“For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord,” &c.; that is, that when Christ shall, come, the dead in Christ shall rise first, i.e. oἱ νεκροὶ, first, before we are caught up, and then ἡμεῖς οἱ ζπωντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἁμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα. In the English there might, perhaps, be an argument on the force of the word “together;” as placed in the Greek as given here, there can be none. The catching up the saints is not spoken of in connection with the destruction of death, as the writer states. The substance of 1 Cor. 15 applies to believers only. There is, therefore, no ground of difficulty from the existence of death during the millennium, as to the application of the above cited passage. And it is remarkable that in the next page, the language of it is put into the mouths of the risen saints, as spoken on the day of the first resurrection, to which in this page the writer says it is wholly inapplicable, because death remains. In fact, it appears to me a confusion of the Jewish and Gentile dispensations—the hinge upon which the subject and the understanding of scripture turns. Here I complain not of error, but of a neglect of the substantive force of the direct testimonies of the word of God, to meet the views drawn from elsewhere and pursued in the mind beyond the testimony of the place itself; and of consequences being adduced as necessary, according to man's mind, other scripture being made subservient to these, instead of stopping at the direct testimony, till other passages gave additional light, or, at least, connecting deductions by these passages admitted hi their own force. This is alone a great hindrance to knowledge, and practically setting up men's thoughts (ignorant foolish man!) above the word of God.
This book is, indeed, a sample of the evil likely to attend upon what is valuable in these inquiries, from crude thoughts untried by scripture, attached to opinions urged as man, to the credit of the writer, which are now familiar to every body, without any new development of the mind of God in the scriptures, and assuming a title pretending to speak from God, while it speaks only from man, and that crudely, and does not apply the great facts of these revelations to the correction and improvement of men; but instead of that, uses the notions of them to exalt the holders into the only favorites of heaven—thinking every body is scorning them, whereas, in fact, they are becoming worldly through their popularity and self-complacency. It is not the inquiry into these subjects I deprecate; but men's imposing upon others conclusions not drawn, but distracting others, from the scriptural statements of the same truths. I am free to confess that I find the records of God full of consolation, enlarging instruction, holy and sanctifying exhortation, and warning. What God has revealed to man must be the saint's delight to know and must sanctify them more wholly, because it reveals more of the character of God. His revealing it is itself witness of its purpose and (blessed forever be His name!) so has He in the Lord Jesus identified Himself with man, that there is nothing of His acts that He does not reveal by His servants the prophets. Yea, all the things that He does in the Lord He makes a common subject with His people for His sake. Nay, all that He has is now largely opened; even the store-house of His eternal wisdom, and glory, and purpose in the Son is now opened and declared by the revelation of the Spirit, as the scripture, in many places, testifies to our joy and comfort. Who shall shut it up?—Who dares to do it? Rather let us open our mouth wide that. He may fill it. But let no man mix or dissolve the streams of life by strange introductions of human mixture. Truth is the instrument of holiness; and error and weakness, to say no more, of moral conduct will ever be found to attend each other. I say, seek the truth: I say, let not men crudely impose unsound thoughts and distract the church.
One subject yet remains on which I shall shortly touch. In a deeply interesting and, I think, profitable and timely sermon of Mr. Irving's I found the following passage on false accusers. After stating that it meant the spirit of accusation generally, he says, in the “Last Days,” p. 204, “It may therefore be laid down as a general principle of doctrine, that as the law of Christian life is love, so the law of Christian life when love is rejected or maltreated is forbearance, forgiveness, blessing, and intercession with God. As the office of the Christian church on earth, is to preach, and to minister the grace of God unto all men; so also is it her office to make continual intercession before God for those who reject His offered grace, and trample under foot the blood of His covenant. And, of these two functions, the ministry of free grace, and the ministry of intercession for free grace rejected, if I were asked which is the more important, I would answer they are equally important to the integrity of love and the demonstration of divine grace; but of the two, that which is the highest and noblest exercise of love is surely intercession for him who hath spurned our love.”
What shall we say, after this, when we consider their own writings? They have come forward to the bar of public opinion (see “False Accuser,” pp. 208-10), and avowedly descended to fight their accusers on their own ground by public accusation. I feel unwilling entirely to detail here the language and statements of the article on the theology of the periodical Journals. I think Mr. Malan right, and I think Mr. Erskine (though in many respects useful, and that extensively) is entirely wrong, if judged properly by scripture, and wrong for pursuing his own thoughts without just subjection to scripture, conceiving them new, when many, very many, have held them faithfully without mistake. I am not an advocate of the religious world; but neither can I attach myself to those who, in fact becoming an isolated corner of the religions world, and setting up for the best and soundest part of it, fall into at least the same faults which they reprobate in no very courteous terms. They charge the editors of some journal with ignorance of their trade (no very courteous expression: but, while doing this, they should not have misstated the expressions of Erskine, In a way, too, which show them either falsifiers, or else ignorant of the great principles on which their trade (if they will have it so) turned. Mr. Erskine, they say, wishes to state this highly important fact, namely, that by the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, the whole creation (i.e., limiting the word creation to this planet and the beings who inhabit it) is become beneficially interested in the work of Christ. This is certainly a very obscure and unintelligible proposition, and not Erskine's, nor representing his views. This fact, they say, he expressed by saying, “that the world is pardoned by the incarnation of Christ.” But the proposition attributed to Mr. Erskine, whencesoever drawn, is not so expressed by him. He says that “all are pardoned—believers are a little flock.” If he had said the world was pardoned (though I should have thought it an error), properly understood, I could have made an allowance for obscurity of expression: but he says all, i.e., all men, are pardoned; and on this the whole argument of the “Morning Watch” depends. The Reviewer was occupied with his own views, but there is not the slightest ground in Mr. Erskine's book for the position he takes. Righteousness is a scriptural as well as conventical term: I do not recollect that Mr. Erskine ever touches upon this, or uses the word. Scripture does; and this renders his whole view defective, however excellent as an individual.
But the “Morning Watch,” prepossessed with its own views, and willing to have Mr. Erskine as a client or ally, has wholly passed by the whole question raised on his book, and not stated his assertions truly but as partisans, and stands itself on a level with the worse conduct of those it accuses. They themselves shall be witnesses. “The editors,” they say, i.e., of journals opposed to their views, “having refused to debate the subjects like scholars, like gentlemen, or Christians, have chosen their own ground, namely, that of personal claim to public confidence; and into that arena of their own selecting, we must descend after them.” And so indeed they have, and I sorrow for it, for I doubt not that they would much edify the church; but they have to learn that Satan can use their weakness, as well as that of their offending brethren. “And what shall we say then, if the church, forgetful of Christ's office of intercessor, and of her own high vocation to continue the same in the midst of an offending world, should take upon herself the office of accuser, and retaliate the injuries which she receiveth, instead of meekly bearing and being willing to forgive them? What if the church forget, even among themselves, the offices of mutual forbearance and forgiveness, and rage towards one another with even more bitterness and cruelty than those who care for none, of those things? What if the writings the most religious should be the most vindictive, and the society the most religious should be the society most full of judgment and accusation? Then were it not a proof that God's ordinances were changed, that His light was hidden under a bushel, that the salt path lost its savor, and that the name of God was blasphemed amongst the heathen because of His people, and that the last days were come, and that destruction was about to begin at His own house.”
But having closed this part (painfully imposed) of my subject, I turn to the more grateful part—proposing home questions, and making some observations, in the hope that it may lead some to consider topics, which, when calmly and spiritually considered, I am persuaded lead to sanctification and the edification of those that are gathered. All truth must be so: the simple question is—is this God's revealed truth or not? If it be, it is worse than idle to say it is not calculated to sanctify. In fact, I do not understand the meaning of this. It is a charge against God, the revealer; and comes ill from those who have been combating justly upon opposite grounds the abominable fraud the Roman Catholic priests had perpetrated in keeping away the scripture, the words of God generally. Is it that they are to be the judges of what, and how much, instead of the others?
We would ask them, first, why did God reveal all these things, if they are not fully inquired into? This I admit, that the statements of the same general truths are of different use and application, and the eagerness of those especially interested in prophecy, and the hasty taking up of the subject by many going beyond their measure, has introduced a very unseasonable misuse of prophetic subjects. But I must add the indiscriminate opposition of others has given great occasion to it. Thus the fact that there will be a separation of judgment, between the just and the unjust, is one which concerns man as man, and may be addressed to every soul, and especially to those wholly ignorant of divine things, and the unconverted; while the manner in which the Lord will do it, His peculiar favor and timely interposition for His people—all these, as shown in His dealings, belong to those from whom, as His suffering people, le will not hide the thing that He will do, who share in it by faith as friends of God, strangers with Him, and whose support it is.
(Continued from p. 100.)