Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

out of the land of Egypt; but, The Lord liveth which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land." "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I make shall remain before me," saith the Lord by Isaiah, "so shall your seed and your name remain." Then "will I make Jerusalem a praise in the earth;" and "the fulness of the Jews as life from the dead" to a fallen world. "Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God."Isa. lii.

"His name shall endure for ever; his name shall be continued as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed." "And blessed be his glorious name for ever, and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen, and amen."-Ps. lxxii.

It is undeniable that Scripture records that a period will arrive of glorious days of universal peace, plenty, and righteousness, and that the scene of it will be earth, and that the term of its endurance, as it is translated, will be "for ever." It cannot take place BEFORE the Saviour's return to earth, because, till that event takes place, there will continue to prevail disquiet and death, unhappiness and sin, in its average amount throughout the world. The world will be, we are told, as a field containing trees and wheat, and both growing together, like virtue and vice, side by side, until the harvest-mankind incredulous and sinful, as in the days of Noah and the days of Lot, and then taken by surprise when the Lord of the harvest arrives. It cannot be AFTER Christ's return, if, according to the prevailing opinion, his second coming will summon both the quick and the dead to the final judgment, and close the history of man and the world he inhabits, by taking the good away to heaven and the bad to hell, or leaving them here in hell with the wicked angels, while the earth is either dissolved and annihilated by fervent heat, or left in torment and unquenchable fire for ever.

To help to the conclusion, therefore, that the second advent will precede and usher in this happy state of world-wide peace, plenty, and righteousness, there is this further testimony, that the Bible closes leaving our Lord upon the earth. We find there Satan dispossessed, at first for a limited period, and then utterly cast out. The wicked too are gone, the saints and just

remain, and the Redeemer, whom all who bear his name confess will one day come a second time on earth, has left us not one word, record, or intimation of his second departure from it.

ART. IV.-DISCORDS AND CONTRADICTIONS OF
POSTMILLENNIALISTS.*

We have often observed a remarkable peculiarity in the treatment of works on prophecy by the periodical press. All upon the postmillennial side of the controversy are represented as convincing in point of argument, without the slightest allusion to the fact that on many points the several authors are diametrically opposed to each other in their conclusions. We have been accustomed to set down this peculiarity to the account of pure ignorance, imagining that the critic either never read at all the works in question, or was not sufficiently acquainted with the subject to be able to ascertain the precise bearing of their reasoning or their remarks. We have, however, been somewhat startled by meeting with a flagrant example of this practice in the preface to the volume before us: and we are scarcely disposed to allow the author the benefit of a plea which he would probably be ashamed to put forward. At page iv. we find the words " He would refer any of his readers who may wish to see a fuller discussion of the subject to the able and valuable work of the Rev. Dr Brown of Glasgow, and to the recently published volume of the Bampton Lectures, by the Hon. and Rev. Samuel Waldegrave, M.A.” Unquestionably the works of Mr Brown and Mr Waldegrave are both of them able; but then, though both on the same side of the question, their conclusions are wholly different. Singularly enough, in the very next paragraph Mr Lyon states the question at issue in a manner which is repudiated and denied by the author of the work which he has just recommended to his readers. "The question is," he says, "Will Christ's coming introduce the millennium, or will it take place at the consummation of all things? It is also admitted that a millennium of blessedness is reserved for the Church." Now, Mr Waldegrave admits no such thing. In his view there is no millennium to be expected, for the millennium is past. He differs in these and in other points from Mr Brown, the other

* "Millennial Studies; or, What Saith the Scripture concerning the Kingdom and Advent of Christ?" By the Rev. W. P. Lyon, B.A. London: Ward and Co.

authority to whom Mr Lyon refers. Mr Brown looks for a millennium; Mr Waldegrave says it is over and gone. Mr Brown thinks we are nearing the dawn of millennial day; Mr Waldegrave maintains that we are living in the little season during which Satan is loosed. Mr Brown gives a glowing picture of what the Church may expect when religion is more extensively diffused; Mr Waldegrave gravely tells us that the Reformation put an end to the millennium. According to Mr Brown, the "little season " after the millennium is a time during which the cause of Christ shall be well-nigh dead; according to Mr Waldegrave, it is the very time when the large outpourings of the Holy Spirit are to take place. Mr Brown affirms that the renovated earth will be the dwelling-place of Christ and his people, a proposition which is denied by Mr Waldegrave with equal confidence. Knowing these momentous differences between the two authors, Mr Lyon recommends them both, as if they were entirely at one, and he could himself adopt indifferently the conclusions of either. Would it not have been more useful to his readers if he had examined the points in regard to which his two authorities differ, and either adopted Mr Brown's views against Mr Waldegrave, or Mr Waldegrave's against Mr Brown? Or would it not have been at least more straightforward had he informed his readers that on points which enter into the heart and core of the question, his two authorities are as irreconcilably opposed as were ever pre- and post-millenarian?

We have no intention of entering into any lengthened examination of this work, an undertaking which would be only treading over again to little purpose ground which we have often trodden before; but we have marked one or two passages on which we shall take leave to offer a few remarks. Speaking of the kingdom of Christ, Mr Lyon says:-"It is only as Mediator that he will cease to reign. The reason of this is obvious. His work as Mediator will have been accomplished. He will continue on his throne as King, though not as Priest, his priestly functions ceasing because there will no longer be any need of them."-(P. 7.) The theology of our author, as expressed in this passage, differs very materially from ours. We do not believe that there shall at any time cease to be a Mediator between God and man. Still more contrary to Scripture do we hold the proposition to be that Christ shall at any time reign as King but not as Priest. And we believe that there will never come a time when the priestly functions of our Lord shall cease, for he ever liveth to make intercession for us.

370 DISCORDS AND CONTRADICTIONS OF POSTMILLENNIALISTS.

In his second, Mr Lyon attempts to fasten a charge of inconsistency upon Mr Birks' views of Christ's kingdom. We have no intention of attempting to defend this author, who is well able to defend his own positions. But we may be permitted to point out what seem to us inconsistencies in Mr Lyon's management of his own case. "Viewed," he says, "in the varied lights in which millenarianism presents it, Christ is, and yet is not, but is still to be. Among antimillenarians there is at least consistency and agreement. They all, without exception, so far as we know, regard the kingdom as already in existence, and Christ as already occupying the throne." (P. 10.) This hardly can be called a fair statement. Millenarians and antimillenarians are, so far as we know, agreed in believing that the kingdom of grace is in existence, and that the kingdom of glory is future. The question between them is, whether it is the kingdom of grace or of glory that is Christ's proper kingdom. Nor do we think that Mr Lyon has good reason to taunt his opponents with holding that Christ's kingdom is, and is not, and shall be. If we are not mistaken, he himself would use the same language regarding it during the period previous to Christ's ascension. The kingdom was in existence then, else how were any saved: it was also future, else how could our Lord speak of it as coming. We, who place the time of the assumption of the kingdom, not at the ascension, but at the second advent, are entitled to say, "Christ's kingdom is (in existence), it is not (in its full manifestation), it shall be (when Christ comes again). Satan is de facto the lord of this world. Antichrist rules, and shall rule until he is destroyed. Surely there is nothing so very extraordinary in maintaining that Christ's proper kingdom shall commence when these adversaries are dethroned. It will be granted, that the law of love is the proper law of Christ's kingdom. Try it by this rule, and where is it? Only in the hearts of the redeemed. "Take away selfishness," says Mr Lyon, "and these laws become unnecessary. They are superseded by the higher law of love. So it will be in the ultimate state of blessedness. No law will be needed there but the great law of love. So in the millennial state. Any additional revelation of law will be rendered unnecessary by the prevalence of love."-(P. 26.) We think the fair conclusion from this statement is, that Christ's kingdom shall be established or manifested first in the millennial time. But do we deny that Christ is now King? By no means. He is God's designated King, and therefore sits at his right hand. He ought to rule everywhere. All men ought to obey him, but they refuse.

Yet he is not the less their King. He rules in the hearts of a few faithful ones who are content to bide their time till he shall appear in the glory of his kingdom.

We think Mr Lyon wholly errs in attempting to interpret the parable of the nobleman in accordance with his views. The nobleman went to receive a kingdom. For the same purpose Christ ascended. Not according to millenarians, says Mr Lyon. Yes, we reply, he went and received his kingdom immediately. God set him on his right hand as his appointed King. But the nobleman did not exercise his functions of royalty in a formal manner till his return. Mr Lyon asks how he could call his servants to an account on his return had he not been their king de facto before his return? Unquestionably he was their king de facto, for they acknowledged him and in like manner, Christ is now king de facto of believers, and de jure of all; but when he comes again, having received his kingdom, he will be king de facto of all.

We are not disposed to enter further into our author's arguments, in which we have found nothing new. The foregoing specimen will serve to shew how we should be disposed to deal with them. The work is temperately written, and we have no doubt will be met and answered more thoroughly than the space which we could afford will permit us to do here.

ART. V.-OLD AND NEW DENIALS OF INSPIRATION.

In the last century appeared Thomas Paine, noted for his reckless infidelity and profligate life. He mocked at the being of a God, and delighted in reviling the Bible. Gathering together all the apparent inconsistencies to be found in the Scriptures, he paraded them before the public as proofs that the Bible was a forgery and a fable. He belonged to no religious body; nor did he eat the bread of a church whose standards he denied. Thus far he acted honestly.

In the same century rose David Hume. Holding all miracles to be impossible, or, at least, maintaining the proof of them to be impossible, he did not believe in the Bible, and attempted to shew that the being of a God was not a thing which could be known. In public, he was a cautious, philosophical sceptic, though in private he was a witty scoffer. Some years ago, we were shewn several of his unpublished letters; for though his "Correspondence" is said to be published, yet there is

« ÖncekiDevam »