How Far We Differ

Ir will not avail much to smoothe over the points of difference between us.* Truth would not be served by this, nor should we be brought nearer the sound adjustment of the question. Let us admit that the differences are not few nor unimportant.

Mr Brown is fully aware of this, as any reader of his work will easily discover. So weighty does he

conceive these to be, that he more than once charges

* “TJ have made it my duty to define with the utmost possible precision, the points of religious difference, and no where, and at no time, to disguise them. The opinion sometimes entertained, that the differences are not of importance, and affect not the vitals of Christianity, can only conduce to mutual contempt; for opponents who are not conscious of having adequate grounds for opposing each other, and yet do so, must despise one another.” Moehler’s Symbolism, vol. i. Pref. p. xvi. — one of the most plausible pieces of Romanist learning that has appeared for many years. Yet, fas est et ab hoste docert.

us with “hallucinations,””* with “wild speculations and theories,’+ with holding a scheme which “dashes against every truth, and throws the whole system into disorder,’t “a scheme which, like a wedge, once introduced into the word of God, dislocates it all, and unsettles its every text;’§ which is “subversive of the fundamental principles, and opposed to the plainest statement’s of God’s word; “nay, which if true, would make not only a new dispensation, but a new Christianity.”

I do not cite these passages for the sake of censure or retort. Let the reader, if he will, set them down as true and just. But, let him observe from them, how decided and important Mr B. conceives the differences between us to be. Of what use would it be to conceal or slight these? In what way would it conduce either to truth or concord?

eto meey Pal te Ps 82d, OS The) Sf Besosp St Prats

The reader of Dr Hamilton’s work against millennarianism will find even stronger language made use of. And in a note to Dr A. Thomson’s sermons, we learn from the terms he employs, that he thought the difference wide. He speaks of millennarian - “assertions,” and “‘ fancies” as “‘ pregnant with danger, both to the faith and the practice of Christians,” p. 547. He speaks also of our “crude and visionary speculations;” of our “haughty dogmatism;” “of our hundred absurdities;” of “statements so irreligious, and arguments so reckless;”’ of “‘ adventurous and oracular theologues, whose theory sets at nought the omniscience of the Son of God, and the veracity of the Holy Ghost.” J,

Some would say, “Oh! let us unite in loving the Lord himself, and in love merge all variances between us, as to his appearing and his kingdom.” Would this be wise? Would it be honest, if the difference be so great as Mr Brown represents it to be? No; let us not smother the truth, and then say that we did it out of love to the Lord. Let us “speak the truth in love,” but, let us be sure that it is in very deed the. truth that we are speaking.

Some would say, “what matters it to us whether the Lord’s appearing be after or before the millennium?” Much every way. Chiefly, because God has declared his mind upon the subject; and, therefore, it must matter to us to receive what he has made known. Besides, Mr Brown, on the one hand, will tell them that it does matter much to believe that Christ will not come before the millennium, for the opposite be- lief would make a “new Christianity.” And, we on the other, would ask them if it be not their duty to waton for the Lord’s coming? and if it be possible for them to watch for the arrival of a person who is not to come for at least a thousand years?

Some would say, “but why lay such stress upon the advent? Is not death at hand; and is it not to that our thoughts should be turned?” By no means. It is the advent, not death, that is the saint’s hope

PAST AND FUTURE. Sl

and the church’s pole-star. And if they be disposed to treat such a statement as a piece of millennarian sentimentality, let them turn to Mr Brown, who will largely and unhesitatingly confirm our averment.

Others, admitting the duty of loving and looking for the appearing of the Lord, yet maintain that the question of a thousand years’ interval between us and his advent has no bearing at all upon that duty. They affirm, that let the interval be a thousand or ten thousand years, and let the existence and duration of that interval be absolutely certain, still there is no interference with the duty referred to; so that the postmillennialist just as fully and with as much unhindered watchfulness as the premillennialist, can be looking for the advent. In illustration, they refer to our connection with the past; and affirm, that just as we get all the benefits of the first advent, without needing to introduce the element of time at all, so. we can obtain all the profit derivable from the second advent, without referring to time at all.

But, surely there must be a far greater difference between the influence of a past and a future event than this argument allows, — a difference, which of itself, apart from the declarations of Scripture, makes the argument a suspicious one. The influence of the

past event is irrespective of tume; but, not so the in-Sp THE ELEMENT OF TIME.

fluence of the futwre. In looking to the cross, I receive forgiveness, and become an heir of the kingdom. My relationship to God is henceforth a settled thing, with which nothing can interfere. In it, and in the enjoyment of it, time has no place. Whether the cross had been erected eighteen hundred, or eighteen thousand years ago, it matters not to me. I know that that cross has done its work. All that was needed to secure my acceptance, and my portion, was finished then; and I rejoice in this, irrespective of nearness or distance. But the crown and kingdom, — these are still future. I have received the titles to them, but no more. I am a pilgrim here, a man without a home or a possession. My heritage, however, I am to receive when Jesus returns; and can I be indifferent as to when this is to be? Is the question of time nothing to me now! Is indifference as to the time as proper a state of feeling as concern about it? Or, will the one feeling be as helpful as the other in preparing me for my heritage? Can I, dare J, be wndiferent as to the nearness or distance of Him, whom not having seen, I love? Ought the wife to be indifferent as to the matter of t¢me in anticipating re-union with the beloved of her heart? Is tume a matter of so little moment, that we can say, it matters not whether

it be a day, or a year, or ten thousand years, till we meet Him, whom we hold so dear. Are earthly partings so easily borne, so lightly talked of? In these, is it not time that enters into the very essence of the bitterness of the parting hour? Separation for a day is nought; but separation for a lifetime is the very breaking of the heart. Can we then be indifferent as to the time of the Lord’s appearing? Are we to say, “time is no more a matter of concern to me, in reference to the second advent, than in reference to the first; it profits me no more to think of the second advent as near, than to think of the first as near; I have got all the blessings connected with the first advent irrespective of farness or nearness, and I may be quite content in knowing that I shall get all that the second advent can bring to me, without troubling myself with the question of time?” Is this unselfishness? Is this large-hearted longing love, that can be satisfied with nothing but union with the beloved one?

No; it may be said, this is not our meaning. We merely mean that the sanctifying effects producible by the contemplation of the second advent, are, like the justifying effects flowing from the first advent, independent of time. But this also is untrue. The difference between these two things 1s broad and clear.

It is not possible to connect the justifying effects of D

the first advent with the question of time; nor does Scripture ever do so. But then, it is equally impossible to separate the sanctifying effects of the second advent, from the question of time; and, besides, Scripture never hints at such a separation; nay, ¢é affirms the opposite in most frequent and explicit terms.

If it were the event itself merely that Scripture pointed to, without any reference to nearness, or to our own attitude in believing that event; then the comparison between the two advents might stand. But Scripture does not do so: it is almost always in connection with nearness or remoteness that the second advent is referred to. Zme enters as an element into all the predictions of this event. Besides the chronological prophecies, all of which link themselves more or less to the advent, and of necessity raise the question of time, there are many passages in which the idea of time or nearness is introduced. All those passages in which the Lord is spoken of as coming quickly, or in which the church is commanded to watch, &c., bring in the element of time. The attitude in’which the church is commanded to be, presupposes this same element; for how can she say, “How long, O Lord!” or, “Make haste, my beloved,” without a distinct reference to time? That attitude

DEFIANCE OF DATES. oS

has special reference, not so much to the certainty of the event, as to, the uncertainty of the time; which uncertainty is entirely removed, if we know that our Lord cannot come for at least a thousand years.

If it is said that faith ought to manifest a “holy defiance of dates,” it must be faith of a different kind from that of Daniel, and the believing Israelites of his day; it must be faith of a different kind from that of him who “understood .by books the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the destruction of Jerusalem,” (Dan. ix. 2); and who, when anticipating the promise, could not refrain from asking, “how long shall it be to the end of these wonders” I am not aware of any passage in the word of God that would lead us to a “holy defiance. of dates;’ but I am aware of many in which dates and times are specially given for faith to rest on. I know that faith can see the day of Christ afar off, and rejoice in thus seeing it even afar off; but I am sure that every thing that tends to bring it nearer, or at least to remove the necessity of an interval, tends mightily to quicken faith. J¢ ws not, and cannot be, all one to faith, whether the Lord be far off or near. We cannot thus defy dates, even when we would. No

faith, however strong, can extract the element of time from the anticipation of an event big with such infinite hopes as the advent of the Lord. No faith, however soaring, can overlook that element, or regard with indifference the question of nearness or remoteness, of certainty or uncertainty. In looking back to the first coming, the duration of the interval is nothing;

g; in looking forward to the second coming, it is

of unspeakable moment. In the former case, faith rests simply on the cross, irrespective of interval, not because it has a “holy defiance of dates,” but because

time has absolutely nothing to do with the great

question for whose solution he goes to that cross —

“how shall a man be just before God?” In the latter case, faith is, as a matter of necessity, concerned about the interval; because according as the length of that - interval is greater or less, certain or uncertain, so must be the peculiar attitude which faith must assume. My faith in reference to the cross, is not a waiting

faith, or a watching faith, or a wearying faith; it is

simply a looking faith: and what has interval to do

with that? My faith, in reference to the appearing

and kingdom of the Lord, is a waiting faith, an eapecting faith, a watching faith, a longing faith; and with these the thought of interval has much indeed to do. Such was the faith of Samuel Rutherford when

he wrote, “I often challenge time for holding us asunder. I. half call his absence cruel.”* Those who conceive that faith ought to disregard time and interval, might, perhaps, call this unbelief; but it is the truest, strongest faith.t Faith wearies at the interval, and wishes it short: unbelief thinks nought of it, nor cares whether it be short or long.

It seems to be thought by some, that the more truly we believe, the more shall we become indifferent to the question as to the nearness of the advent. I should imagine that the more we increase in faith, the more will the question, “How long or how near” engage us. In the days of our unbelief and enmity, such a question might be overlooked; but surely in the days of our faith and love, it is one of the questions which we must be ever putting. It is the strongest faith that will put it the oftenest. It is the warmest love that will rejoice most fondly to learn that the time is short, and the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

* «-Mis not the loss of love’s assurance;
It is not doubting what thou art;
But ’tis the too too long endurance
Of absence that afflicts the heart.”

+ Mr Newman seems to have had in his eye this “holy defiance of dates,” when he thus wrote: “Earth and sky are ever failing: Christ is ever coming: Christians are ever lifting up their heads and looking out.” Sermons on Subjects of the Day, p. 11. How true to one who believes that the coming of the Lord draweth nigh!

Would it be no damper to the soul that “desires to depart and be with Christ,” to be told, you must abide yet a thousand years here, without “being with him.” Could faith triumph over such an interval and say, “Gt matters not”? And shall it be no damper to the eager spirit that is daily saying, “Come, Lord Jesus,” to be told, he will not come these thousand years? Does it make no difference to be told, you shall die to-morrow, and to be told you shall not die these thousand years? Whether would the long or the short interval, the certain or uncertain period, be more likely to teld upon our preparation for eternity?

In considering this point, we are not at liberty to say, “Oh, but I am a dying creature; and though it be a thousand years till the Lord come, it may not be a day till Iam gathered to my fathers.” This would be shifting our ground, and making death equivalent to the advent, which Mr Brown well shows to be unscriptural. Besides, we are not to consider this question with reference to individual feeling or experience. We must consider it in reference to that body which is one — the church. It is a matter which concerns the church as a body; and it is in this light that we must view it. Now, the church is a body or corporation which never dies. And it is to this always-living

company that Scripture uniformly addresses itself.

I, an individual, may die; but I leave behind me others, and is it no concern of mine what is to be their lot? When one member suffers, shall not all the members suffer with it?

But again, what bearing is the advent to have upon the unbelieving world? Will the idea of distance not sadly hinder its influence upon them? If we-are to use the doctrine of the advent as a trumpet to alarm them, (and what trumpet is there like it?) then, how will it produce its intended effect, if we are to tell the ungodly, at the same time, that this mighty event, in which they are so deeply concerned, will not take place for at least a thousand years? Faith may possibly contrive to elevate itself above dates; but what is wnbelief to dot Has the question of time no bearing upon the influence which the proclamation of the advent is to have upon the world? Ah! surely, the point of nearness or distance, of certainty and uncertainty, is of vast moment here. And most grievously should we enfeeble our warnings, could we only speak to sinners of a far distant advent.

But I must not dilate on this point at any further length. It seems to me plain, that the difference between us and our opposing brethren, in regard to the practical influence of the advent, is one of no inconsiderable importance. It is impossible so to smoothe it down as to make it appear that both systems stand

upon the same footing in point of practical influence.

The very fact of such a solution of the difficulty as

we have been combating, having been attempted, shows that our opponents are alive to the advantage which millennarianism possesses in wielding the doctrine of a near coming; which advantage they would claim for themselves, by trying to demonstrate that faith disregards dates and intervals. A difference between ‘the two systems is admitted; but they contend that it is only a seeming one; and in order to bring both toa level, they try to show that what we call an advantage, is no advantage at all. Finding that they cannot wield the argument of nearness, they deny that nearness is any advantage; and in so doing, they place themselves in the invidious position of men attempting to disparage a particular excellency, because it does not belong to their system, to speak slightingly of an advantage, which, in other circumstances, they could hardly have failed to recognise as great and influential.

The shortness of life is a strong argument for quickening the saint and rousing the sinner. And who is there that would. affirm that the shortness, or the length, or the uncertainty of life, was nothing to such an argument; but that the mere fact of death was —

that was required to give it force?.

DIFFERENCES. 4)

What, then, are the points of difference between us and Mr Brown? Of details, we cannot speak. Neither ES should we think of enumerating ald the doctrines on which we differ. But the leading points in the controversy, it is of some moment to know.

I do not wish to extend the discussion unduly, by adverting to the differences between us and other post-millennialists, besides Mr Brown. There would be little prospect of termination to such a controversy. For, strange to say, no two post-millennialists agree on almost any one point with each other, save in denying the pre-millennial advent. Their systems are quite as diverse from each other as from us.

They have not, indeed, published much in defence or exposition of their own views. In such a case, one might have expected harmony; but this is not the case, as any one may discover from their works. In the details of their own system; in their method of assault upon their opponents; and especially in their exegesis, they are very widely dissimilar. There are few passages involved in this controversy, in which they may not be brought to bear testimony against each other. Hence, it would be hopeless to attempt an enumeration of their opinions and interpretations. We have been more than once taunted

with our differences; but on this point it would be

4? POSITION OF THE ADVENT.

well for them to keep silence. It might be severely and successfully retorted. Taking into account the immense number of millennarian books that have been published during the last thirty years, it is no great marvel that there should be diversities amongst us. But considering the few, the very few, that have been put forth upon the opposite side, the differences and antagonisms among them are quite inexplicable; we can account for them in the nature of their system. “Truly,” as Mr Brown says, “it is a burdensome stone to all who warmly hold it, and resolutely hold by it; dashing against every truth, and throwing the whole system into disorder. It is a wedge which, once introduced into the Word of God, dislocates it all, and unsettles tts every text, ONE WAY OF CLEAR-ING ALL IS OPEN, AND ONLY ONE, TO GIVE IT UP.” *

But let us draw together a few of the main diversities between us and Mr Brown.

I. We differ as to the position of the advent. He places it after the millennium; we before it. This is the great diverging point. It is the root of almost all our differences. We both believe in a millennium and an advent; but we arrange them reversely. It seems plain to us that the Lord Jesus is to come in person to introduce the millennium; and that just as

bell ats Fb there can be no kingdom without a king — no marriage-festival without the presence of the bridegroom, so there can be no millennium without Him who is its “all in all.” We find the prophets and apostles frequently predicting both the advent and the kingdom; and they uniformly place the advent first, as that without which the latter could not be.

II. We differ as to the nature of the millennium. Mr Brown thinks that it will only be a sort of improvement upon the present state of things. There “will be far less mixture than now,’* he affirms; but that is all the length he goes. Satan, he thinks, is not bound, but merely the “tables are turned’ upon him. The good and bad fishes are still mingled together. The tares grow still plentifully, though not quite so plentifully as before; and the enemy still as unrestrained and as busy in sowing them. The parable of the sower is still as lamentably true. There are still the foolish virgins, no less than the wise. The church is still “‘ miserable” without Christ.t There is no change upon the earth. Creation still groans; the curse still blights the soil; and the animals are still ferocious and destructive.

Here we differ from Mr Brown. I think that Scripture warrants us in believing that the millennial

SPT 121. + BP. 25.

state, though not absolutely perfect, will be one of unspeakably greater and larger blessedness, holiness, and glory, than he conceives. Any remnant of sin or death will only be as the spots upon the face of the sun; utterly hidden in the excellent splendour.

Mr Brown, in his view of the millennium, is widely at variance with most of his prophetic friends, who in their description of millennial felicity, seem to lack words in which to set forth the perfectness and universal holiness of that time. I can afford room for only one specimen : — Dr Hopkins, whose long Treatise on the Millennium, written calmly and clearly, and amounting to 160 closely printed octavo pages, entitles him to be heard among his post-millennial friends. He thus writes: ‘ the greatest error will be in falling short and not coming up to the reality, in the description of the happiness and glory of that day; for doubtless, our ideas of these, when raised to the highest of which we are at present capable, fall vastly short of the truth.... It is most probable, that every individual

person who shall then live will be a real Christian.”*

* P, 55. How can such as Dr H, account for the falling away at the close? Millennarians are often charged with the fault of allowing no room for a falling away. ‘This is not the case. We do not believe that every individual is to be a saint. But Dr H. did. Why should we be charged with inconsistencies of which we are not guilty? And why should our system be

I do not dwell on these contradictions among post-millennialists, though one is sometimes tempted to retort the accusations of our opponents, who seem often to forget that such contradictions are many times more numerous among themselves than among us. Bring together the sermons and pamphlets of anti-millennarians, on the simple subject of the millennium; compare them with similar discourses and pamphlets of millennarians, and it will not take much arithmetic to discover, whose differences are the greater and the more numerous.

Ill. We differ as to the binding of Satan. Mr Brown maintains that Satan is not to be bound or restrained at all. Nothing in the way of positive restraint, or limitation of power, is to be understood as meant by the apostle, in the twentieth of Revelation. This means merely, says Mr B., that “he will not be able to form a party in the earth, as heretofore;”’* and that “his trade will be at an end.”*t He also maintains that it is the church that is to bind Satan. Nowhere in Scripture is the church ever said to “bind

loaded with faults which belong to that of some of our opponents? Why should Mr Faber ask, “on the system adopted by Mr Mede and his followers, where shall we find materials for the construction of that formidable confederacy?” — Sacred Calendar, vol. iii. p. 452.

F Pmt 2. + Ibid.

Satan, or to “take the beast;” yet, without one proof-text, Mr B. says, “the church will do both; not only defeating Antichrist, but thereafter, for a thousand years, never permitting the Devil to gain an inch of ground to plant his foot on over the whole world.”* I do not know how Mr Brown reconciles this statement with those formerly made, regarding the millennium

being merely a state of “less mixture” than the pre- 3 sent, but still occupied with tares as well as wheat. Do the tares not require one inch of ground to grow upon? Mr B. maintains that there cannot be sin where Satan is not, — that “sin and he are inseparable;’+ still he says that there is to be a great deal of sin on the earth, and yet, that “Satan is not to gain an inch of ground to plant his foot on.” We do not know what Mr B. makes of the doctrine of man’s total depravity; but we most seriously ask him, how he can reconcile it with the above dogma, that sin and Satan are inseparable? Had a millennarian made such a statement, he would have been condemned as unsound in the faith..

In opposition to this, I believe that Satan is bound; that just as truly as he now roams the earth, so truly and really shall he then be bound. I believe that very truth which Mr Brown so strongly denounces, t —

aa) aa + P. 302. t P. 302, 303.

“the total cessation of Satanic influence during the millennium.” I believe not only that he “will not be able to form a party,” but that he will not be there even to attempt it. I believe that not only will “his trade be at an end,” but that he will not be there to make an effort for its revival. Here certainly there is a wide and serious difference between us; — so wide and serious, that Mr B. declares our doctrine to be “subversive of the fundamental principles, and opposed to the plainest statements of God’s word.”* This is certainly strong language to use respecting brethren, merely because they believe that Satanic influences are to cease during the millennium. I shall have occasion to revert to this point again, and therefore shall make no other remark than that I deem it unfair in Mr Brown to make his readers imagine that it is pre-millennialists alone who hold this doctrine+ Mr B. knows fully as well as I do, that many post-millennialists hold the same doctrine, and yet he holds ws up to suspicion, as men, who, by maintaining that opinion, are “making not only a new dispensation, but a new Christianity.”{ Surely this is hastily as well as unfairly spoken.

IV. We differ as to the first resurrection. Mr Brown holds it to be entirely figurative. He makes it to

e Paova. + P. 312. t P. 314, signify that “the cause which was slain has risen to life.”* TI believe it to be a literal resurrection of the saints at the commencement of the millefnium.+ Mr Brown dwells at some length on the passage in the 20th of Revelation, and concludes by saying that, “this is the seat of the doctrine, even by their own admission.”£ It is by no means so. Millennarians do not admit it to be such, nor do they use it as such. In the first century, indeed, it was so; and in after years their opponents could only get rid of the testimony of this passage by denying the whole Apocalypse. It was held to be the stronghold of the doctrine then, both by friends and enemies; and as Origen had not yet taught the latter the art of spiritualizing, they had no alternative but either to receive the doctrine or reject the Apocalypse. They did the latter.

V. We differ as to the state of Israel during the millenntwm. Mr Brown does not allow that they are to have superior privileges and honours to the rest of the nations. He casts this idea aside as unscriptural and carnal. We hold, on the other hand, that there

* P. 342,

+ Dr Chalmers evidently understands the first resurrection

literally, and frequently refers to it. See among other places,

Daily Scripture Readings, vol, iii. p. 289.
SUP. by.

is a special pre-eminence in reserve for Israel in the latter day; a national, an ecclesiastical, and a temporal pre-eminence; — just such a pre-eminence as their fathers had, though on a much higher scale. Many who are not pre-millennialists hold with us in this view; but Mr Brown lays his accusation against us alone.* Yet let us bear the censure; for there is no dishonour in it. We are but contending for what we believe to be the very truth of God, in reference to his promises to his still-beloved people. We believe that their chief splendour will be their holiness, no less than Mr Brown, but why should this be thought inconsistent with the idea of national supremacy, and outward privileges of surpassing dignity and honour?+ One who has now altered his opinion, thus wrote ten years ago, “In describing the peculiar or distinctive greatness and felicity of the descendants of Jacob after they have been finally established in their own land, the prophets employ language which cannot be understood otherwise than as indicating a state of things transcendently grand and blessed. There ws no certainty or definiteness in language, if

* P. 265.

+ Dr Chalmers thus writes, ‘“‘ His people will see him whom they pierced; perhaps when his feet stand on the Mount of Olives, and Jerusalem well again become the metropolis of the Christian

world.” — Darly Scripture Readings, Vol. iii. p, 69. Bi these scriptures do not delineate a state of things to be enjoyed upon the visible surface of this earth, much changed and renovated no doubt, by men still dwelling in tabernacles of clay. It shall be a state of things of inexpressible splendour and bliss; for Jerusalem shall be created a rejoicing. There shall be a city whose walls are salvation, and whose gates praise. There a temple shall be reared, to which the glory of Lebanon and the most precious things of the earth shall be again brought; and which, as the place of Jehovah’s throne, shall be hallowed by manifestations of the Divine presence, exceedingly more glorious than were seen in that first temple which of old covered the heights of Zion. And as Jerusalem shall thus be called the throne of Jehovah, the glory of all lands, so shall her people stand the first in dignity and office in the kingdom of Christ; there, pre-eminently, shall be the priests and ministers of the Lord, the seat of spiritual power, and the centre of a blessed light and influence that shall radiate thence to the most distant regions of the earth; participating in their glory, blessed in their blessing, all nations shall flow unto them, they shall bow themselves down at the soles of their feet.”* What Mr Fairbairn held ten years ago, we still continue to hold regarding the glory of Israel,

* Lectures on the future prospects of the Jews, By Ministers

JUDGMENTS. a

and also regarding the physical changes to take place in their land, which he describes at large, wondering how “the strong and masculine intellect of Calvin should be so misled by the taste for spiritualizing,” as not to see that what the prophets testified to is, a literal city and literal temple, yet to be built in the latter days.*

Having thus briefly stated a few of the things wherein we differ, I shall, with yet greater brevity, state a few of the things which millennarians are supposed to hold; but which none, or almost none, have held, and which I at least, and the brethren with whom I am acquainted, do not hold.

I. We do not believe that the world is to be converted by mere outward judgments. We are represented as if we held that the Holy Spirit were insufficient for this end, and that what he has failed to do, the stunning strokes of the iron rod of judgment will effect when the Lord comes. We have never held any such opinion. We look upon the judgments at the Lord’s coming, in the same light (though differing in degree) as we do upon any judgment of God’s hand. The “terrible things in righteousness” will not convert the

of Glasgow. The above extract is from the Lecture by the Rev, Patrick Fairbairn, S=P¥591, ed THE SPIRIT THE CONVERTER.

world. That is the work of the Holy Ghost. He may use these awful calamities, just as he now uses afflictions; but the power and the glory are his alone. A post-millennial writer thus accuses us, — Millennarians may talk as they please about the inefficiency of the means at present in operation for the salvation of mankind, and they may fondly dream of the world being converted by the overpowering manifestation of the Lord Jesus from heaven,”* but all this, says the author, “would not have the effect of converting one soul to God.” So say I, and every millennarian that I know would affirm the same.t Not so anti-millennarians. One of them thus writes : —

“I have no hope of any extensive prevalence of true

religion without the interference of angelic or some

other extraordinary and yet unknown agency to direct its energies and conquer the vast combination of obstruction and hostility that opposes it. An amazing fact it is, that this hostility has hitherto been mainly

* The Question, Will Christ’s reign during the millennium be personal! answered from Scripture. By Charles Morrison, p. 119, See also, Dr Hamilton’s Defence, p. 92.

+ An enemy to the faith thus wrote a few years ago, “And time and matter, and motion and force, and the will of man, how vain are they all except as instruments of the grace of God, blessing them and working in. them.” — Newman’s Sermons, p. 461, How true, how good, even from such a pen!

Se ee successful. The triumphs of religion have been most limited and small, those of evil almost infinite. We see the melancholy result of an experiment of eighteen hundred years, the whole Christian era. This result compels me to conclude that religion is utterly incompetent to reform the world, till it is armed with some new and most mighty powers, till it appears in a new and last dispensation.”*

There is a truth in this, though too strongly and widely stated forme. But what will Mr Morrison say to it? He must restrain his own friends, for they are more extravagant than we are.

Matthew (not Joseph, the millennarian) Mead also, whose writings Mr Morrison, I doubt not, esteems, says, in reference to the Jews, “The first means of their conversion shall be a sign from heaven by this appearing of Christ. ...... Then shall Christ visibly appear, and at the beginning of the trumpet (seventh) shall the Jews be converted. So that it seems that the conversion of the Jews, whenever it shall come to pass, will not be effected by the ordinary means of preaching the gospel, but by some wonderful vision from heaven. And that which seems to confirm this notion, is the manner of St

Paul’s conversion. God seems to set up St Paul’s con-

* John Foster, Life, vol. i. p. 91.

version, who was a Jew, for a type and pattern of their conversion.”*

I ask, then, two questions, first, Why should millennarians be so sharply censured for what they do not hold; and, secondly, Why, in reference to what they do hold, should they be singled out for condemnation, seeing some of their opposing brethren are at one with them ?+

II. We do not believe that the mere binding of Satan will be sufficient to make men receive the gospel. It will, of course, remove one hindrance; but man’s heart remains still as evil as before. Yet Dr Carlile, in his recent work upon “The First and Second Advent,” says, “What might be the effect of the removing of such a powerful stimulant and guide to evil,t and of leaving men to meet the offer of mercy in the gospel, simply under the influence of their own natural alienation from God, we cannot clearly anticipate;

but it would probably be a more cordial and extensive

* Sermons on the Jews, pp. 116, 117.

+ “Fifty comings would not convert a single soul,” is, not unfrequently, the answer to many of our arguments regarding the advent, But what fairness (not to say reverence) is there in such a method of dealing with us? It evades the real question, and imputes to us what we do not believe.;

+ Dr Carlile evidently believes in a restraint of Satanic influence very different from Mr Brown, yet he is a post-millennialist.

DISPENSATIONS. 5d

‘reception of the gospel than has ever yet been witnessed.” We do not believe this. There is enough of evil and enmity in man’s heart, apart from Satan, to lead him utterly to reject the gospel, unless wrought upon by the Holy Spirit.

III. We do not believe that the millennial DISPEN-SATION will be wn essence different from the present. We have been charged with this by those who have fastened upon us their own inferences as our beliefs; but we do not hold aught in the very least approaching to this. We speak of it as another dispensation, just as Jonathan Hdwards does,* but in the same sense as we speak of the patriarchal dispensation, or the Jewish dispensation. The ablest and soundest divines never hesitate to use the term dispensation. In Ridgely’s Body of Divinity, the heading of one chapter, is, “Of the various Dispensations of the covenant of grace.” In our Larger Catechism the word administration is used instead of dispensation. Both of them I understand as conveying the same idea. In strict speech there has been but one dispensation since man sinned, — that of grace, — and there will be no other. The outward form of administration may lead divines to call it a new dispensation, but all are essentially one.

* Hist. of Red, Par. iii. part vii. § 3.

IV. We do not believe that there will be less need of the Holy Spirit in the millennial age than now. He will still be the quickener, the converter, the enlightener, the renewer, the sanctifier. All the holiness of that holy time, will be from Him. We do not deny one particle of the holiness and spirituality which our opponents dwell upon, as the characteristics of that age. We merely add something more to. it, which appears to us not in the least incompatible with it, — external glory and perfection; and the presence of the Lord Himself. We do not deny the inward, we merely add the outward. We do not exclude the invisible, we merely add the visible. And why should this be so offensive in the eyes of our brethren ?*

V. We do not believe in a different gospel or in a different way of recewing it. It will be the same glad tidings still as now, concerning the person and work of the Son of God upon the cross. And still, it shall be by faith that we are saved. No change of scene or circumstances can alter that cross, or make the news concerning it less good and blessed. Mr Brown

* Fuller remarks, ‘‘ the idea of a personal reign appears to me nearly to exclude that of a spiritual one, by leaving little or no place for it.” — Discourses on the Apocalypse. This is a singular statement. Why should the personal and the spiritual be incompatible? Are they so in heaven, where Christ is personally present?

insists that our system requires a “new Christianity ference, and are quite content with the Christianity which the Bible contains. He affirms that, “we have found millennial Christianity to be a different

”
.

We are unable to see the validity of his inthing from the Christianity of the New Testament.” Of this I am not aware.

VI. We do not believe that there will bea new Bible and new revelations. Mr Brown speaks keenly here.* But he speaks unadvisedly. He manifests here, as elsewhere, too much of what, I cannot help calling a desire to make out a case against millennarians, and to set their views in an offensive aspect. I am sorry that he should lay hold of an expression of my friend Mr Wood, and put upon it an interpretation he never meant. What we expect is just what Jonathan Hdwards did, when he says in reference to the millennium, “there shall then be a wonderful unravelling of the difficulties in the doctrines of religion, and clearing up of seeming inconsistencies. Difficulties in Scripture shall then be cleared up, and wonderful things shall be discovered in the word of God, which were never discovered before. So great shall be the

* Pp. 85 — 89.

increase of knowledge in this time, that heaven shall be as wt were opened to the church of God on earth.”* I ask no more than this. I suspect that this will satisfy all millennarians, either English or Scotch; for I do not know of any of them who have given utterance to such high anticipations as Richard Baxter. “In one hour (when reaching heaven), shall I see all difficulties vanish; and all my doubts in physics, metaphysics, politics, medicine, &c., shall be resolved; so happy are the students of that university. Yea, all the depths of divinity will be uncovered to me, and all different knots untied, and the book unsealed, and mine eyes opened.”+ Why should not Mr Brown spare a few of his epithets for honest Baxter; for, assuredly he must have been an expecter of new revelations, and these upon a most extended scale.

VIL. We do not believe that the Christian dispensation rs a mere “parenthesis.’ We are represented as making the Jewish dispensation the real and enduring one, which, having been interrupted for a season, will be resumed in the millennial age. I do not accuse Mr B. of affirming this of us. But I know that others do. I wonder at the misrepresentation, and can only

* Hist. of Red. Par. iii. ch. viii. § 1.
+ Works, vol. xxiii, p. 425, 426.

ascribe it either to men identifying their own inferences with our opinions, or catching wrongly up an isolated phrase, which they had not patience to inquire into. The apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, tells us that the “old covenant” has “vanished away” for ever. It is not to be resumed, either with Israel or the nations of the earth. It is upon the footing of the new covenant,* that Israel and the whole earth are in that day to stand. This I not only hold myself, but have seen so often stated, and dwelt upon, by millennarian writers, that I feel considerably at a loss to know how the accusation has arisen, and cannot help ascribing it to an over-eager desire to damage our cause, by fastening upon it the hasty utterances of some of its imprudent defenders.

VIII. We do not hold that Christ and his risen saints are to dwell in actual houses of lime and stone such as we dwell in. Their dwelling is in the pavilion-cloud, or residence provided for them in the New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from God, and which rests over the earth, just as the pillar-cloud did of old. From that, as the palace of the king in which they abide, they go forth continually, as vice-royal potentates, to rule the nations of the earth. Their position, office, and procedure, will be

3 * Heb. viii, 8 — 13, something similar to angels in the present age, who are ‘Ministering spirits, sent forth to “minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation.” Where is the degradation here? Where is the “abhorred mixture,” of which Mr Brown speaks?

IX. We do not believe that the raised wicked, at the end of the millennium, will be Gog and Magog, who shall attack the beloved city, as Dr Wardlaw represents. Nor do we believe that these rebels will assail Christ himself, and his risen saints, with spear and sword, as Dr Carlile affirms we do. I know not where either of these writers found these statements. Yet, they set them down as our undoubted opinions,

X. We do not believe that any of the real saints will fall away at the close.. The doctrine of the saints’ perseverance will be as true then as now; and they who are once in Christ’s hand, or in the Father’s hand, shall never be plucked out of it. Let anti-millennarians, such as Dr Hopkins, solve the difficulty of the apostacy. We feel no difficulty in the matter: for we do not believe that absolutely adJ will be real saints, whatever their outward guise may be in these blessed days.

XI. We do not believe in the cessation of Christ’s mediatorral office. He remains eternal mediator, — the

everlasting medium of communication between God and man. ‘The place of intercession we hold to be non-essential. He interceded on earth once; he will intercede there again when he returns. Locality makes no difference. And surely it is somewhat low and carnal to attach so much importance to a place as Mr B. does. And Mr B. himself must be somewhat of our mind notwithstanding his censure of us. For he holds these two things; 1st, That Christ’s intercession is never to cease; and, 2dly, That the new earth is to be the everlasting residence of Christ and his saints. He must hold then, that hereafter intercession will be carried on upon the earth, not in heaven.* But, without entering farther into this point, I refer the reader to an admirable paper by Mr Wood, in the first number of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy.

XII. We do not believe that this material earth will then

* Ridgely holds that Christ’s intercession is eternal; but then he is consistent, for he believes that heaven, the place where Christ now is, shall be his residence for ever. He speaks very specially about “the perpetuity or eternal duration of his mediatorial glory.” (Vol.i. p. 524.) And farther on, adds, “he will intercede for his people for ever, as he shall always continue in this exalted state: and indeed it cannot be otherwise. ... So long as he shall abide there, he will intercede for us, and that will be forever.” (ib. p. 526). He then goes on to prove this by shewing, that as all the blessings which the saints enjoy in heaven, and hope for through eternity, are owing to his intercession, so Christ must remain for ever interceding. Ridgely takes the same

view of 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, as was done in the Presbyterian Rebe as vile and cursed as now. Friends have exclaimed against us on this point, — “What! Christ and his risen ones dwell in a world like this, — a world of storm and earthquake, — a world of cloud and blight, and frost and barrenness!” No; we believe that then “creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption;” that it shall cease to “travail and groan.” The ‘wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.” The first Adam, with his consort, did not reign in chaos. Hden was provided for them. So for the second Adam and his bride, there shall be prepared a better Eden, which sin shall never blight, and on which the curse shall never fall.

XIII. We do not believe that death is a sleep, or that they who dre now do not depart to be with Christ. The saints are indeed said to be “laid to sleep by Jesus,” (xoyunbevres b16 roU Inoot, 1 Thess. iv. 14;) but it is not ina state of dormant unconsciousness that they are laid. Immediately on dissolution they are introduced into a condition of as much blessedness as the unclothed spirit will admit of And though the full gladness is reserved for the resurrection-day, yet there is joy unview some years ago, using the very word there made use of, “delivered up or presented to the Father.” (Ib. p, 479.) See also Adam Gibb’s Sacred Contemplations, pp. 298, 299.

speakable in departing; so that we can realise the preciousness of that sentence which Camerarius left to be engraven on his monument, vita mihi mors est, mors mihi vita nova; and still more of that in which the apostle breathed out the desires of his heart, “having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better, (ToAAG warrAov xo¢7o000.)

XIV. We do not believe that the Gentiles are excluded from the promises. We have been charged with maintaining this, and of thereby depriving Gentile sinners of the gospel, and of its blessings. ‘The charge is wholly groundless. We make nosuchexclusion. We maintain, indeed, that most of the promises in the Old Testament are given directly to, and are primarily intended for, the literal Israel; but many post-millennialists do the same; and how does this prove that we rob sinners of the gospel? Because the promise of Messiah was given to Abraham, had Hagar the Egyptian, or Eliezer of Damascus, no share in the blessings promised 2 But I shall not argue the point, as I have done it elsewhere; and, besides, I find that those post-millennialists, who deny the restoration of Israel to their land, bring the same charge against their brethren who do believe in this, and upon the same grounds as they bring it against us,

These remarks will, I trust, be sufficient to disabuse the minds of some as to what we do hold, and also as to what we do not hold. That there are pre-millennialists who have held and written extravagances, I am quite prepared to admit. But they surely are not representatives of the whole? They are few in number; and it is no more fair to refer to them as expositors of the system, than it would be in me to point to Vint, or Lee, (Cambridge) or Moses Stuart, as expositors of post-millennialism.*

* Should I be dealing fairly with my opponents, were I citing the following letter as a specimen of their sobriety and prudence? — “To the Right Hon. Lord John Russell. — My Lord, I have written some anonymous Letters, published by Boone, New Bond Street, urging a sober revision of the tenets of the Church of England, so as to avoid the late prevalence of Calvinism, and the present spread of Tractarian doctrines. My chief object at present is to direct your Lordship’s attention to twelve Sermons that I have but lately met with, preached at St George’s, Bloomsbury, during Lent, 1843, by twelve clergymen of undisputed personal respectability; proving, as they contend, from the Apocalypse, — confirmed by other parts of Scripture, and by the present signs of the times, that the Sabbatical millennium, or first resurrection of the saints, is certainly near at hand. When this millennium commences, it is affirmed, that all human government will cease, and the Redeemer will reign over all with the saints a thousand years, to be followed by certain awful, but undefined circumstances, up to the consummation of all things. — So that your Lordship will have little or no occasion for extensive legislation; and thus, indeed, all human exertion seems to be paralyzed. Now, I believe the orthodox deduction from the combined letter and spirit of Scripture to be, that the second appearance of the Redeemer will not take place, till he shall come in full power to pronounce one final judgment on the quick and dead. We are

The discussion is one which may be carried on without reference to extravagancies on either side. And though at particular turns of the argument, and for a special end, these may be alluded to, yet they ought watchfully to be kept outside the controversy — a controversy to be decided by the word of God alone — a controversy too momentous to be silenced, too solemn to be lightly handled, and too urgent to be postponed.

If the matter, then, be discussed among Christians, let it be done frankly, without mutual misunderstandings. Let us know what we hold, and what we do not hold, and, on that footing, proceed to conference. Recrimination only disjoins and irritates. It cannot unite or pacify.

Pre-millennialists have been dogmatical. I admit it. I admit that Edward Irving was so, that the Morning Watch was so, and that the Dialogues on Prophecy were so. Many hard words and unadvised thoughts may be found in these. I dislike the scorntaught, however, that this is to be preceded by a general spread of the Gospel of Peace, and the conversion of the Jews; which may require the continuance of the present system of the world, — — we hope progressively improving, for ages to come. It remains to be added, that the day, — when each individual falls into the sleep of death, and state of wnconsciousness, is to him apparently the day of the resurrection to the one final judgment. I have the honour to be, your Lordship’s most obedient Servant, ‘A Long-RESIGNED STUDENT “Lonpon, August 13, 1846. oF Cu. Cx. OxForv.” F ful tone too often assumed by these writers towards brethren in Christ. I could produce, on the other side, insinuations, charges, and epithets from the works of our opponents, stronger, more unjust, and more uncourteous, than any to be found in the former. But let all these be forgotten. If we have dogmatised hitherto, let us do sono more. If we have misunderstood each other hitherto, let us watch against misapprehensions in time to come, and let us calmly confer together, as brethren, of the things that concern the King and his kingdom, — never allowing ourselves to forget that we are one with each other in the Father and in the Son.*

* How calmly Richard Baxter writes, — “whether he will come before the general resurrection and reign on earth a thousand years, I shall not presume to pass my determination; but sure I am, it is

the work of faith and character of his people to love his appearing,” — Works, vol. xvii. p. 590.