How Far We Agree

In such a discussion as the present, it is well to start with as much common ground as possible. We do not desire controversy for its own sake, and hence the desirableness of limiting the range of discussion, as far as may be, by staking off, at the outset, all that is common to both. Our objects will thus become more definite, unnecessary and undisputed questions will be avoided, and our chances of collision lessened.

I rejoice that Mr Brown has, by the explicitness of his opening chapter, enabled us without difficulty to ascertain this common ground. Not only have many points of misapprehension been removed, and a more solid basis laid for subsequent conference; but an amount of sympathy has been called up between us

which could not otherwise have existed; and which

never rises in the perusal of such works as Faber’s, how-B ever learned and elaborate.* In any discussion between any parties, it is of much service to set out with knowing how far we are agreed, — 2i¢ 6 ¢@0céo0uev, — but specially in a discussion between brethren, where any misunderstanding is 50 undesirable, and in a controversy like the present, where the collisions hitherto, both private and public, have been sharp and many.

There are several more points common between Mr Brown and us, than there are or were between us and former post-millennialists. I do not mean that there is less of resolute difference on the main points; but there are some of Mr Brown’s opinions which, by a large class of post-millennialists, would be looked upon with suspicion, if not dislike. This approximation, however small its amount, is so far well. It is so much of God’s truth taken out of the region of controversy and laid aside as agreed upon. And it is some good fruit reaped from controversy, not only by the bystanders, but by the disputants themselves: a thing rare enough, but gratifying.

I see that the system which I regard as that of Seripture is making advances. Its opponents have been

led to abandon more than one extreme position which,

* Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, vol. i. p. 215 — 261: 368 — 873; vol. ii. p. 272 — 275; vol. iii, 898 — 481; also Hight Dissertations, &c., vol. i, Preface, ix — xviii.; vol. ii. p. 125 — 135.

i
“)
We

‘ BETTER UNDERSTANDING. q

twenty or thirty years ago, was deemed vital, as well as unassailable. Their hostility to our main views has not abated; but some subordinate points they seem disposed to concede, as no longer tenable. And thus, not only has the heavy prejudice once cherished against us been much lightened and relaxed, but a very considerable number of brethren, not long since, stout opposers, have step by step come over to us, and are not ashamed to contend for that truth which formerly they rejected as hideous error.

It is not merely among the brethren of one church, but among the brethren of many churches, that there is this better understanding of each other in things pertaining to the coming and the kingdom of the Lord. So that there are thus some fewer points on which we can be taunted with our variances. A modern German pseudo-protestant writer thought fit thus to reproach the divines of Germany, — “Does not Neander teach very differently from Tholuck? And Tholuck differently from Hengstenberg? And Hengstenberg differently from Krummacher? And Krummacher differently from Draseke? And Draseke differently from Harms? And Harms differently from Ullman? And Ullman differently from Liicke? And Liicke differently

from Olshausen?’* Such taunts are, no doubt, as

* Protestantism in tts Sel f-Dissolution, by a Protestant, Schaff-
.. 1843.
u
;.

worthless as they are spiteful, yet they show how a Bible-hating age is watching the divergencies among Christians. And hence it is matter of satisfaction when the common ground among Protestants is enlarged, and points of undisputed belief increased in number.

Into the points of agreement on prophetic subjects between us and Mr Brown, let me now inquire. In doing so, I must quote largely; but the reader will not grudge a page or two additional at the outset; nay, must prepare himself for the careful study of citations at different stages of the argument. These are quite indispensable in a work like the present. Without this, it would neither be fair nor complete.

First of all, Mr Brown states very decidedly, though with brevity, his opinion as to the duty of studying the prophetic word, and the sin of neglectingit. I believe, indeed, that there are but few now who would venture to defend the propriety of omitting the careful study of any part of Scripture. Formerly some deemed prophetic investigations unprofitable; others turned away from them as being too intricate and dark; others shrunk from them as pernicious, and tending only to enthusiasm or frenzy. But now all

Christians recognise, in words at least, “that ALL Sor1P-TURE is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Many still neglect the study of prophecy, but they do not despise those who study it, nor do they venture to defend their own neglect of it. But it is sad, as well as indicative of a cold and unhealthy spiritual condition, to find many practically, though not in theory, slighting so momentous a subject. How often, in conversation with brethren upon prophetic subjects, has the progress of our conference been arrested by the confession sometimes made without regret or shame, “I have not studied these matters; I am satisfied with essentials.” Many ministers of Christ throughout the land would do well to give heed to the following passage : —

“And now, thinking minds are thrown upon the future. Bible Christians are beginning to see, that in these anxious times the future must take shape in their minds, whether they will or no; that, if they will not allow the Bible to shape it for them, there is nothing

for it but to lie open to every apprehension or expectation which the progress of events may for the time

suggest; and therefore that, despite their prejudices,

they after all ‘po we. to take heed to the more sure Ii; word of prophecy, until the day dawn, and the day- ‘star arise in their hearts.’ It is indeed high time it should come to this. The generality even of intelligent Christians — shall we add, of Christian ministers? — have still some lingering hold of the childish and miserable notion — bred of the Rationalism of last century — that prophecy is useless till it be fulfilled; and that the one intent of it was just to afford a succession of evidences of the truth of Revelation to those who should see its predictions accomplished. But “now it would seem as if we were to be saved the trouble of refuting this. Hvents are fast doing the work of arguments, showing this opinion in a light which abstract considerations had failed to do.”*

As to the second advent of Christ, Mr Brown has many most just, most vigorous, and most needful remarks, That event is the church’s pole-star. The primitive church felt it to be so, and in proportion as we return to primitive love and faith, it will be so with ourselves. The desire of the early believers was to Him, “whom having not seen they loved;” and so will ours be when we learn to love as they loved ; — with the same fond fidelity in absence, and the same intense longing to meet and embrace the absent One.+

Tar poG; Ve + Augustine thus writes, “Quomodo vigilabimus? Corde vigila,

It would be well for Christians in general to ponder the whole of the author’s statements with reference to this. He sets out well. He strikes the proper key. It will not do to argue this controversy upon any other ground. And we believe that were ministers in general acting upon the principles of the writer, the discussion might have by this time been far nearer its settlement. Nor is it yet too late. Let ministers of Christ take up the theme. Let them preach the coming of the Lord. Let them give it the prominence which Scripture does, and which Mr Brown would here have them to do, and there is a far greater likelihood of the two parties at least understanding each other. But so long as the advent is kept out of view; so long as that “blessed hope” is made to occupy a mere common and subordinate place amid the motives derived from the future, it is impossible that the subject in debate can be rightly argued, or at least argued with any hope of an adjustment.

One of the chief things for which we value this vofide vigila, spe vigila, charitate vigila, operibus vigila,

Tune te sponsus ille amplectat; tunc te introducet in domum ubi nunquam dormias, ubi nunquam tua lampas possit extingui. Hodie vero laboramus et lampades nostr inter ventos hujus seculi tentationesque fluctuant; sed ardeat in robore flamma nostra ut

ventus tentationis augeat ignem potius quam extinguat.’’ — S¢ee the close of his Sermon wpon the Parable of the Virgins.

re) THE POLE-STAR

lume is, that it gives that prominent place to the advent which the Holy Spirit has given it, and which every faithful watchman ought to give it, if he would not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. We feel assured that Mr Brown’s words will not be lost. They will be listened to by many who would not regard them so much if coming from another pen; and the church of Christ may perhaps have yet to thank him for the faithful way in which he has spoken out his mind upon this matter. If even one minister of the Gospel be led by it to proclaim “the glorious appearing” of the Lord, he will have to rejoice that he has not written in vain. Nor can we doubt that his words will be weighed by every unbiassed mind; perhaps even by those whom strong prejudice may hitherto have led to shrink altogether from the subject. We trust that not one, but many, will listen to the following statement, and act upon ite

“Pre-millennialists have done the church a real service, by calling attention to the place which the second advent holds in the word of God and the scheme of divine truth. If the controversy which they have raised should issue in a fresh and impartial inquiry into this branch of it, I, for one, instead of regretting, shall rejoice in the agitation of it. When they dilate

upon the prominence given to this doctrine in Serip- $ i ture,-and the practical uses which are made of it, they touch a chord in the heart of every simple lover of his Lord, and carry conviction to all who tremble at his word, — so much so, that I am persuaded nine-tenths of all who have embraced the pre-millennial

view of the second advent, have done so on the suppo-

‘sition that no other view of it will admit of an unfettered and unmodified use of the Scripture language on the subject — that it has its full interpretation and force only on this theory.

“With the pre-millennialists, then, we affirm that

THE REDEEMER’S SECOND APPEARING IS THE VERY POLE-

‘STAR OF THE CuurcH. That it is so held forth in the

New Testament, is beyond dispute. Let any one do himself the justice to collect and arrange the evidence on the subject, and he will be surprised — if the study be new to him, — at once at the copiousness, the variety, and the conclusiveness of it.”*

On another point Mr Brown is equally explicit, — the desolate condition of the church during the time of Christ’s absence. He shows that the church is to remain a widow, mourning and desolate because of the absence of her Lord. Up till the time when her Lord returns, — until the Bridegroom appears, — she remains

disconsolate and sorrowful. She can be content with

( * Pp. 21, 22.

nothing save his personal presence. His absence makes a dismal blank to her, even in the midst of the spiritual consolations which his Spirit affords. “Never do we please Christ so well,” says Mr B. “as when we refuse to be comforted even with his own consolations, save in the prospect of his personal return.” Nay, more, — this is added, and it is certainly as strong language as could well be used, “he takes it for granted that we shall be miserable without him.’* It would be well for all the churches of Christ to remember this. There is too great a proneness amongst us to forget our widowhood, and become indifferent to the absence of our Lord, as if we could be quite satisfied to remain asunder; as if the prospect or the thought of meeting were no gladness to us at all; as if it mattered little whether the meeting-time were near or long-deferred. But nothing surely can make up for his personal presence; and we do well to “refuse to be comforted even with his own consolations, save in the prospect of his personal return.” As Samuel Rutherford writes, “I half call his absence cruel; and the mask and veil on Christ’s face a cruel covering, that hideth such a fair face from a sick soul. I dare not challenge himself, but his absence is a mountain of iron upon my heavy heart. Oh! when shall

* P, 25.

Si

iy

we meet? Oh! how long is it to the dawning of the marriage-day? O sweet Lord Jesus, take wide steps! O my Lord, come over mountains at one stride! 0 my beloved, be like a roe or a young hart on the

{??

mountains of separation!” It was “the prospect of the personal return” of Christ that gladdened the heart of this afflicted saint; and it is the same prospect that should gladden ours. The Bridegroom’s return to his long-betrothed, but long-desolate bride, is the object of our hope. Not death, but the personal presence of the Bridegroom. Not our going to him, but his coming tous. The marriage of the Lamb, the marriage-day, the marriage-supper, — these are the blessed hopes which brighten the dreary night of solitude and helplessness.

Nor is it merely the absence of her friend, her heart’s beloved, that the desolate church has to mourn; there is also the presence of her enemies and his, in terrible power and malignity. She is “the lily among thorns.” She is a little flock in the midst of devouring wolves. Satan rages on every side, seeking to devour her. The legions of hell throng around her to — scatter and overwhelm her. In great wrath Satan comes down, because “he knows he has but a short time.” The world like a flood circles her about with

its swelling waves, It hates her even as it hated her

Lord. If restrained from open persecution for a while, it still shows all the deep malignity of the serpent’s seed; and wherever opportunity occurs, it is ready to resume its murderous spear and sword. Antichrist is still Antichrist to the last, — the enemy of Christ, the usurper of his throne, the shedder of the blood of his saints. They find that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, and that evil men and seducers wax worse, deceiving and being deceived. They experience that it is through much tribulation that they must enter the kingdom of God. — But without enlarging on this, let me quote from Mr Brown the following statement of his views, in which I en — tirely concur : — “There is still another class of texts — the most delightful, perhaps, of all, and certainly the most telling upon the heart — in which the widowed condition and feeling of the church, while her Lord is absent from her in the heavens, are brought to view. And from whom do we get this idea in its perfection? Is it from the apostles expressing the feeling which His absence created in the hearts of his loving people? No; it is from Christ himself, intimating what he expected at their hands, — taking it for granted that they would not be able to do without him. ‘ And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often and

y

make prayers, and the disciples of the Pharisees, and thy disciples fast not? And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. ‘No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old,’ &c. Would it be incongruous in the church to mourn and feel desolate in the presence of her Lord? Not less incongruous, it seems, is it not to cherish the feeling of desolation in his absence. And both are such incongruities as confounding the seasons of fasting and feasting, as putting a piece of a new garment upon an old, as putting new wine into old bottles, and preferring new wine to old. (Lukev. 33 — 39.) - Still more touchingly does this thought find vent in his last discourse with his disciples, as he sat with them at the communion-table in the upper room of Jerusalem, the night before he suffered. As he broke to them, by little and little, the sad news that he was about to leave them, he poured forth the richest consolationsin the view of it, — ‘staying them with flagons, and comforting them with apples.’ But he had no wish to carry this too far. Love loves to be indispensable to us object; and Jesus will think it an abuse of his consolations, if we have learned from them to do without

him. Written communications and tokens of affection from the absent one are dear to affection — but only when himself cannot be had. Christ’s word, and the seals of his love, conveyed to our hearts by the blessed Spirit, are inexpressibly dear to his loving people — only in the absence of himself. And never do we please Christ so much as when we ‘refuse to be comforted, even with his own consolations, save in the prospect of is Personal Return. Hear how, confiding in this affection of ours to himself, He takes it for granted that we shall be miserable without him: ‘ Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice.’”’* Here we might be inclined to ask, if this be the case, what kind of millennium is it that Mr B. is expecting? That period is everywhere set forth in Scripture as one of blessedness and triumph, — the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth, the desert rejoicing and blossoming as the rose. But yet the church, in that day, is to “cherish the feeling of desolation” on account of an absent Lord. She is to refuse to be comforted. Nay, she is to be ‘‘ miserable without him.” All this in the age of millennial glory! Surely. the prophetic descriptions given of that holy time are. such as to preclude the possibility of such desolation,

discomfort, and misery. Surely it will be a poor mil-

* Pp, 24, 25.

lennium in which the church is called upon to go mourning, refusing to be comforted. Is this all the joy in reserve for that joyousday? Is there not something out of joint with a theory presenting an incongruity like this? But I am diverging from the object which I have in view in this chapter. To this I return.

Mr Brown takes up at some length the question as to whether death may not be called the coming of the Lord. How often has identity of these two events been maintained, nay, taken for granted, as if beyond dispute? How often are discourses upon death and its suddenness founded upon some passage which speaks entirely of the second coming of the Lord! Thus violence is done to Scripture, the plain sense of passages is wholly overlooked, and the mind of the Spirit never once inquired into. At death we go to him, but at the advent he comes to us; and therefore these things cannot be the same. Death is our enemy, and Christ is our friend; and therefore our dying and his coming cannot be the same. We are not taught to pray for death, but we are taught to pray for Christ’s coming; therefore they cannot be the same.

It is a. matter of sad interest to notice how soon the warmth of longing for Christ’s return was chilled

in the early church. Long ere millennarianism fell in-

/ to disrepute, there seems to have been a waxing cold in love. Hence death, and the state between death and the resurrection, was brought more prominently into view, till by degrees the advent and the resurrection were almost buried out of sight. We still, even down to the day of Augustine, meet with allusions to the advent; but it is clear that the “Blessed Hope” was becoming paler and dimmer. The church was occupied in thinking about her going to heaven to be with Christ, instead of responding to the apostle’s ery, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” In the days of Tertullian it was the expectation of the Lord’s coming and kingdom that occupied the church’s thoughts. Hence, in expounding the Lord’s prayer, that Father says, in reference to the petition, “Thy kingdom come,” Htiamst prefinitum in oratione non esset, de postulando regnr adventu, ultro eam vocem protulissiemus, (2. e. even if the petition for the coming of the kingdom were not in the Lord’s prayer, we should, of our own accord, have given utterance to it,) FESTINANTES AD SPEI NOSTRA COMPLEXUM.*

Cyprian, on the other hand, seems entirely occupied with the prospect of getting out of this world as soon as possible, congratulating himself at being delivered out of its desolations, — rwinis et naufragiis et plagis

* De Oratione, c. 5, apud nos, p. 205.

imminentibus; and in the well-known peroration of his treatise De Mortalitate, pointing to the friends removed from earth, he says, ad hos, fratres dilectissimi, anda cupiditate properemus, ut cum his cito esse, ut cito ad Christum venire contingat, optemus.* No doubt, to “Depart and be with Christ is far better,” and he is surely no healthy believer who does not feel this; but still the church’s chief and most fervent desire must be towards the coming of the Lord. If one should say, What difference does it make? I might answer, much difference indeed. But I am not careful to put in any answer at length, in a case which Scripture has so clearly decided. The following is Mr B.’s statement on this point : —

“The coming of Christ to individuals at death — however warrantably we may speak so, and whatever profitable considerations it may suggest — is not fitted for taking that place in the view of the believer which Scripture assigns to the second advent.

* Chap. xxiv, at the close.

+ All anti-millennarians, however, are not of Mr Brown’s opinion on the above point. Indeed, I suspect that most of them would reject it as half way to millennarianism. One who is entitled to authority among them, thus gives his judgment, “Christ’s coming to us at the last day, and our going to Christ at death, are words of the same import; and, therefore, we shall regard them as identified.... There will be no real difference either in the lessons that are to be learnt, or in the consolations that are to be derived.” — Dr Andrew Thomson’s Sermons (1829) p. 470.

|
|

1s DEATH NOT IDENTICAL

“1, The death of believers, however changed in its character, in virtue of their union to Christ, is, intrinsically considered, not joyous, but grievous — not attractive, but repulsive. It is the disruption of a tie which the Creator formed for perpetuity — the unnatural and abhorrent divorce of parties made for sweet and uninterrupted fellowship. True, there is no curse in it to the believer; but it is the memorial of the curse, telling of sin, and breach of the first covenant, and legal wrath. All the ideas, therefore, which death, as such, is fitted to suggest, even in connection with the better covenant, are of a humiliating kind. Whatever is associated with it of a joyous nature 7s derived from other considerations, by which its intrinsic gloominess is, in the case of believers, redeemed. But the Redeemer’s second appearing is, to the believer, an event of unmingled joyousness, whether as respects the honour of his Lord, which will then be majestically vindicated before the world which had set it at nought, or as respects his own salvation, which will then have its glorious completion. How, then, should the former event be fitted to awaken feelings, I say not equally

intense, but even of the same order, as the latter? In

Appended to the volume, there is Py long note against millennarianism, which the reader may consult, in order to learn the reasons on which Dr T. founded his rejection of that system, connection with his second appearing, the believer is privileged to regard his own death as bound up with the Redeemer’s triumph, and a step to his final victory with Him.. But as a substitute for it, as being ¢o all practical purposes (as they say) one and the same thing with the expectation of the Redeemer’s appearing, this looking forward to one’s own death will be found very deficient wm practical effect.

“2. The bliss of the disembodied spirits of the just is not only incomplete, but, in some sense, private and Sragmentary, if IT may so express myself. Hach believer enters on it for himself at his own death. His spirit is with Christ, resting consciously under his wing from the warfare of the flesh, and tranquilly anticipating future glory.

- “But at the Redeemer’s appearing, all his redeemed will be collected together, and PERFECTLY, PUBLICLY, and SIMULTANEOUSLY glorified,

“3, To put the expectation of one’s own death in place of the prospect of Christ’s second appearing, is to dislocate a beautiful jointing in Divine truth — to destroy one of its finest collocations. Here it is, as expressed by the apostle: ‘The grace of God which bringeth salvation,’ &c. Here both comings of Christ are brought together; the first in ‘ grace’- — the second in ‘glory; the first ‘bringing salvation’ — the second, to complete the salvation brought. To the first we look back by faith — to the second we look forward by hope. In the enjoyment of the fruit of the first, we anticipate the fulness of the second. Between these two the apostle here beautifully places the Christian’s present holy walk. These are the two pivots on which turns the Christian life — the two wings on which believers mount up as eagles. If either is clipped, the soul’s flight heavenward is low, feeble, and fitful. This is no casual collocation of truths. It is a studied, and, with the apostle, a favourite juxtaposition of the two greatest events in the Christian redemption, the first and the last, bearing an intrinsic relation in their respective objects.”*

Again, touching the new earth, Mr B. throws out some brief hints which are worth considering. He evidently believes that this earth, renewed and purified, will form the abode of the glorified church, — and, we presume, of the Redeemer also; for how can the Bridegroom and the Bride be separated? How can he be in heaven, and she on earth? We suppose the author meant this to be understood, though he does not in words affirm it; for we cannot conceive of such a thing as the eternal separation of Christ and his church, the one being in heaven, the other on earth.

* Pp. 27 — 29.

MR FATRBAIRN. Ze

Mr Fairbairn, to whom Mr B. refers with deserved commendation, states this distinctly in several passages, in the last section of his work on the typology of Scripture. “Were I left to choose out of all creation’s bounds the place where my redeemed nature is to find its local habitation, enjoy its Redeemer’s presence, and

reap the fruits of his costly purchase, I would prefer none to this.”* Again he remarks — “Of what else can we understand the representation in the 8th Psalm, as interpreted by the pen of inspiration in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 11. 5 — 9, and in 1 Cor. xv. 27.. These passages in the New Testament put it beyond a doubt that the idea of perfect and universal dominion delineated in the psalm is to be realized in the world to come, over which Christ, as the head of redeemed humanity, is to rule with his people in him and under him.”+ And, once more, he thus speaks: — “In Isaiah xi. 6 — 9, the final results of Messiah’s reign are in like “manner delineated under the aspect of a world which has obtained riddance of all the disorders introduced by sin, and is restored to the blessed harmony and peace which characterised it when God pronounced it very good. And still more definitely, though with reference to the same aspect of things, the apostle Peter (Acts iii. 21) represents the time of Christ’s ae *P.46l. +P. 464, 22, - BAXTER.

second coming as ‘the time of the restitution of all things,’ that is, when every thing should be restored to its pristine condition.... It is precisely on the same object, a redeemed and glorified earth, that the apostle Paul, in the 8th of the Romans, fixes the mind of believers as the terminating point of their hopes of glory. An incomparable glory is to be revealed in them, and in connection with that, the deliverance of a suffering creation from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.”*

Thus also wrote Richard Baxter, “Though I have not skill enough in the exposition of hard prophecies, to make a particular determination about the thousand years reign ef Christ on earth before the final judgment, yet, I may say, that I cannot confute what such learned men as Mr Mede, Dr Twisse, and others (after the old fathers) have hereof asserted. ... But I believe there will be a new heaven and earth, in which will dwell righteousness.”+ To these statements I subjoin the following paragraph from Mr Brown’s work,: “Some minds shrink from this latter opinion, as tending to carnalize, or at least to lower, our views of the celestial state. But may not such sensitiveness spring from an unconscious confounding of the pre-

* P. 465. + Works, vol. xi. p. 513.

sent wretched state with that which is expected to take its place? Jay there not be in wt some tincture of that morbid spiritualism, which shrinks from the very touch of materralism, as if separation from it in every form would be the consummation of happiness? May not THE Gnostic ELEMENT — of the essential sinfulness and vanity of matter — be found lurking beneath it? Certainly, if the earth was implicated in the curse, it is natural to expect that it should share in its removal.* Certainly, the glorified bodies, both of the Redeemer and the redeemed, derive their elements from the dust of this ground, which will thus — in their persons at least — for ever endure. And if it be

no degradation to the Son of God to take it into his

-* On this point, however, our opponents differ very widely among themselves. Dr Hamilton writes thus, — “are the new heavens and new earth, the earth in its restored state? Is it customary to give the name of new to what is only restored? Is an old friend restored from abroad a new friend? Are old goods restored by the housebreaker new goods? Is the old earth, restored to its original and primitive state, a new earth? If this is the case, it would have been more german to the purpose to have called it the old or ancient earth; but new it certainly never would have been named. ...If the sacred writers had expected the restoration of the earth to its primitive condition, and believed that the renovated earth was to have been the residence of Christ and the glorified saints, they would have reversed their epithets. They would have called the present system the new earth and the new heavens,” &¢. — Defence of the Scriptural Doctrine, &c., p. 277, 278.

24, FITNESS OF THE NEW EARTH.

own person, ‘as the First-born from the dead, — if the dust of’this ground is capable of becoming a ‘ spiritual’ and a ‘glorious body,’ meet vehicle for the perfected and beatified spirit, the sharer of its bliss in the immediate presence, and the instrument of all its activities in the service of God and the Lamb, — it does seem hard to conceive how the very system which has furnished all these elements of incorruption, and spirituality, and beauty, and glory — when its present constitution shall be dissolved, and when new and higher laws shall be stamped upon it — should be incapable of furnishing a congenial abode for the glorified church.”*

I must here terminate my quotations, and with them draw the present chapter to a close. My object has been to ascertain in what points we agree, not in what points we differ. And I am truly glad that on several important questions we are almost entirely at one with him. Let me briefly state these in order. It will help, perhaps, to make our way clearer in our future discussion.

I. We agree as to the duty of Christians to study the prophetic word, and to inquire into what God has written concerning things to come.

II. We agree as to the Church’s “blessed hope,”

* Pp, 18, 19. a that is, the personal return of Christ, “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

“III. We agree in thinking that death cannot be a substitute for this, and that it 1s wrong to identify death and the advent, as if they were truly the same thing.

IV. We agree as to the widowed and miserable condition of the church until he comes again. Her lot in his absence is one of tribulation and persecution.

V. We agree as to the resurrection and the resursurection-state being that on which the believer’s eye should rest.

VI. We agree as to the renewed earth being the future-dwelling-place of the Redeemer and the redeemed.

There are other points also of lesser prominence in which we approach somewhat near each other. But these are the chief. On many others we totally differ. How far, and upon what grounds, remains to be seen. These grounds I trust to be enabled to state with calmness, remembering the brotherhood that there is between us.

I may marvel at times how certain opinions could be held, and certain texts interpreted in a sense

so very different from what appears to me the true; but I shall endeavour to abstain from insinuating that “no one would ever take such a view of the passage but for certain inconveniences attending it.” I - may at times think certain theories untenable and unscriptural; but I shall try to avoid hard names, which may after all betoken only an undue self-confidence on my part, or an unconscious bias which unfits one for appreciating or even understanding any theory save our own. I may perhaps discern very clearly a long train of inferences from the doctrine of our opponents, — inferences which appear to me logically irresistible and doctrinally most preposterous; but I shall try to keep myself from supposing that all those inferences of mine must form the creed of my opponents, and that because certain things appear to me incompatible with certain others, they must be so in reality. I may think some reasonings inconclusive enough; but I shall not irritate a brother by telling him that they are “not worth the name of arguments,” or “fitted only to provoke a smile.” My thinking that the opinions of certain brethren in Christ are erroneous, is no reason why I should call them “hallucinations,” or “wild speculations and reveries.” Mr Brown speaks truly of the “sweet spirit” of one writer, and the “gentle pen” of another. My prayer is, that that spirit and that pen may be mine. They are much needed in this day of warfare and excitement and hasty speech. Our weapons are not carnal; nor ought our speech to be. If it be, we are but borrowing the world’s rude weapons, and are more concerned to overthrow an adversary than to win a brother. Men in earnest we ought in good truth to be. Our business, however, is not to wrangle about our Lord’s appearing, but to try who shall find out most truth respecting it, who shall most fully understand our Lord’s meaning, and who shall best instruct his brethren therein, winning them by his meekness, not repelling them by his sharpness or unpliable tenacity.

In dealing with an opponent, it is well sometimes to consider the possibility of our being, perchance, in error. This does not make us less decided; but it tends to abate self-confidence and dogmatism, as well as to make us more respectful towards his opinions, no less than towards himself. It may be well enough for me to slight or smile at his views, if it is utterly impossible for him to be right, or me to be wrong; but WHAT, AFTER ALL, IF THE SLIGHTED TENETS SHOULD BE truE? What if coming ages should evolve in harmonious reality that very theory which I have been accustomed to deride as a childish fable or a disordered

dream?