HAD evidence been wanting of the extent to which the millenarian question has taken hold of the minds of thoughtful, intelligent Christians, it is afforded by Mr. Waldegrave's volume, and by the two laudatory notices of it mentioned below—all in direct antagonism to pre-millennial views. The Rev. lecturer, in the preface to his work, refers to “the prestige under which for many years past the tenets he has endeavored to combat have been urged upon the attention of the church,” while one of his reviewers remarks, that “it is in the English church that this theory has met with most favor. Of the evangelical party probably the majority are on that side, while the tractarians are at least favorably inclined to it.” He complains that, “though the press has for years been teeming with productions of every kind, in defense and illustration of this theory, hardly any clerical voice was raised against it,” but congratulates himself that this “can no longer be said.” The volume under review supplies the lack. “In the Bampton lecture now before us, we have a full treatment of the whole subject; the numerous foot-notes, and the large body of notes in the appendix, showing how well the author has digested the literature of the subject down to the latest.” Such is the testimony of the British and Foreign Evangelical; while the London Quarterly represents “the subject discussed in these lectures” as “one of large and growing interest and importance;” exciting “more attention and argued with greater spirit and energy in the present, than in any former period.” “No mean place,” we are told, “has it obtained in our current religious literature.”
Believing, as we do that, in its grand leading features, pre-millennialism is the truth of God, we cannot but rejoice in such testimonies to the attention it has awakened, and the reception it has met with among Christians of various denominations, and especially in the English church. As to the latter, the London Quarterly informs us, that “it is well known that the pre-millennialists' view is on the increase among the evangelical clergy in the established church of England; and it is this fact which led Mr. Waldegrave, as he says, 'not to hesitate to avail himself of the opening given by his appointment to the office of Bampton Lecturer, to indicate the many respects in which he believes the doctrine of a personal reign to be at variance with the plain teaching of Holy Scripture.'“
Statements such as these from the avowed rejecters of pre-millennialism can scarcely fail to prove gratifying to those who discern, in its spread and increase, nothing but the progress and triumph of truth. Nor have we the least need to quail before the opposition it has evoked. It is true, as one of the reviewers of the Bampton lecture almost admits, that a favorable change has taken place in the spirit and character of the controversy. “Those who contend for the pre-millennial advent and personal reign of Christ upon earth used,” he says, “to complain, that their works were read with a jaundiced eye, that the views of extreme writers were ascribed to the entire party, and that the whole question was misunderstood and misrepresented by their opponents.” No doubt such complaints were made, and with good reason. Any one familiar with the earlier stages of the controversy must certainly subscribe to the justice of the charge. Nor can we entirely accord with the British and Foreign Evangelical, that “such charges are not, and cannot be made now.” They certainly cannot be made with justice against such writers as Dr. Brown and Mr. Waldegrave. These authors have endeavored, and generally with success, to understand the positions maintained by their opponents; and any instances in which they have incorrectly stated the views and arguments against which they have employed their pens, may be accounted for on other grounds than that of willful prejudice or willful inattention. But what shall be said of the London Quarterly? It represents Dr. Brown to be “as fair in stating the opinions he combats, as he is successful in overturning them;” and of Mr. Waldegrave it speaks as furnishing “ample proof that he has thoroughly investigated the controversy; that every book of importance on both sides he has carefully examined; and that his views have been formed honestly, and with a sincere desire to know the truth.” Would that his reviewer had earned a similar character! In what pre-millenarian work did he find, as an argument for an eclectic and pre-millennial resurrection, the statement of the apostle, in 1 Thess. 4:16,16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (1 Thessalonians 4:16) that “the dead in Christ shall rise first?” Do not all the writers of that class agree with what the London Quarterly so labors to prove, that the apostle in these words simply affirms that the righteous dead will be raised prior to the change which is to pass on the living saints, and to the translation of both to meet the Lord in the air? We own to some degree of familiarity with the writings of premillennialists; but we know of none in which the argument is used, which the London Quarterly with so much parade first exhibits and then destroys. Such cheap and easy victories tend to damage rather than to aid the cause in support of which they are achieved. Pre-millenarian arguments may, doubtless, have been based on 1 Thess. 4: never, that we are aware of, on the assumption that the apostle asserts the doctrine of the first resurrection in the words “the dead in Christ shall rise first.”
Nor is this the only instance in which the views of his opponents are misrepresented by this reviewer. “Pre-millenarianism contravenes,” he says, “the many Scripture statements that the saints, glorified with Christ at his coming, are so absolutely secure in the possession of their perfected happiness, as to be beyond the power of attack from their adversaries. No conflicts can follow their enthronement in complete bliss.” Assuredly not: but where has this been called in question by pre-millennialists? On what foundation does the reviewer rest this charge against them of contravening this self-evident truth? He does not condescend to inform us. Had it been some rustic who, on first hearing of the “thousand years” and the “little season” which succeeds, had inquired in amazement, how such doctrine could comport with the perfect security of the glorified saints, identified, as these might be in his mind, with “the camp of the saints” and “the beloved city,” it would have been an easy task patiently to instruct him, that it is not “the glorified saints” who are supposed to be the objects of Gog and Magog's attack, but the earthly saints of the millennial state, who will not at that time have put on immortality, any more than we have now. But a writer in the London Review—a scholar, a critic, a commender of others for their fairness and impartiality, as well as for their acquaintance with the views they controvert—he ought not to need such instruction. He ought to have been better informed of what pre-millenarians teach, than to be capable of charging them with contravening what they hold, equally with this reviewer, as most certain and most dear.
Still, in the main, the tone and bearing of the controversy on the post-millenarian side has undoubtedly improved. Much is now conceded that was disputed at the first. As to the serious questions which remain, it is not now so much a contention as to what pre-millennialists mean, as an inquiry whether what they affirm be taught by Holy Scripture. Their writings, as well as the subjects to which these writings relate, have evidently been studied by the able men who have lately entered the lists against them. In this we heartily rejoice. Truth has nothing to fear from the most searching investigation. Should anything in premillennialism be proved by these esteemed antagonists to be contrary to God's Word, or not taught therein, none would owe them heartier thanks than pre-millennialists themselves. Nor do we question that many writers who bear this name have presented vulnerable points, which skillful opponents have been quick to discern, and able to overthrow. Some parts of Dr. David Brown's book on the second advent we deem unanswerable; but they are those in which he assails, with righteous indignation and complete success such notions as that of the endless succession of human generations in the post-millennial state. But as to the great questions of the advent, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom, we confess that neither in his book, nor that of Mr. Waldegrave now before us, have we met with anything to shake even for a moment our conviction, that the views which they oppose are true, and demonstrated to be so by the Word of God.
In one thing we cordially agree with Mr. Waldegrave, namely, that “The controversy before us is, of all others, one which Scripture alone can determine. We may not appeal for its decision to tradition, whether Rabbinical or patristic. The one only question is this, What saith the Scripture?” But then it is the whole of Scripture, not one part of it exalted at the expense of other parts, by which the question must be determined. Above all, it must be by the diligent and prayerful perusal and study of the prophetic portions of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament, that prophetic questions are to be decided. We never think of referring chiefly to the perceptive parts of the sacred volume to decide doctrinal difficulties; and if it has pleased God that a third part of the Old Testament, and one whole book in the New, should consist of prophecy, it seems strange to remove the investigation of prophetic questions from this vast field of prophetic instruction, to other parts of Scripture which confessedly consist in the main, not of prophecy, but of narrative, doctrine, and precept. Such seems to us to be the drift and tendency of Mr. Waldegrave's opening lecture. The principles of interpretation which it inculcates seem to us to call for the gravest consideration, before they are adopted as our guide in the discussion of the important subjects to which the seven remaining lectures are devoted.
The opening lecture is the subject of special commendation by both reviewers. “The best feature of the work before us,” says the British and Foreign Evangelical, “is the high vantage ground on which he plants his foot at the very outset, and from which he puts forth all him strength.” “He wisely commences,” says the London Quarterly, “in his first lecture, by affirming in the most explicit manner, that the Scriptures are our only authority in doctrine, and lays down two important principles, or rules, by which we are to be guided in our interpretation of those Scriptures.
These rules are introduced by our author himself in a passage, to the opening sentences of which we cannot but demur. “Before we begin our Scriptural researches, it is most important that the principles according to which they are to be conducted should be clearly defined. For there is no controversy in which fixed laws of biblical interpretation are more needed—none in which they have been less observed.” Now, at the risk of differing from some of our pre-millenarian brethren as well as from Mr. W., we cannot forbear inquiring, Whence does the need arise, the existence of which is here so confidently affirmed? Where does Scripture itself inform us of any such need? For our own part, we have a deep distrust of rules of interpretation previously laid down. Who thinks of adopting any rules or principles for interpreting Mr. W.'s language, before he commences the perusal of the Bampton lecture? There may be literal statements here, and figurative expressions there; but who would postpone the perusal of the book, until he had determined how the one class was to be distinguished from the other, and as to which class should have the precedence in fixing the meaning of the writer? It is not thus we read other books; we suffer them to make their own impressions on our minds, never doubting that the literal and the figurative will each commend itself to us in its own proper character, and the meaning of the writer be apparent in both. And when the book is worth perusing, these expectations are justified. Why should we adopt any other plan in reading the Word of God? May we not safely trust ourselves with it, and with its divine author—that indwelling Spirit, whose illuminations are never withheld from the humble, trustful, prayerful student of God's Word? “We may not indeed appeal to tradition,” as our author says, “whether rabbinical or patristic?” No, we would add, nor to modern, human rules of interpretation, which, when once adopted, make Scripture speak a language that they force upon it, instead of leaving it, and every part of it, to speak in its own language to the understanding, the conscience, and the heart.
The two rules on which Mr. Waldegrave builds so much, and which meet with such high commendation from his reviewers, are as follows: we give them in his own words.
“Those rules are embodied in the two following axiomatic propositions.
“First—in the settling of controversy, those passages of God's word which are literal, dogmatic, and clear, take precedence of those which are figurative, mysterious, and obscure.
“Secondly—in all points upon which the New Testament gives us instruction it is, as containing the full, the clear, and the final manifestation of the divine will, our rightful guide in the interpretation of the Old.”
These rules, be it observed, or, at least one of them, our author does not establish by proof, but assumes, as self-evident. We are told by the London Quarterly, that “Mr. W., with great force of argument, successfully establishes the two 'axiomatic propositions' which he lays down as essential to the correct interpretation of the word of God.” Our author himself, however, so far from arguing in favor of both his rules, says of the first, (p. 9), “None will care to dispute it.” And again, “this is the statement of a self-evident truth.” Again, (p. 12), he speaks of “the postulate which thus removes the decision of the millenarian controversy out of the province of the Apocalypse.” In favor of his second rule, Mr. W. does adduce some arguments; but he has the consistency not to speak of it as self-evident. It is for the London Quarterly to commend him for establishing, with great force of argument, a postulate, or self-evident truth!
We do not, however, admit, and we think that many will hesitate to admit, either of these rules to be self-evident truths. Each contains certain elements of truth; but in the form given them by our author's pen, the order in which they stand in his opening lecture, and the use to which they are applied both in that and in his subsequent discourses, the object is but too manifest of removing from the court the chief witnesses on whose depositions the settlement of the case fairly depends.
Our first remark is on the order in which these rules or propositions stand. We are far from imputing any unfair design to the rev. author; but had the order been inverted, had the first proposition been the one which asserts the supremacy of the New Testament, had the reasoning which establishes it, (by the fact of the Great Prophet's words being therein contained), been first presented to the reader's eye—above all, had it been declared that “in the New Testament as a whole, and not merely in the gracious words which fell directly from his lips, the voice of Jesus is heard” (page 18)—had the question been asked (page 21,) “Where are the great Prophet's words recorded?” and the answer given, “in the whole New Testament Scriptures;” —had this, we say, been the order of our author's discourse, the reader might have been startled to be told, in the second place, that one whole book of the New Testament—the prophetic book—is, in the examination of prophetic subjects, to share the fate of the Old Testament, and yield the palm of supremacy to some portions only of the New, which our author deems fittest to be the arbiters of the controversy. The contradiction would have been manifest and glaring first to have exalted thus the New Testament “as a whole,” and then to have reduced its chief prophetic portion to a level with the Old. But, by arranging these propositions as they actually stand, appearances are saved, the Apocalypse quietly disposed of in the first place, and then “the whole New Testament Scriptures” mean, for the present controversy at least, the whole, minus the Apocalypse and any other portions which Mr. Waldegrave may deem “figurative, mysterious, and obscure!”
But why, we ask, this marshalling of Scripture against Scripture? this exaltation of one part of God's Word over another? To us it appears a hazardous course; nor can we deem the cause a good one, which requires such a mode of defense. True, we have the author's repeated assurances, that he believes the whole volume to be inspired, and that he does not wish to depreciate those portions which he would place in the back ground when prophetic questions are discussed. These assurances we are bound to receive; but we must not, on this account, shrink from examining other statements of his book, and considering their probable effect on those by whom his views may be adopted. That we may in this do Mr. W. no injustice, we give his own words.
“In the pursuit of his object, the author has appealed to the Lord and his apostles, as they speak in the literal portions of the New Testament volume. For he is convinced that they constitute the one divinely appointed court of arbitration in all such matters of exegetical controversy.” Pref. page 12.
“Our present inquiries must be first directed to the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and allegory.” Page 10.
“In a matter controverted (if I may so speak) between the Apocalypse and other portions of the divine word, that book cannot by itself determine the question; appeal must be had to authority higher, not in point of inspiration, but in point of literality of doctrinal statement upon the subject under discussion.” —Pp. 11, 12.
“The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things, or against the tenor of the immediate context, and yet stay, at the same time, come into serious collision with the proportion of faith.” —Page 14.
“But this leads me to the real difficulty of the case. How does this rule apply when the words of Jesus Christ cease to be merely supplementary to, or explanatory of, those of Moses and the prophets? What shall be done when a seeming conflict arises between them?” Page 25.
After treating of the acknowledged contrariety between the ritual law and those New Testament revelation by which it has been abolished, our author proceeds:
“Nor is the case materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ. For there are, unquestionably, times in which the teaching of Christ appears, directly or by implication, to militate with the announcements of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those announcements are understood in their plain and literal sense. What shall be done? Another meaning of the prophets' language must be sought for.” Page 27.
“He therefore shows the most true appreciation of their high dignity—yes, and he manifests the most true reverence to Scripture as a whole, who surrenders many a pleasant fantasy, rather than consent that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord. Page 28.
Let these quotations be pondered by the Christian reader, and let him judge whether we give an exaggerated account of our author's principle, when we say that it arrays Scripture against Scripture, and exalts one part of it at the expense of another.
What can be the meaning of the last quotation? No doubt every fantasy, pleasant or unpleasant, ought to be surrendered, rather than that any theory should be adopted which would represent the prophets as contradicting their Lord. “Which would represent them” thus, we say; for we cannot conceive that any contradiction should really exist between writings which are all and equally inspired. For this reason we wonder what Mr. W. can intend by urging the surrender of many a pleasant fantasy rather than that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord. It is the exceptional clause which exceeds our comprehension. What can constitute such a necessity as it contemplates? Sad must be the theory, whether pre-millennial or post-millennial, in which the existence of such a necessity is involved!
Human interpretations of God's Word may, doubtless, be at variance with each other, and with God's Word itself. But what our author sometimes states, and at other times implies, is the possibility of Scripture statements themselves being apparently opposed to each other. He speaks of the literal portions of the New Testament, as the one divinely appointed court of arbitration. Arbitration, and in a court, supposes litigation. Who are the parties in the case? In a matter controverted (if he may so speak) is his reply, between the Apocalypse and others portions of the Divine Word, that book cannot by itself determine the question, but appeal must be had to higher authority. We do not insist here on the absurdity of making the literal portions of the New Testament parties to the suit as well as arbiters of the question; we only furnish proof that the point of which our author treats is the supposed existence of questions, or differences, between one part of Scripture and another. He sometimes maintains that such differences are possible, while at others he seems to say that they exist. “The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things or against the tenor of the immediate context, and yet may, at the same time, come into serious collision with the proportion of faith. “The real difficulty of the case, he affirm; to be, “when a seeming conflict arises between them,” i.e., between the words of Jesus and of the prophets. Nor will the word “seeming” suffice to justify the statement. Mr. W. illustrates his meaning by a reference to the ritual law. Now it is not a seeming but a real and most important difference which exists between the law and the gospel. The one appointed a place where Jehovah's name was to be put—a place to which certain acts of worship were to be rigidly restricted. The other records the blessed announcement by our Lord that all such restrictions were to be abolished—that neither at Jerusalem nor at Gerizim, distinctively, or exclusively, should men worship the Father. What could be more real than the difference between the precept, love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy, on the one hand; and, on the other, the injunctions by which our Lord replaced them, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, etc.? True, they were not given to the same people and at the same time. True, the divine lawgiver had unquestionable authority to repeal any of his own institutions, which for temporary uses he had established, replacing them by others of a widely different character. But that which we would have our readers to note is that, in the cases to which Mr. W. has thus referred, it was a question of really repealing one precept or injunction, and issuing others directly opposite. The repeal was real, the contrariety was real; and the only key to the consistency of the proceeding, is the supremacy of the lawgiver, whose title to fix the duration of any of his laws can be questioned by none. But neither can any one question the contrariety betweens the laws which are repealed and those which are ordained in their place. When, therefore, our author says, that “the case is not materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ,” the Word “seemingly” is out of place. So far as Christ's relations to the prophets is illustrated by his relation to the law, it is not a seeming but a real variance which is indicated.
Nor do the next words by Mr. W. tend to weaken this impression. “For there are, unquestionably,” says he, “times in which the teaching of Christ appears, directly or by implication, to militate with the announcements of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those announcements are understood in their plain and literal sense.” This is a most serious statement and cannot be too strictly weighed. We are not left to appearances as regards the law. Distinctly and avowedly does our Lord again and again place his sayings in contrast with what had been said of old time. As distinctly does the Holy Ghost reveal, with regard to the whole Levitical economy, that it terminated at the cross. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:1414Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:14)). But where have we such announcements as to the prophets, or as to one single prediction which they were inspired to place on record? Our whole question is as to their predictions. We do not forget that, as belonging to the dispensation which commenced at Sinai, and expressing those relations with God which bore the impress of the Sinai covenant, the prophets are, by the Savior, connected with the law, in such passages as “The law and the prophets prophesied until John.” But it were a mere play upon words to confound such a use of the expression “the prophets” with the question at issue between Mr. W. and those whose views he assails. We repeat, that our whole question is as to the predictions of the future recorded by the prophets; and where, we ask, is the ground for Mr. W.'s assertion, “That the teaching of Christ,” either “directly or by implication,” appears to contradict these predictions? How can we suppose the existence of good ground for such an assertion? To revoke an edict is one thing; to recall a prediction is another. The former, when at least the edict is divine, only indicates that it had been temporary in its purpose, and, having done its work, is laid aside: the latter would imply some want of accuracy in the prediction, which subverts the idea of its being divine. For a typical observance to cease, when the antitypical event has transpired, is a matter of course; but for a prediction to need to be explained away, when events prove that the fulfillment does not exactly correspond with the terms in which it had been foretold, would be such a reflection on the prophet, as our author would be the last person in the world, willingly or knowingly, to make. No, we are ready by the grace of God to surrender all fantasies, however pleasant, as soon as they are proved to us by the Word of God to be such. But we are not prepared to surrender a jot or tittle of that Word, or to accept a principle which represents one part of it to be contradictory to another, however “figurative, mysterious, or obscure” either part may be judged to be.
That an element of truth is contained in both the propositions laid down by our author has been already admitted. Every one admits, that the plainer portions of any book are of service in elucidating those parts which are more obscure. But when the book in question is an inspired book, and admitted to be so in all its parts, it amounts to self-contradiction to represent one part as of higher authority than another. However we may be assisted by the plainer passages in learning the import of such as are more difficult, all are equal in authority, and equally demand the submission of the whole man to the voice of God, speaking to us as really in the most figurative and mysterious texts as in those which are most literal and clear. We have Scripture for the fact, that there are in some parts of the sacred volume “things hard to be understood.” God forbid that we should refuse the light shed thereon by the simpler statements of inspiration. If humbly to avail ourselves of aid and instruction thus graciously provided had been all to which our author exhorts us, we could only have bid him God speed in such a service. But “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable;” and we need to beware of principles which would supersede the necessity of patiently, prayerfully, humbly examining all that Scripture says.
Nor must we forget that, easy as it may seem to be, to give precedence to such passages as are “literal, dogmatic, and clear” over those which are “figurative, mysterious, and obscure,” it will not be found as easy in practice as it appears in theory. Who can furnish us with a list of each class of passages? Or, supposing it furnished, who can assure us of its accuracy? A judge, or an arbiter, requires credentials which are above dispute. Who then shall certify us of the number and identity of the passages which are said by Mr. W. to “constitute the one divinely appointed court of arbitration” in the millenarian controversy? Is there no such thing as the question with regard to which passages are literal and which figurative? Do not many which seem clear to some appear obscure to others? Is it not one prominent feature of the millenarian controversy, that passages which, on the one side are affirmed to be literal, are on the other side maintained to be figurative? Are all these to be excluded from “the court?” And is it to consist of none kit such as are admitted on both sides to be “literal, dogmatic, and clear?” If not—if we are first to be agreed upon the passages which claim a place as arbiters, and then to receive their judgment of the points under discussion, we shall find that we have been multiplying instead of reducing the number of controverted points, entangling and prolonging instead of clearing and shortening the debate.
On one item in the first proposition we have hesitated to remark. It contrasts “literal, dogmatic, and clear,” with “figurative, mysterious, and obscure.” Literal and figurative, clear and obscure, are contrasts sufficiently obvious and distinct: but is mysterious the opposite of dogmatic? Does not the latter word denote “pertaining to a dogma?” Is it not synonymous, or nearly so, with “doctrinal?” And is mystery the opposite of doctrine? But it is not to remark critically on this point, that we refer to it. The fear of seeming to lay any stress on this view of it made us hesitate to notice it at all. But in one passage already quoted from our author, he seems avowedly to maintain that doctrinal passages are to decide prophetic questions, and places all prophetic scriptures in contrast with doctrine. The statement is the more remarkable for being introduced by the following emphatic words. Having styled his first proposition a self-evident truth, he proceeds— “But mark its necessary consequence! Our present inquiries must be first directed to the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and allegory.” This would be indeed a compendious mode of studying prophecy! Leave all the prophecies aside, and study the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred volume! But here again, does that volume contain no doctrines as to the future? And what are doctrines as to the future but prophecies? Of two things one; “the strictly doctrinal portions” to which Mr. W. refers, bear on the future or they do not. If they do, they are prophecies, and “all the prophecies,” are not so figurative as he represents. If they do not, of what avail can it be to study them order to understand prophecy aright?
The fact of the matter is this: there is no such contrariety between one part of Scripture and another, as might be supposed from our author's representations.
Only in appearance are its statements ever in conflict with each other; and this appearance arises, not from Scripture itself, but from the state of our own minds. Scripture, from first to last, is one harmonious whole. Were any of us to understand it perfectly, the harmony of all its parts would be perfectly discerned. In proportion as the Holy Spirit does enable any to understand it, this harmony is perceived; but He alone can teach to profit and it is in the prayerful, diligent, humble perusal of Scripture itself—of all Scripture—in its perusal, moreover, as subject to it, and not as subjecting it to our own minds, that the teaching of the Holy Spirit is afforded. Of all moral preparatives for the study of prophecy, or of any branch of revealed truth, there is none so important as that we have just indicated—entire subjection to the Word of God. By it are all to be judged eventually; the Christian submits himself to it now. He may find statements in it on one subject, which he cannot, at the time, reconcile with what he understands its declarations on some other subject to be: but what is he to do? Is he to prefer the one class to the other, and having made his selection, subordinate those which he deems of lower, to such as he regards as of “higher authority?” Would that be to reverence God's Word, and submit to its authority? Surely not. The man who trembles at God's Word will, in such a case, reflect that the discrepancy is only apparent; that it may arise from his own misapprehension of either class of passages; or even that he may yet be ignorant of some collateral truths, which, when known, will clear up all. He concludes to confess his ignorance, and wait on God.
Take for instance, the millenarian controversy. Many there are to whom it seems written in numerous passages, that the second coming of Christ is to precede the millennium, and to introduce it; while our author, with many other excellent, godly men, maintains that this is contradicted by plain statements of the New Testament. They admit that many portions of the Old, and some parts of the New, seem to favor the premillennial doctrine; but they deem it inconsistent with what they judge to be the evident sense of certain literal passages of the latter volume of inspiration; and they contend that the Old Testament must yield to the New—the figurative and obscure to the literal and clear. But may we not well pause, ere we consent to this course, and inquire whether we be indeed shut up to such a necessity? Contradiction or discrepancy in God's Word there cannot be: the secret of the difficulty must be found elsewhere. May not our brethren have come to hasty conclusions as to the sense of what they term the literal passages? Is it not a presumptive evidence of their having done so, that the effect of their use of them is to place them in apparent opposition to what they admit to be the literal and obvious import of other Scriptures? Pre-millennialists make no admissions of the kind, nor have they any need to make such. The pre-millennial view does not set Scripture against Scripture, nor does it deem such a course admissible. Allowed, even by its opposers, to harmonize with the obvious sense of many Scriptures, it claims the support of all—yea, of the very passages adduced against it, when these passages are rightly understood. And is there to be no question allowed as to the sense of these? Is it by the passages themselves, or by post-millenarian deductions there from, that the pre-millennial testimony lying on the surface of so many other passages is said to be contradicted and overruled? And may we not inquire whether such deductions be fair and well. founded? whether they be compatible with the passages themselves, and with other passages equally literal and clear? There can be no refusing or evading such inquiries; and when instituted in a calm and impartial spirit, and conducted with humility, patience, and prayer, we have no fear for the result. It has hitherto generally issued in a firm and abiding conviction, that pre-millennial views are as much taught by the literal as by the figurative portions of Holy Writ; that they are, in short, the doctrines of scripture throughout: and that the only way to avoid receiving them, if serious attention be at all paid to them, is—first, to attach an erroneous meaning to certain passages, and then, to subordinate all others, not to these passages themselves, but to the human and mistaken sense in which they are understood. W. T.