Preface

Mr Brown’s work has now been about three years here the public. It has been very favourably accepted y the churches of Christ in Great Britain. Through. heir journals most of them have given judgment upn it in words of concurrence and admiration. It has een pronounced “one of the most able, comprehenive, and conclusive, of the numerous works which e millennarian controversy has called forth.” It is rmed to be “a work of great: power on the sober and eriptural side of the controversy.” In private fellowip and discussion, it is appealed to, at least in Scotland, s beyond an answer. By some Mr Brown is thought have settled the question conclusively. Millennarianm is supposed to have received its death-blow, which it s the prospect of surviving only a few years.

A considerable number throughout the churches (my- - lf amongst them, ) do not assent to this estimate. We ve read the volume with care, and we trust with canour also. We would not detract from its merits; nor under-prize the author’s efforts to displace error and build up truth. We esteem him very highly in love, as a brother in the Lord, “a companion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Christ.” Nor would we

Vill PREFACE.

be offended at the sharpness of his rebukes, and the stron’ words of censure applied to us. He has led us to recosider our position, to review our arguments, to weig anew many a passage of the Divine word, to re-exami our whole system from the foundation upwards. He h spared no pains to bring into view the defects, the ang larities, the inconsistencies, the occasional crude thought of millennarian authorship, sometimes with accuracy, other times with a stroke of caricature, — a caricature f which he has been in some measure indebted to the d vergencies of hasty or less sober-minded brethren. H has once and again tried our patience, not so much b the hard words with which he assails us in every pag as by the deductions which he would fain fasten on u and by which he hopes, as by so many mill-stones, t submerge our entire system.

Yet we owe him no grudge; nay, we can thank hi for having sent us to sift our views, ‘and for making more suspicious of unproved opinions, more jealous aught which even séems to trifle with error; or tampe with Inspiration, more impatient of rashness and intol rant dogmatism.

I am satisfied that he has done his subject fall justic — much more so than any of his predecessors in the sa field. He knows somewhat better than most, what mi lennarians really hold. He does not brandish his we pons in the dark, nor set about the demolition of ime ginary opinions instead of authentic millennarianis Thus far he has faced the real subject, and met the rea argument of the case; with what success, it is my design to consider. Ido not think that he has thoroughly grappled with the essence of the question. His mode of dealing with the subject appears to me indirect and un-PREFACE. ix

tisfactory; but still that which he attacks is, in gene- 1, real millennarianism, and not something else got up r the occasion, which nobody holds or has held.

He gives it as his opinion, that the principles contain- 1 in his volume are “untouched and immoveable.” ow, though this is strong language for a fallible man to e, especially in commendation of his own arguments, tLadmit that he has done more for the defence of ese opinions, than any others before him. He hasalso rith some skill laid his finger upon the weak points of is adversary, making quite a sufficient, I will not say

unfair use of these; which, however, are not, after all, ne weightier matters of the controversy.

That I not only dissent from his conclusions, but think is way of reaching them unsafe and charged with evil, have not sought to conceal. I believe his mode of inrpretation, his method of dealing with inspired quotaons from the Old Testament, his lowering the blessed paracter of the millennium, his departure from the inrpretations of sound commentators in pursuit of noveles harmonizing better with his system, his doctrine of e inseparability of sin and Satan, his way of transmutg the physical into the moral, the personal into the bstract, to be full of peril to sound doctrine, and inconstent with Calvinism. The carrying out of these priniples would make void many a page of inspiration, and trike the strong props from beneath many a treasured ruth. And as he has not been slow to tell us what he onceives to be the tendencies of our system, he will not, am sure, take offence at my sometimes stating what seem be the bearings of his.*

* T have frequently taken occasion to place expositions of Dr Bush and others side by side with Mr Brown’s. In so doing I xX PREFACE.

The difficulty of estimating tendencies is much greate than at first sight appears. For, as even in the creed of th most thoroughly orthodox there is sure to be some admixture of error, however slight; so, in the creed of tl most unsound there is sure to be some vestige of trutl So that the question in such a case is, Whether is it likel that the slight amount of error in the former may a as leaven to corrupt the truth; or that the very slendé quantity of truth in the latter case may spring up li seed and displace the error? There is a variable quantit here, the law of which is not easily ascertained, and n calculus can bring out a determinate result. I feel pe suaded, for instance, that the mode of exposition adopted by our opponents is one whose tendencies are in the direction of rationalism; but I have not the slightest though

most sincerely disclaim the very slightest thought of identifying the American Swedenborgian or German rationalist, with a br ther whom I esteem and honour in the Lord. At the same tim Mr Brown’s interpretations and principles of interpretation a so like theirs, that I felt bound to call attention to them, — moy especially as we are so often charged with holding principles destructive of Christianity. I find, for instance, that in all the pasg§- ages relating to resurrection, which are matters of debate in thi millennarian controversy, Mr Brown and Dr Bush agree in making the resurrection predicted, a moral or spiritual one, not a physica one: and am I not justified in marking this resemblance? Am not entitled to say, is it not singular that Dr Bush’s Swedenborfl gianism and Mr Brown’s post-millennialism should have conducted them to the same conclusions? The literality of the contested passages is felt by both to be fatal to their respective systems and both, therefore, spiritualize them. I condemn the former fo the liberty he has taken with the words of God, may I not express dissatisfaction with the latter, and say of his system, that judging from its affinities, it is far more likely than ours to demand a “‘ new dispensation,” and a new “Christianity.”

PREFACE. Xl

that my brethren are rationalists, or likely to become so. I refuse to enter even into a probable calculation of results; chiefly because I see so many counteractive elements, which would make any such attempt abortive. Both Mr Brown and Dr Carlile have fully expressed themselves as to the tendency of our system, (not indeed our mode of interpretation), speaking of it as subversive of the fundamental principles of Christianity. I desire to write with caution in retorting consequences upon hem; not because I have no misgivings in the matter, ut pocwils I know the hazard of the calculation, and Iso because the subject is one that must be examined and adjusted upon broader and more solid ground.

As to tendencies, I shall only add this remark; that whatever may be the evil tendencies imputed to our system, our general mode of interpretation is one which points in the very opposite direction from that of rationalism. From the days of Origen and Jerome, history as recorded the evils and perils of figurative exposition; but what evils of literal interpretation can history reveal? Where are the commentators that have subverted truth by literality? Where are the heretics that have ever betaken themselves to the diteral as the basis of their fancies or falsities?

If I may give my own analysis of Mr Brown’s work, I should say that it consists of two parts. In the former of these his object is to show, that millennarianism is - theologically impossible; that is, that it is so irrecon- cilable with certain admitted doctrines, that it cannot

be true. In the latter, his aim is to meet the proof-texts urged by millennarians in defence of their system, - and so to expound them, as that they shall not Spiel that system.

Xl PREFACE.

This method appears to me imperfect, both by defect and misarrangement. As to the defect, I miss the building up of his own system, for which there is no space allowed, and in behalf of which no direct and positive proof-texts are urged. As to misarrangement, surely the first part should have been last. The inferential and theological difficulties of the scheme should have been reserved till after the diseussion upon its scripturalness, — unless Mr Brown is prepared to say, that the whole scheme is so utterly and absolutely impossible tha the argument on its scripturalness is wholly superfluous. Whether Mr Brown holds this or not I do not know but his whole work has given me, as well as not a few others, the impression that such is his feeling. He never reserves his expressions of wonder and dislike till the close of an argument or exposition; but gives free utterance to them as soon as he has stated the opposite view, and before he has argued the case. Thus, at the outset of each argument and interpretation, he calls up a stron feeling in the reader’s mind against us, before a reason has been given. So that the argument is directed to minds thus prepared to admit the worst against us, and to be satisfied with almost anything that can be advanced against a system, of whose evils they have got such timely warning. In this way the reader is made to enter upon each part of the discussion so biassed by the author’s

preliminary epithets — so possessed with an idea of the —

essential hideousness of our theory — that no argument on our part could gain an open hearing, and any argument on the other side would be deemed fair and valid.

I should think, that a completer arrangement for such a work would be somewhat as follows: — I. Direct proofs that the millennium will precede the advent, consisting

PREFACE, xiii

of all passages of Scripture in which the millennium is placed first. II. Clearing up of those passages which are urged by millennarians. III. The difficulties of the case. This would be the natural method, and in general the most satisfying and effective.

In saying this Ido not refer to Mr Brown alone. Others besides him have taken the same course, beginning with the negative and inferential instead of the positive and direct. Thus, for instance, Turrettine has a chapter occupied with the consideration of chiliasm, and he proceeds precisely in the same way. After stating the question, he sets out with eight reasons against millennarianism, and then endeavours to explain away the passages urged in its support.* This is the more remarkable in him, because it is not his usual way. Thus, in the immediately preceding chapter, De Resur‘rectione, after stating the question, he at once sets forth his direct and positive evidence under five heads. Having thus proved resurrection, he takes up the passages urged against it, and then concludes with briefly adverting to the difficulties of the case. It is singular to find this most methodical of all our theologians departing from his usual and most logical method, when handling millennarianism, It suggests the inquiry, not with reference to him aJone, but others also, Why is this unusual line of proof adopted? Why are difficulties planted in the foreground? Why are we not at once plied with the texts of Scripture which place the millennium before the advent? We are ready at once to name passages in which the opposite order of events is directly stated. Why will not our opponents meet us on this ground, and bring forward their direct and positive proof-texts?

* Locus xx. De novisstmes, questio iii.

Alas! if Turretiine could find none, where are they to be found?

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not say, nor have I ever said, that our opponents do not endeavour to adduce positive proof. against such a millennium as we look for, coming after the advent. I have all along said, ‘‘ granting that you have proved your point, what is that point? Simply that our ideas of the nature of the millennium are unscriptural.” But there are two questions, not one merely, to be adjudicated upon, One is as to the nature, the other is as to the position of the millennium. The latter remains to this day untouched. I repeat the statements which I have made elsewhere as to this. It is not only my own belief, but the belief of many with whom I have carefully gone over the whole matter, that neither Mr Brown, nor any anti-millennarian writer, has ever attempted to set forth their positive proof-texts respecting the position of the millennium, as anterior to the advent. We are ready to cite twenty plain texts, in which the two things are spoken of, and in which the advent is uniformly placed first. Will Mr Brown give us his positive proof-texts, which directly set down the millennium as prior to the advent. This is but a fair request. It would setile the question. Yet it is one which has never yet been complied with. Till this is done, has the main point been met? We call ourselves pre-millennialists; and we adduce distinct passages, which in setting forth both events, place the advent before the millennium. Our opponents call themselves post-millennialists; and why then should they not bring: forth passages, which in mentioning both events, put the millennium before the advent? They may be able ]

q ia prove that our millennium is unscriptural; they may be able to dispose of our texts declaring the advent to be first; but having done all this, have they proved post-millennialism? Have they made out from Scripture a millennium before the advent? If they say this is of little moment, I ask why they keep up the distinction of the pre and the post?

They themselves introduced that distinction, as being truer and fairer than millennarianism and anti-millennarianism, Yet some of them, when hard pressed for direct proof-texts in support of a post-millennial advent, turn round on us and declare, that this distinction is of less moment, the main one being the nature of the mil-Jennium which is expected! But we refuse to have the question evaded and the ground shifted, and we still ask them for scriptural proof. We are ready to prove the pre; are they ready to prove the post ?*

* A writer in the Pree Church Magazine, for January last, virtually admits the correctness of the above statement. I have maintained two points. rst, That no post-millennialist has ever yet adduced one positive proof-text to show the priority of the millennium, ze. to give a reason for their being what they call themselves, post-miilennialists. Conscious that there is some truth in this, the reviewer does not hesitate to shift the usual ground, and say, “we are very little concerned with whether there will be a millennium or no before the advent”! (p. 29.) What is this but saying, that he had no texts to produce? If he had any, could he have failed to present them? Feeling that he has none, he turns aside and says, — this is not the real question. Not the real question! and yet he calls himself a post-millennialist, and us p7e-millennialists! Must the matter of post and pre be thus dismissed? Nay more, must we be said to be guilty of a “palpable misrepresentation,” for insisting that our jopponents have adopted the negative, and not the positive method lf reasoning? Secondly, I have maintained, that the great ob-XVl PREFACE.

In adducing these proofs of ours, we take that sense of the passages for which we can produce the testimony of such men as Calvin, and Turrettine, the Assembly’s Annotators, and such like. We have no novel sense to attach to the words. Mr Brown has adopted meanings

ject of anti-millennarians is not positive, ¢.e. to build up their own system upon Scripture proof, but negative, ¢.e. to overthrow ours. What is the reviewer’s answer? It is an admission that they do take up the negative of our position; and having admitted this, he stops, not thinking it needful to prove (as he ought to have done) that the negative of our position must necessarily be the ‘positive of his own. His words are these : — “Our only (!) real controversy is with the notion, that Christ’s coming is to establish a fleshly state on earth, under the sway of himself and his glorified saints. In taking up the negative of this position, it is unjustifiable (?) to say, that we have nothing but negative opinions at all on the subject. The misrepresentation is palpable, but yet it has been once and again put forth.” Yes, and I put it forth again as a plain fact; and it seems to me, that the above sentence proves my statement to be correct. I did not speak of negative opinions, but I spoke of negative arguments. The reader will judge whether the above be not a confession that the arguments are negative. That the opinions of my opponents were positive enough, I never doubted, until I read the above singular sentence, “we are not concerned,” &c.; and I think it somewhat strange that the word opinion should be used here instead of argument. It was their arguments that Lheld and still hold to be negative; ¢.¢. they merely disprove our position, but they do not establish the opposite, ¢.¢. the priority of the millennium. It was right that the reviewer should speak as he saw fit of the Letters in the Journal of Prophecy, or of “a recent work, entitled Prophetical Landmarks;” but he might have spared the charge of “¢ palpable misrepresentation,” especially when he bears testimony to the “good temper” which pervades the above Journal and adds, “let us try to avoid harsh insinuations against pent sons, and that wrath of man which worketh not the righteous,| ness of God.”’ (p. 30.)

ae

la

PREFACE. XVil

altogether novel, — meanings for which he can produce but few witnesses of soundness; and is not this of itself suspicious? One thing it proves at least, that we are not the innovators; that we have adopted no novel mode of interpretation for propping our system; that if there be danger in our exposition of the texts in question, it is the danger of following the interpretations of men noted in all the churches for soundness in the faith. They were not millennarians; but they took the literal sense of the texts under discussion, as we shall see.* So that in this respect, as well as in reference to the undoubted apostolicity of our system, we are walking in the old paths, and seeking the old ways; we are but taking up the deep voices of the ancient world, and making them to be heard in these last days once more.

I strive to write for truth, not for triumph. The times call for something else than man’s conflict with, or victory over his fellow-man. The issue of the contest, and the prize that is to be won, is divine truth. I am far from thinking that there is not error cleaving to our system, or that there is not much sin mingling with our defence of it; and I shall be always glad to reconsider its various parts, and thankful for correction or further light. For the remark of the German philosopher I feel to be a true one, that “the worst insult that could be offered, even to a half-educated man, would be to

suppose that he could be offended by the exposure of an — j error which he entertained, or the proclamation of a i truth which had escaped his notice.” If in aught I have +

written unadvised words, or breathed a spirit at variance with the mind of Christ, I shall feel much sorrow. But * IT may here state, that the substance of a considerable part

of the latter half of the volume appeared in some numbers of
(, the Presbyterian Review.
Px
1 b

XVill PREFACE.

let not my defective statements of truth be made a reason for condemning the truth itself; and though I have written earnestly, I trust it has not been either with unkindness or intolerance. The present controversy is one which is not likely’ soon to subside. For it is not a controversy called up by human disputants; it is one forced upon our notice by the ominous events of the day we live in. It is the signs of the times that are compelling men to look it in the face. These signs mean something; and something -too in which we have the profoundest interest. They are either the forerunners of a millennium not materially differing from the present state of things, — a millennium in which the earth is not renewed, but remains barren and accursed, — a millennium in which creation still groans, — a millennium in which Satan is not bound, but still roams the earth, — a millennium, of which the utmost that can be said is, that there “will be far less mixture than now,” but tares still growing plentifully in it, and the enemy still busy in sowing them, — a millennium from which Christ being absent in person, the church, as Mr Brown says, will be “miserable without him:” or they are signs of the glad advent, — the forerunners of the King himself, for whom the church, in loneliness and widowhood, has been waiting so long, and under whose righteous sway she hopes to see all things “made new.” Kuso, March 20, 1849.

te

P.S, This volume was nearly through the press before the advertisement of the second edition of Mr Brown’s work appeared.