpretation compel us to adopt the literal view, why do our brethren not take up the opposite position, and say that these same principles compel them to adopt another sense? Why do they stop short of this, and merely say that they do not feel constrained to adopt our meaning, for that the passages admit of another? Why do they not oppose their “must be” to our “must be?” If their theory be thoroughly invulnerable, and ours as thoroughly feeble, why do they not venture upon a more positive method of interpretation?

Let me illustrate my meaning by reference to a passage which I have taken up at length in the seventh chapter. I mean 2 Thess. ii. 8. It is one of the most conclusive that has been adduced in the discussion; not only because it is clear and pointed in itself, but because it occurs in a plain epistle, and not in any book of figure or symbol. Its testimony to a Pre-Millennial Advent appears to me irresistible. Our position respecting it is, that, if there be certainty in language, consistency in statement, and coherence in argument, the expression “bkightness of His coming” must refer to the literal Advent. How, then, is this met? Not by shewing that it cannot do so, or by proving that it does not imply this, but simply by trying to shew that the words may mean something else. This surely is a very feeble and indirect way of meeting our statements. Nor do I think it the fair method, either logically or scripturally. Respecting such an important passage, something more decided and direct ought to be produced. It should at least be shewn that our interpretation is wrong, and not simply that another is possible. For what is this but an admission that the natural sense of the passage is on our side, and only the non-natural on the other? * And if the natural and probable sense be ours, and only the non-natural and possible be theirs, can we hesitate in deciding which of the two is according to the mind of the Spirit?

The general line of argument adopted by Anti-Millennarians appears to me both unsound and unsafe. They argue that Millennarianism is in itself so carnal, so absurd, so inconsistent with other doctrines, that it

* No Post-Millennialist has attempted to shew that our interpretation of this passage is false, or unlikely, or unnatural. All they assert is, that another is possible, And thus they “get over” the difficulty. Would it not be better to yield to it?

cannot be believed. Hence they approach Scripture with such a bias, that one can scarcely ex])ect a calm and thorough examination of the passages under discussion. But even though the bias were not so injurious, still the method of procedure is inadmissible. If the question be one purely of Scripture interpretation, then no previous ideas of our own as to the nature of the doctrine ought to be allowed to weigh with us. Our inquiry simply is, What has God written? It is unfair, it is illogical, nay, it is deeply sinful, to come to the consideration of an important doctrine wTith minds so pre-occupied with the conviction that it cannot be proved, that the weighing of evidence is altogether unnecessary. If the case is one of evidence, let us either fairly and scrupulously weigh that evidence, or else decline to enter on it. But let us not undertake to weigh it when we have previously, and upon other grounds, settled the whole question.

It is most unsafe to make our ideas of the possible our standard in measuring Scripture. It is clear that, in such a case, we are dictating to God, and not submitting to be taught by Him. I know not a more melancholy instance of this than Dr Bush, of America, in his recent work upon the resurrection. He sets out in the same track which many Anti-Millennarians have adopted, viz., that the doctrine in question is an impossibility. “The physiological fact,” he writes, “of the constant change which our bodies are undergoing, is irreconcileably at war with the tenet of the resurrection of our bodies,” * Commencing by an attempt to prove that resurrection cannot be, he then goes on to shew how those passages which speak of it are to be interpreted, so as not to teach it. The replies to his work which we have seen, at once assail him here as most illogical in the arrangement of his argument. They tell him that he is no judge of what is possible or impossible. They admit the difficulties implied in a resurrection, (difficulties far greater than any which Millennarianism contains,) but they leave these in the hands of God. Is anything too hard for Him? They tell him, also, that the object of his book is to reconcile Scripture to a preconceived theory of his own. Such are precisely our answers to Anti-Millennarian works, most of which set out with similar assumptions, and go over nearly the same ground as the American Professor. We say that such a method of reasoning is unsound and untenable; that man is no judge of the possible or the impossible; that difficulties are nought to God; and that nothing can be more dangerous than to attempt to reconcile Scripture to a theory of our own. We see to what lengths this method of arguing has conducted Dr Bush, and we ought to be upon our guard against applying that method to any revealed doctrine whatsoever.

Keep reading