I should not, I confess, have felt it needful, nor, under the circumstances of their publication, desirable, to answer the three tracts of which the statements are here called in question, had they appeared supported only by their intrinsic merit. I understand the effect in an upright mind of an appeal to a righteous jealousy against error, especially error which is stated to shake the foundation of Christian faith. Still the confusion and futility of the statements, I should have hoped, would have sufficed for their refutation in the mind of the reader; but they are in fact the expression of the sentiments and the sanctioned publication of those whose opinions are looked up to by many, and come with their authority. It is this induces me, though reluctantly, to publish these remarks upon them. It is a most wearying thing -- controversy. And I have had the MS by me weeks before I could make up my mind to publish it. I do so as owing it to those whose minds are influenced by the tracts, and who have asked for an answer. They were mentioned indeed to me originally by a brother to comment on, which led to the form of the answer -- a form in general I dislike. Here it was the simple truth of the case; though, when written, I publish instead of sending it in manuscript.
My Dear Brother,
I have read the tract you mentioned to me. I shall not express to you the effect it produced on my mind, as I should fear to be ungracious or untrue if I attempted it. I should not judge it demanded a comment, were it not the expression of a system adopted by many, and that this tract helps to prove on what very slender grounds. I am yet unconvinced by the reasonings I have heard and read on Matthew 24; and, while I recognise, as I have ever done, in this chapter and elsewhere, that the church may use a great part of it for itself, as general principles, that it would have availed preciously to the disciples in the siege of Jerusalem, though Luke much more, and that all of it belongs (as everything does) to the church in general for her instruction, yet I still believe that it is not occupied with her as such. Nay, with I trust very moderate views, and open to receive every instruction from any brother on the subject, I confess that the more I read the Scriptures, and the more I read the writings of those who so stoutly denounce views which, it seems to me, they do not understand at all, the more I am convinced of certain distinctions they seem to me to be unable to appreciate, though they loudly condemn; and the more also I see such inattention to Scripture facts, and contradiction in their own statements as quite destroys all possibility of what they state having much weight with any one who examines calmly anything before he receives it. Other opportunities will occur of examining the subject more at large. Meanwhile, I shall take up this tract on the "Signs of the Coming of the Lord," that we may see, in some very brief remarks, how far the writer is justified, by the solidity of his reasonings, or the proofs he affords of their importance, in charging (as others also have done) brethren (some of whom have suffered for Christ, and preached the truth for years before he knew Christ or the truth either) with "subverting the first elements of Christianity."
First, in attacking the expression of Jews as Jews, he is, it seems to me, saying a great deal about nothing. All his first letter, which treats of this, is a mere harmless thunderbolt. It would have been as much to the purpose, when Paul says, I write to you Gentiles inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, to have shewn the dreadfulness of addressing heathens in such a way, seeing heathens were idolaters, and judgment come upon the world and the like, all which would be entirely beside the mark, and prove only that those who made the remark did not understand the generic or abstract use of the word Gentile, as the writer of the tract does not that of Jew. A Jew who believed in Jesus might be addressed in his character of Jew, as a Gentile in that of a Gentile. It is possible that some of our brethren have not been as guarded or as perfect in their expressions as the blessed Spirit made Paul; but it does not follow that those who attack them are wiser or more correct than those who would have objected to analogous expressions of the Spirit of God Himself.
I still believe that Matthew 24, at least to verse 31, is addressed to the disciples as Jews, as believing Jews no doubt, but as Jews; and the more I examine it the more I think so; and I do not think it addressed to the church as the church. Nothing indeed was addressed to the church by the Lord in Person, because the church did not yet exist to be addressed; though all was left for the church to use by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.+
The writer insists much upon the expression -- "this generation," "no sign shall be given to this generation but the sign of Jonas the prophet," connected with the statement "this generation shall not pass away," etc., and that consequently signs were not to be given to the Jews as such. This seems to catch him much. To me it has no weight at all. I admit the moral unity of "this generation" in Matthew 24. It is an interpretation long accepted and taught by those who are blamed in this tract. Still his reasoning is wrong and contradicts itself. It is clear first, as to the passage, chapter 12: 38-45, that the Lord was speaking of signs as proofs of His mission, and not of coming judgment. In chapter 16: 1-4 they are accused of not discerning the signs of the times that were then before them. But no sign could be given them from the Lord but the sign of the prophet Jonas for the ground of their faith. But these signs spoken of were still signs as grounds of faith.
Next, the greater part of the signs spoken of in Matthew 24 are not given to the disciples, the only one that is so given being absolutely inapplicable in any case to the church in general, or to any but a very small portion indeed, at a particular moment of time, namely the inhabitants of Jerusalem and its neighbourhood at the moment of Antichrist's open rebellion. The body of the church must have expected Christ without this, or not expected Him at all. But believers in Christ, he says, "have a series of signs given to them, commencing with the one sign refused by the nation, and closed by a host of unprecedented distinctness, immediately preceding, and introducing, the great sign itself, the sign of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven." Now, omitting Jonas and the resurrection, which is not mentioned here, and is entirely another kind of sign, and on another principle, and the unnamed series which is only a flourish, the signs of "unprecedented distinctness" are not given to the disciples as such. Indeed they are already, according to his own system, fled. And I suppose that he does not deny that these terrific signs are seen by, and a sign to, the nation. At any rate the great sign itself is clearly given as such: "Then shall appear, etc., and they shall see." So that it ends in the appearing of Christ making the tribes of the earth mourn, Christianity being gone far away three years and a half before,++ and the harvest even over, having taken place elsewhere; so that, on his own shewing, in all this he is certainly wrong. That this is a provision for all whom it may concern, who believe and receive the testimony, I do not deny. But when he says that they, the Jews, are blinded, he seems to forget that it is only "in part."
+It must be remembered that all the gospels were given by subsequent revelation to the church of God: but it is for the church of God to discern by the teaching of the Holy Ghost what was for ever and essentially available for itself, what was for the disciples in the state in which they then were, and what was prophetic of some future state of things. This is not to take anything from the church. It is not, and cannot be, denied that there are passages which apply to the disciples in their then state, and not to the present state of the church. So that the principle of some passages not applying is admitted; and therefore to say that the supposition that in certain other passages the Lord speaks prophetically of certain events beyond the church's history, is taking the gospels from the church, is quite an unreasonable accusation. It is merely denying spiritual discernment to the church of God -- to say that it cannot judge of what was for the disciples then, what is for itself now, and what may be prophetic of some future state of things.
++See "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," B.W.N, page 135, as to the harvest being ended, page 207 of the same work.
And here it is that the system breaks down altogether, as I shall shew more clearly hereafter; for after all that is said about blinded Jews, and about the church only having the signs, if I am to receive the teaching of those most taught in the system, Christianity (the church) will have left Jerusalem, and indeed the whole Roman Empire, before the terrific signs appear; and there will be Jews in Jerusalem who will have received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God, the promise of protection through the tribulation, of acceptance in Jesus after He shall have appeared, but who are not Christians at all.+
But further, as to the signs, it is quite clear that the writer has not at all considered the actual state of the disciples whom Jesus addressed. "Any," he says, "among that nation who received that one sign, and so came into the church, would indeed be thus introduced where these many signs were taught. But as Jews they rejected," etc. Now the disciples, when Jesus addressed them, had not received that one sign. They did not believe yet in the resurrection, but when stated to them, and that after Jesus had said "I will build my church" (and in the same chapter on purpose to make the contrast clear), the one most specially taught said, when this sign was proposed, "that be far from thee, Lord." And afterwards it is said, "they saw and believed, for as yet they knew not the Scriptures, that Christ must rise from the dead." Others said, "we thought that it was he that should have delivered Israel"; "and certain women also of our company made us astonished, saying, that they had seen a vision of angels which said that he was alive." The disciples therefore were not yet of the "any among that nation who received that one sign," and consequently were not so come into the church. They reasoned among themselves sometimes, wondering what the rising from among the dead should mean; but, as far as they expressed any thought, they "rejected" it as involving His death -- whether as Jews I leave you to determine. The effect then of the writer's reasoning upon my mind is to shew me that (theorising upon our faith who are in the church of God and God's judgment on the blinded nation) he has entirely left out what the scripture actually states of the condition of the disciples; and that he has never taken into consideration, nor seen perhaps, the transitional state in which they were -- believing in Christ, and not believing in His resurrection at all. They were in this state when they were addressed, and therefore according to his own statements were not "come into the church." Nothing of all this (that is, of the actual state of things spoken of in Scripture) comes into his calculation at all.
+See "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," B W N, pages 125 and 133.
All his reasoning on Psalm 74 is nothing to the purpose, as there is no question in Matthew 24 of "our signs." As in the mouth of a Jew, the words have evidently a totally different sense. The truth is, he has not understood the question. It is not whether the blinded generation sees the signs or has them -- though they will have all of them, but not receive the instruction of the Lord about them (as they had the sign of Jonas just as much as the disciples; and as they will have all that God is pleased to mention here -- I do not say the unnamed series of which the writer is pleased to speak). The question is, Are there not persons -- not in the full privileges of the church -- who may receive and understand these signs? Are there not persons in the condition of, or even more advanced than, the disciples, but who are not, when they receive the instruction, actually in a church standing? In a word, are there not those who will be what, he must confess, the disciples then were to whom these instructions were given? for they had not received the one sign, and consequently were not come into the church!+
+Indeed up to this, as far as they had heard of it, they had refused it, and were denounced as Satan, and savouring the things that be of men.
As to the second letter, and expecting the return of Christ, it seems to me that the coming of Christ, also, is spoken of to the disciples in a way which he has not considered. It is written, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." He was there for the secret faith of His disciples; but He does not treat that as the coming of the Son of man; and He speaks to them as exclusively occupied with the cities of Israel, which they could not have time to go over before the Son of man should be come.+ And now I beg attention to the chapter in which the passage I have alluded to above is found, as it contains one of those statements of which the use in Mark 13 and Luke 21 is particularly referred to in the tract to prove that the apostles must always be, and actually were, addressed as the church, or representing the church. The idea that they could be addressed in a peculiar character as connected with Israel (while many general principles are admitted to be applicable to the church, at least to those labouring in the work of the ministry during the time of the church, as well as any other) -- such an idea, I say, is treated as subversive of the first elements of Christianity. The passage quoted (page 7) from Mark 13 and Luke 21 to prove that Matthew 24 is absolutely addressed to the church as such is, "it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost." In page 4 Will be found a summary of Matthew, with the particularities of this chapter 10 among others, produced (page 6), as clear and conclusive evidence of the gospel by Matthew to the character the twelve sustain therein; that is, that the Lord addresses them as the church.
+In Matthew 24 and 25 also He does not speak of His return till He speaks of the talents.
Now this is the commission in chapter 10: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but go ye to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," etc. They were to provide nothing for their journey; and to shake off the dust of their feet against the city that did not receive them; enquiring who was worthy where they went. They are then cautioned to beware of men: that they should be brought before governors and kings for His sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles: but, when delivered up, the Spirit of their Father would speak in them. The members of the same family would betray one another. They should be hated of all men for His name's sake; but he that endured to the end the same should be saved When persecuted in one city, they were to flee to another, for they would not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man were come. Now, will any one say that this was addressed to the church, as the church? or to the apostles as representatives of it; when they are forbidden to go into the way of the Gentiles, but to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? And while undergoing persecutions, such as did eventually happen to them in the land of Israel when the church was formed, they are told, when persecuted in one city, to go to another, for that they would not have got over the cities of Israel till the Son of man should be come. Has this to do with Jews as Jews? Yet they suffer for His name's sake. Nor can it be doubted, on the other hand, that their bringing before kings and rulers was accomplished after Christ's ascension. Yet it is certain they are not here addressed as the church.
Again, we are told, in a note, that, in a New Testament sense, only true believers are Jews. This is certainly new. The discussion, be it remembered, turns on the application of passages in Matthew. Does the writer adopt the idea that Matthew is Old Testament scripture? or is he in the system he states to be subversive of Christianity, that in Matthew the addresses are not to the church in the New Testament sense of things? For I suppose Jews are sometimes mentioned in this gospel, and in the three others, and even in the Acts. Yet I do not remember where this word is used in the sense of true believers. So that clearly, according to his statement, in these books the word has not a New Testament sense. But we have here a palpable proof of the absurdity of the system which assumes that everything that is said in the New Testament must have reference to the church viewed in its proper and highest privileges.
I understand what the writer means -- that, viewed in the light of New Testament privileges, carnal Jews are not recognised as the people of God. And who questions this? But to say that in a New Testament sense only true believers are Jews, is merely to say that we have closed our eyes to its use in a great part of the New Testament, because occupied with a theory of our own minds.
Nor can the writer escape by saying he means new covenant, because the use of the word in the gospels remains there as a fact, so that it would be merely asserting that Matthew does not write in a new covenant sense. And, further, new covenant thus becomes worse than ambiguous: for, in Jeremiah, Israel and Judah are spoken of in their usual sense in connection with the new covenant. And, further, it is a confusion between the church's blessings and Israel's under the new covenant under the millennium: for all Israel will be saved, and saved as Israel, under the new covenant. Moreover, as to the Jews being cast off, page 12, Tract 3, the apostle uses the salvation of the believing remnant as a proof that this people, gainsaying and rebellious as they were, were not "cast off" -- concluding, that blindness in part was happened to them, but, that in result all Israel should be saved. And moreover, those of whom the writer thus speaks as cast off are not mixed up with the evil and adulterous generation, as Daniel 11, 12 and Isaiah 66 plainly prove.
The writer states they will have "refused all other testimony till the glory bursts on them like the glory on Saul. Most will perish, though a remnant shall be spared; but those who have believed in Jesus crucified and risen, and who have waited and watched for His appearing, etc., will find the consummation of their redemption."
Yet I find in "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," page 125, that, after Christianity is withdrawn from Jerusalem, God raises up a new testimony -- a testimony of judgment, and not of salvation, but which will be received by a spared remnant, so that it is clear that there are those who will not have refused all testimony, and yet at a time that Christianity is withdrawn.
Nor can this be contested. For the Lord Himself says, speaking to the nation as such, whose house was left desolate, "Ye shall not see me henceforth till ye say Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord." So that they certainly will have received some testimony before He comes. I confess it seems to me very clear indeed, that if the writer says that the coming of the Son of man will burst on that rebellious generation which has refused all other testimony, when the Lord says that they will not see Him till they have received other testimony, "this is to derange and confuse all the order and truth of God concerning these things." I prefer believing in Scripture, that they will not see Christ till they say "Blessed be he that cometh."
The writer of the tract has clearly lost sight of a body of people, a remnant of whom the Scriptures distinctly speak, and whom God owns -- certain wise ones who do understand. He says, I am simply speaking of the body of Christian people, as the only body amidst which this idea, or hope, of the second advent of Christ could exist, and to which alone therefore, etc., "not entering into this distinction between the professing church and the true church."
But, here again, the system, built up on one side to condemn all others, is knocked down on the other; because, after the withdrawal of Christianity from Jerusalem, there is a new testimony raised up, whose grand object will be the coming of Christ. We have therefore instructions+ addressed to some one else than the church about Christ's return. But Christ does not, in the passage we are considering, speak of His coming as His return, no more than in chapter 10. On the contrary, it is spoken of there, and here, as if it were His only coming, though we know He has come. Nor is there a word about His resurrection or departure.
Again, it is stated that, of the threefold division of Jews, Gentiles, and church of God, the disciples were the church. But there was no such division made at that time. Nor could there be, because Christ was not crucified, nor the church established. Such classes did not exist, nor could they be addressed therefore as such. They were apostles, when ordained to be with Jesus and to go only to Jews, as truly, though in another order, as when set to commence the church.
It is denied that they represented one set of people in Matthew and another in John. But John himself makes the same distinction as to the difference of the presence of the Comforter; nor does mere denial, nor believing to be very fanciful, prove much. I should think that a person who could not distinguish between the tone of spiritual teaching in the last chapters of John and Matthew 24 must be very incapable of explaining either. It seems to me that the difference between "In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you": and, "but when ye see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains," is very great indeed; and that it is neither fanciful nor injurious to perceive that one relates to union with Christ in heaven, and the other to the circumstances of Jerusalem on earth, prophesied of by Daniel the prophet as that in which a Jewish remnant were interested as such. We may find the same difference in Matthew and John in the testimony of John the Baptist, in Matthew 3: 12, John 1: 29-34. Further, they were not addressed as the church in John, though many things might regard the church. So, in Matthew 23 they are told to be subject to the scribes and Pharisees as sitting in Moses' seat. There, clearly, they are not addressed as the church. I admit there is a difference between this and Matthew 24. But this just proves that the same persons may be addressed almost exactly at the same time (the circumstances were much more different in John, for there it was after the Supper), and yet addressed in a different character.
+See Tract 3, page 2.
This is the writer's own theory as to Matthew 23 and 24; but it is fanciful and injurious when applied to John, where the whole tenor of the gospel is different, and the circumstances much more contrasted. For in one case we have disciples in the temple before it was pronounced desolate, and out of the temple asking about it, and looking at it, and enquiring of its desolation. This is said to be different, and what is Jewish and of the church contrasted. Whereas in the other case John speaks of heaven, and union with Christ there; and yet this must be identical with Matthew 24. Again, it is said, in explaining Matthew, "the rock on which the church is built." But the Lord says, "I will build" -- clearly shewing He did not address them as if the church existed then. In chapter 23 we are told He directly addresses them "as the heavenly family" -- as ourselves, for that is the point; for the grand evil alleged is depriving the church of certain scriptures. Consequently, the heavenly family and ourselves ought to obey the scribes and Pharisees of the evil and adulterous generation, as sitting in Moses' seat (i.e., the church ought).
The rest of page 5 is really too bad. The Lord tells us that they would all be offended because of Him that night, and leave Him alone; and this is slurred over by saying, They linger near the cross. This is really shameful. Apostles, to be sure, they were. So they were when forbidden to go to the Gentiles, as well as when sent to evangelise the nations. But was it the same thing? or are they instructed on the same ground?
Again, when it is said (page 6), "His heavenly flock," heavenly or not, the subject that occupied them, and to which Jesus replies, was Jerusalem, Judea, and the temple. But we are told that "hated for my name's sake" proves that it is the church after His ascension. So they do then in chapter 10; but there, it is confessed, they do not represent the church. So that it proves nothing here either. The same remark applies to the expression of, "It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit"; and what has been said of the two witnesses also.
And so as to "thirdly" (page 7), we are told in the biggest letters that "behold, I have told you before" is the proof that He made known to them in confidence every device of the enemy, that they and their brethren might walk safely and confidently though surrounded by snares and terrors innumerable. But alas! they, the church, are not to be there. In the elaborate exposition of this view in the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" we are told, at this period, according to the directions of this chapter, Christianity will be withdrawn from Jerusalem and Judea, and even from the Roman Empire; and it is clear from the chapter that those who obeyed the directions here given would not be in the way of the trials of the last three years and a half.
As regards the history of the Acts, I agree that some of these things had a fulfilment in the Acts. But it is quite clear, that some of the more important and solemn parts are not touched upon at all in the Acts. Neither the subjects which gave rise to the conversation, nor the time it alluded to, "the end of the age,"+ in the remarkable circumstances by which it was to close: so that, though there was a partial fulfilment in the Acts, yet with the proper subject of the chapter the Acts have nothing to do.
+The statement of page 6 (tract 3), that the Lord is speaking of the end of the age, from Matthew 24: 15 to the end of chapter 25, is quite an inaccurate statement. But it is impossible to notice everything.
Universal consent, which is appealed to by the writer of the tract, cannot have much weight here; for by "universal consent" the chapter has been applied to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the end of the world -- to which universal consent the writer is entirely opposed. He does not believe a word of what it teaches, and I know not on what principle he quotes it here.+
That all Christians are taught to watch is clear. But I have no recollection of the moral or verbal identity of this instruction with the teaching of the churches in the epistles, especially the epistles of Paul. This latter is added because it has been affirmed that Paul teaches the unity of the church, out of all reach of the question of Judaism. I put it to the conscience of the reader, whether he remembers the verbal identity of this instruction to "watch" with the teaching of the epistles of Paul. For my own part, I have not trusted my memory, but have searched; and the only passage I find where watching is connected with the subject is 1 Thessalonians 5. "Of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you; for ye yourselves know certainly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. But ye are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all children of light and children of day; we are not of the night nor of darkness. Let us not therefore sleep as the rest, but let us watch and be sober." The more this passage, and what follows, is examined, the more it will be found in contrast with "this instruction." There, Christ "would trace out every device and web of the enemy, even in the day of his fearful power," and gives dates, and seasons, and times to flee. But the apostle had no need to write to them of this. They were of the day, and, whether they waked or slept they would live together with the Lord. In Peter, who addresses the circumcision only, we may possibly find something at least more analogous.
And now, after all this representing of the church, it appears that it has no application to the immense body of the church at all, but, for the most part, only to those located in Judea, etc. But do we therefore pronounce these Jewish scriptures? No, to be sure we do not. But we may consider them as not relating to the church at large, though given to it, as all the Scriptures are. That it was not addressed to the church is clear, for the church was not yet founded on earth. That it was given to the church is blessedly clear, for through grace we have it. That is not the question yet. The question is, what it is about -- to whom it applies. Well, and what is the writer's own answer? To those located in Judea. Is the church, in its church standing, located in Judea? Are not all the subjects Jewish, as well as the facts, save the one of the gospel of the kingdom going to all nations, and that before the end?
+See Postscript at the end of this paper.
It is stated, that "the peculiar features of such parts of scripture may have received undue attention." This certainly is a curious charge. I suppose the Holy Ghost put them there to be attended to, and that there cannot be undue attention to any part of scripture. If it is meant to say too exclusive, I can only say that I apprehend those who have attended to these peculiar features have attended to and understand the peculiar privileges of the church quite as much as those who complain of undue attention to the peculiar features which the Holy Ghost has stamped on this chapter.
The statement, that in John 14-16 these same features are found can prove nothing but the determination not to see, or the spiritual incapacity to distinguish, of him who makes it. They were not standing here around Jesus as His heavenly flock; and they were not as yet placed in the position of sons. They were not spoken to as the church. For the church did not yet exist in a standing in which it could be addressed as such. He speaks to disciples, not only about what would occur in Jerusalem, but about what regarded it as such, as foretold by the prophets, though additional light is thrown upon it, and the fact revealed that the gospel of the kingdom would first be preached to the nations before Jerusalem would be finally judged. But it is all the light of Christ's prophetic knowledge, thrown on subjects already in part treated of by the prophets, and not regarding the church as such.
Saying that the church of God is scattered over the world, and that this provides for its sojourn and service on earth, and therefore the Lord speaks to it of things earthly, human, local, is not a true representation of the matter. The Lord does not give, in general, local instructions for the church. This passage cannot be alleged; for it is the thing in question. The passage treats of local dangers, and local circumstances, and local snares, and of none others, and of which the most important, it is allowed, do not apply to Christians; but none of which, it is clear, apply to the church at large, and only to persons in Jewish circumstances to whom false Christs might be a snare as coming on earth (how should that be a snare to those who are to be caught up to meet Him in the air?), to those who would be embarrassed if they had to flee on a sabbath; and the days are shortened for the elect's sake, which elect are not the church -- they are gathered from the four winds after Christ's appearing.
To say that in Matthew 24 only two facts are mentioned as to Jerusalem, does not deserve really an answer. Is not the whole scene from verse 15 at Jerusalem, or in Judea? and, before that, connected with the destruction of the temple? Moreover, "the end of the age" is the period referred to -- not of Christianity, but of the age in which the disciples lived, and which the Jews expected to end by the coming of Messiah.
The reasoning of page 6 (tract 3) is again contradicted by the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse." "His beloved church" will not be there at all; and yet, remark here the "ye" and the "you" are continued just the same. So that either no inference can be drawn from the continuous expression "ye" and "you," or it is certain that it is not as the church they are addressed. Because it is admitted that at verse 23 it does not apply to Christians, for it applies to the hope of relief from the tribulation from which Christianity is withdrawn.
I do not agree in any particular application of Isaiah 59+ to the remnant. And, if there be a remnant who abide faithful to God, and to the hope of a Messiah, it is one which is not ignorant of who that Messiah really is. For, on their system, the two witnesses have declared who it is. If therefore their testimony be received, they are not unbelieving as regards Christ,++ though they may not enjoy present salvation. So that after all, according to their own statements, we have a remnant, not Christian, and yet represented by the word "you" in this passage of Matthew 24.
+See page 7 (tract 3).
++See "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," B.W.N., pages 124, 133.
And now what shall we say to such a passage as this? "Those only who, besides knowing Jesus to be the Christ, find present forgiveness and hope of glory through His blood, and who hold fast His faith and testimony -- such only are owned by God in the New Testament." Now -- not to speak of the two witnesses to whom we have so often referred-what shall we say of the gospels? "Present forgiveness and hope of glory through His blood" the disciples clearly did not find during the period embraced in the four gospels, and consequently were not owned by God. And this monstrous statement is the more remarkable, because the point mainly insisted upon to prove that they represented the church is, that they were owned by God as safe under the name of Christ: which, according to this statement, it is quite clear they were not. But the truth is, it is a mass of confusion.
Again, we read in page 9 (tract 3), of the election according to grace of this present time. But it was not in Matthew 24 this present time; nor were they brought out from their nation by faith in the crucified and risen Son of God.
When is it said (page 10), the standing and character of believing Jews in the New Testament is a matter vital to ourselves, for we are grafted in with them -- we are fellow-citizens with the saints, the answer is simple: the Lord had not in Matthew 24 yet broken down the middle wall of partition, nor reconciled both in one body by the cross. So that to talk of the character of believing Jews in the New Testament is merely misleading by equivocal words. For the New Testament speaks of believing Jews before, and believing Jews after, the middle wall of partition was broken down.
The standing, therefore, of Peter and his companions on the mount of Olives was clearly not our standing at all. If any were, it was that of Moses and Elias on another mount. When the writer has heard. say the Jewish nation, or Jewish remnant, it must be remembered that he has given his account of this remnant, which I believe to be entirely a false one; for I find that those persons who walk in darkness and see no light are called upon to listen to the voice of God's servant. I suppose no one will doubt who this is (Isaiah 51). They are owned of God in Isaiah 66. They are prepared to say "blessed be he that cometh" (Matthew 23). They love the name of the Lord, and take hold of His covenant (Isaiah 56). They understand (Daniel 12+); and further, in the New Testament (Revelation 11), they are found (or, at any rate, a remnant is found), after "Christianity is withdrawn," giving a clear distinct testimony, which upsets all that is said about this Jewish remnant here.
+See also Psalm 80.
Again, "The New Testament ground is new ground: none enter thereon save through faith in Jesus as the Saviour, the present Saviour of sinners." This clearly was not the faith of the disciples. "The cross of Jesus is the line of demarcation between the old things and the new." "A Jew who fears God, but who trusts not in the blood of Jesus, is still on the old ground. Such may be preserved by God's power from apostasy, but they have no communion with the things into which faith in Jesus now introduces."
"In the New Testament they are known as amongst those who are 'cast off,' those lying under wrath 'until the end,' as identified with Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; though if I step without the circle of New Testament ministry, I do find," etc.
After referring to two elections, one suffering from men for confessing Jesus, the other from God for rejecting Him, we are told that if we do not clearly distinguish these two, then we should apply much of the New Testament to "a body, which, perhaps we should, if called on, feel it difficult to define, but which we should call Jews as distinguished from the church." "But in Matthew 24 I see the Lord leading forth a remnant; then -- a converted, believing, saved remnant." It is to these He speaks on the Mount of Olives. They are a present, a manifested, election -- they stand in grace -- they had the depths of Jesus' love and the Father's opened up to them -- they were constantly and only addressed as the church -- they actually preached Christ crucified, and so "to confound these with any yet unmanifested remnant of righteous Jews ... is to apply a principle to the New Testament which, it may be easily shewn, would subvert the very first elements of Christianity."
I shall not make any comment on the charge here made against brethren walking for years before the writer was converted, as they still are, in godliness and truth; because it seems to me that such a charge as "subverting the first elements of Christianity," made without any proof at all but "it may be easily shewn," is an immoral thing: it does not demand an answer, but, as a personal wrong, forgiveness. Those who would believe it on such a charge, have only to be prayed for as under the evident influence of party spirit.
But let us consider the matter of these statements, and not the charge. And here I know not whether to take some of the statements of the writer as proof of the views he opposes; or others in proof of the gross misstatements that are offered as truth; or both together to shew the contradictions into which he falls; or many, or all of them, to shew that he has overlooked all the real facts of the case in order to follow out his own ideas. Such a mass of confusion and contradiction I never met with.
"All such are still on the dark side of the pillar of testimony -- whatever their condition. The cross of Jesus is the line of demarcation between the old things and the new." On which side of this line of demarcation were the disciples whom Jesus addressed? But it will be said, Oh! but being with Jesus they were the other side of the cross really, though not in knowledge or faith. This itself, as to the dealings of God, is dangerous ground, because it sets aside the difference of the work being accomplished, and the value of faith in it. For, let us remark, that the question is not here, were they saved? but on what ground the Saviour made certain communications to them.
But the writer does not leave himself even this plea. He says, "a Jew who fears God, but who trusts not in the blood of Jesus, is still on the old ground" ... "they have no communion with the things into which faith in Jesus now introduces." Certainly one would suppose that the writer was writing expressly for the views he opposes.
On which side of the cross were the disciples? Did they trust in the blood of Jesus? Why, they earnestly hoped he would not die; and had no idea whatever of trusting in the blood of Jesus. It had not been presented to them by the Lord as the object of their faith, and could not be, because He had been presenting Himself to the Jews as the Messiah. Obscure intimations, or express statements, of His rejection had been made to them, but nothing about the value of His blood; and even these statements they had repudiated. The last supper itself had not yet intimated it to them, incapable to understand it as they were. One thing is clear -- they did not trust in the blood of Jesus, and they had therefore no communion with the things into which faith in Jesus now introduces.
And thus they were clearly to be dealt with not upon the ground of the church, nor, as having anything to say to that "into which faith in Jesus now introduces." They were on the dark side of the pillar of testimony, so that they ought to have been addressed, if at all, as a Jewish remnant.
Yet they were then -- the italics all through these citations are the writer's, not mine -- they were "then -- a converted, believing, saved remnant." They are a present, a manifested, election -- they stand in grace -- they had the depths of Jesus' love and the Father's opened up to them -- they were constantly and only addressed as the church -- they actually preached Christ crucified and so gathered the church. Can there be a more complete contradiction than that between the principles of demarcation stated and the statements of the writer as to the condition of the disciples?
Can anything be a greater perversion -- at any rate what is never important, a more light neglect -- of the most important scriptural truths, than to say the disciples were then, etc., in italics, and to go on and say, "they actually preached Christ crucified"; without noticing the descent of the Holy Ghost, which changed their whole condition, without which Christ could not tell them many things "into which faith in Jesus now introduces," and without which they were forbidden to preach the gospel, being desired to stay at Jerusalem and wait for it -- not to mention that the resurrection of the Lord intervened, which changed their whole position; nay, which was the "line of demarcation between old things and new." What does the writer mean by saying they were "then a converted, believing, saved remnant," "they actually preached Christ crucified?" Is it true that they actually did so? To say too they were only addressed as the church is, as already stated, untrue. They were desired to obey the scribes and Pharisees, and sent out with an order not to go near a Gentile, or a Samaritan; so that they were not always addressed as the church -- I might add, they never were. For the church, of which they afterwards formed the basis, was not formed And John's gospel (the teaching of which is taken very erroneously, I think, to explain their position in this) distinguishes very clearly between their then state and their state after receiving the Comforter.
Further, the New Testament, instead of treating the Jews as cast off, positively asserts (in the chapter that treats of the rejection of the branches) that, as a nation, they are not "cast off," but beloved; and therefore, certainly, the remnant who fear God are not.
Again, they did testify concerning Him, and did hold fast His faith, and are supposed by the Lord not to be received, and so far to suffer for His name's sake, when sent out in His life-time, and when they were forbidden to go to any but Jews. Consequently the supposition is not strange, nor an error, that such could be without being the church. For they were not the church, nor allowed to act on the principle of the church, nor to preach Christ's blood as the hope, nor His resurrection, when all these things which are supposed impossible took place. The truth is, the writer has not attended to the facts of Scripture. He has chosen to have two remnants -- one, the church, and only the church -- the other, Jewish, lying under wrath, and known as amongst those who are cast off.
Now the scripture speaks quite otherwise, and presents other facts which the writer does not think proper to consider. First, he forgets entirely one thing, very important to remember; and hence a fundamental fallacy runs through all his statements. Christ died for that nation, as well as for the church, and that, because they were beloved of God according to His counsels of peace, notwithstanding their disobedience; and therefore Christ, and the Holy Ghost too, could and did deal with the nation as such, as well as with the church as such. And, therefore, the Holy Ghost would not consider them as cast off, even where the branches were broken off.
Neglect of this makes all the writer's statements on the subject false, and the language generally used on this subject by those of his school most unscriptural, and painful to a spiritual mind. Next, he has neglected the facts connected with this subject.
"A Jew who fears God but who trusts not in the blood of Jesus is still on the old ground," may be preserved, but is amongst those who are cast off. Now, if we take this division, we have seen to which class the disciples must belong -- not to that, clearly, in which the writer places them; and we have seen the contradiction of this with his account of their condition, and the falseness of that account itself. But the fact is his division is wrong too; for I say so for this simple reason, that the disciples, the very persons in question now, and whom the Lord addressed, were in neither of the cases thus abstractedly stated in order to judge their condition: a judgment, therefore, completely false, as is proved by the facts themselves. The disciples did more than fear God, they believed in Jesus as Messiah -- nay, in Peter's case, as Son of God, with whatever clearness of light -- I think we might say all did. They are not known in the New Testament as amongst those who are cast off. They were not to fear: it was their Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom. They were a remnant separated from the nation by faith in the Messiah, and yet they did not trust in the blood of Jesus. They were on the hither or dark side of the line of demarcation, the cross of Jesus. So that they were in neither one nor the other of the states supposed, but in another entirely left out of consideration by the writer, and on which the whole question depends: while all the writer's reasonings run on the supposition of two cases, neither of which states the facts which actually existed. And yet, unless a person can embrace this mass of contradiction and carelessness and substitution of personal views for the patient following of the word of God, he is to be treated as holding opinions which subvert Christianity! Next, we are told that the word "ye shall not see me till ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," points prophetically to that day when the Lord will spare unto Jerusalem a "very small remnant" who shall see Jesus in His glory and be converted unto Him.
Now, if neglect of scripture be indulged in, and an "undue attention to the peculiarities of a passage" is to be avoided, at least Scripture ought not to be changed to make out a system.
It is stated here that they shall see Jesus in glory and be converted, as it was stated before, that that glory should burst upon those who had refused all previous testimony. Now the passage does not say they shall see Jesus and be converted; but that they shall not see Him till their hearts are changed, so as to say Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.
So that the scripture states the contrary of what is asserted to be its declarations in order to make out a system. Even Psalm 72 is entirely misquoted and the misquotations given as authority.
I know not that I need add any more. My object is not in this short paper to treat the subject fully, but to explain to you why the statements of these three letters have the contrary effect on my mind to what the writer intended: because the statements he has made seem to me entirely unscriptural-some of them, if taken as truth, to prove, in their application to the disciples, the very contrary of that for which they are alleged; and, finally, that he really has entirely overlooked what is the material point on the subject, so that his remarks are of no value at all, except to prove on what sort of grounds a system of so much pretension is built.
Affectionately yours, -- -- -
I am unwilling to pass over a collateral point, confirmed, as it has been, by many like statements which I have heard and connected with other points of a similar tendency.
It is in page 3 of tract 2. "Lastly, please consider the fact that from the day these chapters were first spoken, there never has been the slightest question raised of their true and exclusive address to the church, until the last very few years."
You know I am no traditionist; but here at least is "universal consent" on one point.
This statement is not true in the use to which the writer applies it; because "universal consent" took the passage away from all present and future application to the church, and considered it as accomplished at the siege of Jerusalem, the coming, in any further sense, relating to the end of all things.
But it is not in view of this that I quote it now. It is with reference to the principle, the popish principle, of universal consent. Universal consent has nothing to do with tradition, nor tradition with universal consent. But universal consent is another form of the substitution of man's authority for the word of God and the teaching of the Spirit of God in and by the word, and the responsibility of each saint to receive that word by such teaching; which alone constitutes faith. Universal consent is a rule of other men for binding to an opinion without scripture, or in the interpretation of Scripture. In either case it is the judgment of men, be they ever so many, and not the direct responsibility of the soul to God in receiving the word; nor the direct operation of the Spirit of God on the soul in respect of the word, which alone produces divine faith. It is faith in men. No matter if it is all the saints "from the day these chapters were spoken." For the mass of saints it must result in faith in the statements of the teacher, which is not faith in God at all. It will always be connected with canons of interpretation made by men (or rather it is the thing itself), with receiving from teachers what they teach because God has raised them up, and with ecclesiastical authority, the process of which is connection of teaching with office -- the result, office giving authority to all teaching. Now this is Popery, whose force lies in the practical denial of that to which the apostle appeals in the saints. "Ye need not that any one should teach you." "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." He did teach them; but he owned the Holy Ghost in them. The spirit of Popery is the spirit of the age as to religion. Self will soon in divine things work itself out to nothing, because it cannot hold men together in the things of God; but Popery can in form. Now the first grand principle which introduced Popery, and on which Protestants inclined to it always rest, is that announced here. It was first stated by a "father," Vincentius Lirinensis, in these terms in Latin, "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" (what [has been believed] always, everywhere and by all); and became very famous in the church.
Let the saints be on their guard. Self-will is always evil. Affectionate confidence in those who labour in the Lord is always happy. But "universal consent," and the authority of teachers, are the instruments of the enemy for the church's departure from God. In the perilous times of the last days the known security of the saints is the doctrine of the apostles themselves, and the written word of God (2 Timothy 3) -- both now concluded in this last -- the sole and sufficient resource available through the teaching of the Spirit to the saints of God. Teachers may aid them in it, but can never take away each man's own direct responsibility as to what he receives. But when "universal consent" is thus publicly appealed to, it is high time to see where we are going.
Let no one suppose I allude here to individuals. On the contrary, I am very anxious to draw attention to a system -- a system which has been the bane of the church for thirteen centuries. The demon of Popery is the active demon of the day. Its leading introductory principle is advanced in the passage on which I comment. I have noticed some of its other elements, because the introduction of this general one shews that the door has not been kept closed against it. Hence the saints will do well to be on their guard, lest they be mixed up with it before they are aware. I would urge them, if need be, to get their minds off individuals, and to watch against the principles everywhere.
May beloved brethren remember that the written word of God, and the grace and teaching of the Spirit of God', are the only security against error, and the devices of Satan -- that ascribing authority to teachers, to "universal consent," or anything else but to the written word of God, is departing from the only security of the saints in these dark and evil days; and yet, if dark and evil, blessed in the resources of grace to him that has faith. If the Spirit of God be looked at as residing in the teachers and not in the whole body, it is the full-blown principle of Romish clericalism. If saints do not prove for themselves all they hear, they cannot have faith now; but they cannot help being made answerable for it hereafter, because God has commanded them to do it, and given His Spirit to the whole body, and to each individually, to enable them to do it, and they will be held responsible for this whether they will or no.
I fully recognise the blessing of having those who can help us in learning the truth, or apply it in exhortation to the soul. But this does not alter the truth of what I have said. I do not in the least accuse individuals of being popish. But I say that the principle here printed and published, and which I have heard elsewhere appealed to, is an important popish principle, well known as such, one especially made use of where there is a tendency among Protestants to it -- always connected historically with the authority of official teachers, and derogatory to the sole authority of the word of God, and the individual responsibility of the saints, and thus a departure from the ground of the faith of God's elect -- a very little beginning perhaps, but a beginning of a very great evil.
My Dear Brother, I have read the tract you gave me. I confess to you such reading is an unwelcome task. I do not speak of this tract in particular, but in general of those that are written to maintain particular views, and not to act on souls. I am not blaming -- I leave liberty to -- those who think it right; but it is a very ungracious task, that of examining a brother's views to see if they are right, instead of learning what one can, and leaving the rest aside. However, as various views are maintained, it may be well to examine them with all patience, that brethren may, on the one hand, judge quietly; and that, on the other, there may not be the uneasiness in the minds of those who think these views wrong, of supposing mistakes current unanswered -- a feeling which often produces restlessness of mind; and the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace.
Many points, which seem of importance when undiscussed, dwindle wonderfully when all that is to be said is brought out; for saints, as all men, are apt to be fonder of their own ideas than other reasonable people are of them, when they see the light. On the other hand, the most unfounded have weight with many when unexamined; and are supposed to be unanswerable because they are unanswered -- a supposition that it is natural enough their authors should be prone to encourage -- a sorrowful ground this for saints to be on, but this does not make what I say untrue.
But to proceed to the examination of the tract, the first paragraph struck me as shewing considerable inattention to the force of phrases in Scripture. The throne of Jesus promised to him that overcomes is spoken of as being to the same effect as the man-child being caught up to God and His throne. Surely there is little or nothing in common between these two passages.
Sitting on the throne of God is never promised to the saints overcoming; nor does catching up seem to me the same thing at all as being seated on Christ's throne as a reward. The man-child was saved from the mouth of the dragon ready to devour it as soon as born; and was caught away, and the woman left to be persecuted. Yet if this interpretation be not right, the whole structure of this chapter, on which the entire argument of the tract is founded, falls with it.
I also have a word to say about hope. I am very happy to say that I do believe the hope of the saints is quite independent of the question, "How long will it be before what we are hoping for will be realised?" But, is it independent of it, if it is laboriously sought to be proved that I must not expect it before a certain course of events is accomplished? This seems to make my hope dependent on these events. I do seriously believe our hope to be the bride's hope of the Bridegroom in virtue of the Holy Ghost dwelling in her, and not to be founded on mere prophetic testimony as to events. She is waiting for God's Son from heaven, independent of all events, and ignorant of how long it will be ere He returns. But, if it be a delusion -- hoping to see Him before certain events occur -- my hope is hardly independent of these events. And, if there seem delay, God is careful to assure us that He is not slack concerning His promise; and this reason and no other is assigned for the seeming long procrastination, that God is not willing that any should perish. This is God's way of treating this subject. It never occurred to the Holy Ghost to say it was all imagination to expect the Lord from heaven until certain earthly events should occur.+ If the accomplishment of the hope be dependent on certain events, its effect in the soul cannot be entirely independent of them. Nor do I see, if its moral power be really entirely independent of them, why so much pains is taken to press them as necessarily happening before it arrives. If it be not important to think it near, it seems at any rate to be so to prove that it is not. I do not call this its being "quite independent of the question, How long will it be before it is realised?" I believe it is so. But, if so, why so anxious to prove it cannot yet take place?
But there is another point which is important, and that is not merely that the thing promised is sure. The Lord considers it important that the saints should be always expecting it as a present thing, and wishing for it as a present thing -- I say expecting it as a present thing, uncertain when it will come. Thus He speaks in Luke 12: 35-40: "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately ... . And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants ... . Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not." And again, verses 43, 44: "Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath." Here surely they are told to be expecting always. Now, would the certainty that it must be two or three thousand years off not affect this state of mind?++ I say also, wishing for it as a present thing, as it is written, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And ... He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus," Revelation 22: 17, 20.
+It may be alleged he does so elsewhere in 2 Thessalonians 2. But I do not hesitate to affirm that he does exactly the contrary, and contrasts the presence of the Lord for the church, and His day for the world, so as to leave the present hope untouched, and set the saint's mind free from all uneasiness as to the day.
++As the letter says, "Nor should we say it at all the less if we were sure his coming would not take place for thousands of years."
The certainty, glory, and heavenly character of the hope, most important as it is, is not all. The Lord insists a great deal on a constant expectation of it, uncertain when it will be; a great deal on the tone and character of mind connected with this state of expectation of the Lord, coming and finding us so in our service. Now I do not deny that particular revelations may have been made to individuals, which shewed them that they should depart first, and so far modified their individual apprehensions. And I do not doubt that a saint may have a just and true conviction that his service is not yet finished, and yet be always waiting because he knows not when the Lord may come. But this does not the least affect the general state and expectation of the church. And is there the least analogy between such a particular revelation, and putting a whole train of events on earth as necessarily to happen before the church can expect the Lord?
And, indeed, were I to adopt the system proposed to me, I should not expect the Lord at all until a time when I was able to fix the day of His appearing. And this is what we are told is a sober and true way of expecting Him. I say fix the day, for I cannot expect His coming until the abomination of desolation is set up at Jerusalem, and then I can say, Now in twelve hundred and sixty days the Lord will be here. And this fixing by signs and dates, I am told, is the sober way of waiting. But it is quite clear that it is contrary to the way the Lord Himself has taught me to expect Him. It is clear that if these signs are to be expected for the church, I have nothing to expect till they are fulfilled. I may expect them, and have my mind fixed on them, but not on Christ's coming. And, when one particular one happens, I can name to a day His coming.
This is not what Christ has taught me, and therefore I do not receive it. And remark how, in predicting to Peter that he would be cut off -- not telling it to the church, but to him -- the Lord, by His reply to his enquiry as to John, leaves the church again in this vague expectation. "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" This was soon disseminated; and the rumour spread that he would not die. But the conclusion, like most drawn from Scripture, was very wide in fact, though plausible in reasoning, from what the Lord meant, or had said. There is not, nor can be, faith in a conclusion, because a conclusion is not a revelation.
Note, moreover, that a particular revelation to an individual about his death is the strongest possible proof that the ordinary doctrine of the Lord to the church as to His coming was such, that it could not be expected that such persons should so die before it, and that this ought not to be expected, since it required a special revelation to make them think they would. "I must shortly put off this tabernacle as the Lord hath shewed me." Was it not curious that there should be such a revelation of an individual's death, if the sanctioned [?constant] expectation was, not that they were not to expect it [death], but the Lord's coming in their life-time? Though it was never said positively when. Hence the apostle says: "We which are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord." And this expectation was so vivid that, while he sanctions it by saying "we which are alive," etc., he has to reassure them by explaining that those deceased would be raised first, and enjoy the same coming and glory.
I find then the positive teaching of Scripture quite contrary to the reasoning that it makes no difference. Scripture teaches me otherwise, and I reject the reasoning. I pass over the triumphant argument which was used by the millenarians against the opposers of the personal reign, that if there were certainly a thousand years to come first, we could not be expecting the Lord from heaven.+ It appears that this was all a delusion. It served its turn. But, as any rate, it would be more honest now to tell them it was all a mistake.
+"We should not say it ('a little while') at all the less if we were sure His coming could not take place for thousands of years." There is nothing like saying a thing plainly. But is that the way Scripture speaks?
And now, before I examine the critical explanation of the chapter, let me advert to some other important statements -- admissions of truth I would say, though the grounds on which others have affirmed these truths are disputed, as (for so we shall see by and by) those of the champions of this system are contradicted also. And I notice this, because I am sincerely glad, while noticing freely that with which I do not agree, to bring forward that with which I do.
The whole body of the saints treated of in the Revelation are recognised as being quite distinct from what is commonly spoken of as the church. I do not mean that it is stated that they do not form part of the church; but that both classes of sufferers noticed in this book are treated as quite distinct from us -- considered perhaps superior; but quite distinct. The book of Revelation does not apply to the church in its present state save in principle. The saints spoken of in it are not the primitive church, nor the church in its fallen state since (save in chapters 2 and 3), but an entirely new class of persons, and a different state of things. It is not stated whether there will be saints of the old or actual class of believers at the same time; but if so, they are not mentioned. Nothing can be more positive or decided than the writer's statement on the subject.
But what is there for us in all this? Nothing, except for the principle of the unity of the body.
Again, "Thus it would appear that the latter part of the Revelation, that is, from chapter 4 to the end is, as far as the history of the saints in the earth is concerned, a history of a certain company of saints, born in the latter end of this dispensation, that is, a short time before Christ comes with His saints to execute judgment," etc., "that this part refers to the closing period of our dispensation -- the last few years of it, and that it is all unfulfilled." I do not dwell on its being our dispensation or not now -- it is quite a new company which does not yet exist. So that there is nothing for us in it all, save on the principle of the unity of the body.
"The primitive church as a body had failed, but in the last part of this book we have the history of a company of saints who do overcome."
"Who this company are, further, time can only shew. They are such as have not been from the beginning hitherto. For their sakes I believe this book of the Revelation was very principally written, to lead them up to their gory bed, though, of course, in principle, it belongs to all who are appointed unto sufferings for Christ's sake and so to all the church."
Further: "The martyrs seen in chapter 20: 4, etc., are two parties of martyrs belonging to the company represented by the man-child," etc. We are going to discuss the man-child in a moment; but here we have the two parties of martyrs, besides the church in general and previous martyrs who are clearly to sit on the thrones that were placed, but who are not, as regards the saints in the earth, the immediate object of the Revelation. So that we have the church in general, and two distinct parties of martyrs, to whom, as regards the saints on earth, the Revelation specially belongs in its statements. Having then the distinct common ground, that there are these three classes (namely, the church in general, primitive and fallen; those beheaded for the witness of Jesus, etc.; and those who had not worshipped the beast), let us now enquire as to the detail of these last two classes, as there is no difficulty as to the primitive and fallen church: and indeed these two parties form the subject of the tract.
The author begins by telling us, that the original literally translated would be "those that remain of her seed." Now I humbly suggest that it would not. I am not indeed exactly aware of the difference sought to be established between the remnant "and those that remain," unless it be meant to convey the idea that, some of her seed having been cut off, certain others remain. Otherwise it is a distinction without a difference. At any rate "those that remain" may convey this meaning to a reader who must take on trust that this is a more literal translation. But I would very much caution the unlearned reader against these new translations, unless they are accompanied with reasons which other competent scholars can weigh. I avow broadly here that I have hardly ever found they could be trusted. Now I judge here, that "the remnant of her seed" is much more correct than "those that remain of her seed," so far as there is any difference between them. There is no verb used as in the new translation, nor word answering to "those." It is true that the word translated "remnant," is plural and not singular. But in English, whenever "remnant" is used of what relates to individuals, it has a plural signification. We may say "a remnant of a piece of cloth"; but when I say "some of the men did so and so, and the remnant so and so"; or "one of the men did thus, and the remnant thus"; that would always in English convey the idea of several. If I meant only one, I should say, in the first case, "another"; in the latter case, "the other." But "the remnant" or "the rest" would never be used for one. The translation therefore is perfectly exact. The Greek word used, for sense, may always be translated "others" or "the others." The English idiom would hardly bear "the others of his seed," "the others," in English, being generally used absolutely.+
+Where the class first mentioned, with which the Greek work 'loipoi' is used has a characteristic force as a class, it generally includes also, I think, the idea of another character. But this depends on its use, and not its meaning.
The writer then takes the man-child as identified with "her seed," and so as a company, but considers "the remnant of her seed" not to be those besides the man-child (which would seem the natural use of the words: inasmuch as this child having been mentioned, the rest of her seed would seem to mean others besides the one who had been spoken of), but the man-child to be a whole company, and those that remain to be part of that company, left after another part have been martyred: to wit, those of verse 11. But first, these are never said to be her seed at all. Nor are they in any way whatever connected with the woman. There is a manifest break between verses 6 and 7, as is clear from this consideration, that the woman flies into the wilderness in verse 6 (up to which, I believe, the account is characteristic more than historical), and she does not flee into the wilderness (verse 14) till after the consequence of what happened in verse 7. Hence it is clear that verse 7 precedes verse 6 in historic time. Now, when it is said the dragon persecuted the woman, it is repeated (verse 13), "which brought forth the man-child"; and, after having again brought her on the scene (only on earth), as mother of this particular child, it is said, when she fled, that the dragon went to make war with the remnant of her seed. I believe the remnant of her seed to be characteristic, and to refer to the woman, intimating the seed was hers; but as far as it relates to any other seed, the only seed of the woman mentioned is the man-child. And any specific reference to verse 11 I believe entirely a mistaken one; though in a very vague general way I should recognise every saint as the woman's seed,+ as far as I have any definite notion of what the woman means.
+And in this sense the remnant of her seed would be connected with those mentioned in verse 2 as a remnant. But this is quite another view of the matter.
But I do not believe the man-child to be properly a company of saints.+ I believe the term to be characteristic, and not, so to speak, aggregate. What the woman (whose weakness as on earth, whatever God's counsels were, was afterwards apparent) brought forth was a male son, to be a man of might; a male that was to rule with a rod of iron. The woman was left to be persecuted in her weakness; the one who was to be the mighty holder of the rod of iron was caught up out of the way. This is to me evidently characteristic. That Christ will hold this place is certain from Psalm 2, and that it is given to the church along with Him is clear from the promise to Thyatira. But this only proves their adjunction to Him, without shewing that this man-child is a company,++ which seems to me to be entirely unproved; because the expression "remnant of her seed" does not in the smallest way prove that which was mentioned of her seed before to be a company.
+Still less a company of saints divided into these two parts by the chapter, namely, those of verse 11, and the remnant of her seed.
++ It is curious to compare the apostle's reasoning in Galatians with the author's in pages 2, 3 -- where it is clean contrary on the same word. The only symptom of proof alleged is, that then the remnant of her seed would be also symbolic children representing companies. But it is the author's assumption that the man-child is a symbolic child representing a company. He recognises that some consider it to mean Christ: and, as the apostle reasons in Galatians, therefore them that are His; but merely by a subsequent process of reasoning. I have already said it is characteristic in my judgment. Besides the remnant of her seed is to me a general idea of relationship with the woman. Nor are they necessarily used as a symbol because the other is -- no more than the very same word in chapter 19: 21, "the remnant were slain," proves that they were all symbols like the beast. There is no force whatever in running one symbol or figure into another where they are not used together. But this is the only argument attempted. Christ as the seed of Abraham, in a certain sense, represents a company. We are Abraham's seed by faith in Him. Do each of us represent a company of Abraham's seed?
I have already said I believe the term more general, and to bring the woman more forward than the previous seed; but, so far as it refers to it, it is to me characteristically, not as a company. At all events the only seed mentioned, and that repeated immediately before, is the man-child. But if this fall, as the proof does to me, entirely, then all the system of the writer as to these two remnants goes with it -- as he says "adopting this ... we come at once to those conclusions." But then, not adopting it (and I think it entirely false, of which every one will judge for himself), all the conclusions fall with it. For all the peculiar views as to these remnants are founded on this -- a slender base it seems to me for such important conclusions. But this is not all: I admit the two parties, or remnants, besides the body of the church in general. It is only their character which is in question.
First, "The man-child does not mean Christ." If Christ is to be excluded, it is very singular that this child should be designated by the title which is intrinsically Christ's -- a man-child who should rule, etc. This is the way he is to be known. Now this title properly belongs to Christ.
Next, "The brethren mentioned in verses 10 and 11 are those represented by the man-child; a part of whom having been slain," etc. Now the brethren, verses 10 and 11, are spoken of as a distinct and complete class, who had been in a given position previous to the casting down of the accuser, and had overcome therein: not of a whole company, part slain, part left. Nor, indeed, is there anything said of the slaying of the remnant of her seed in the chapter. At any rate the brethren are not a company, partly slain, partly left, but a distinct class definitely described whose case is ended.
This third allegation is sustained by a reason (assumed, as we have seen, without proof) that the remnant of the seed are a part of those represented by the man-child; and that, as we shall see, contrary to the word itself: thus confirming the incorrectness of the whole supposition. Because, if the man-child be caught up before this war against the remnant of the seed, it is clear that this remnant cannot be a part of the man-child, so previously caught up as its final reward. Now what does the word say? The child was caught up to God and His throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness. The order here is pretty plain, I apprehend: that these two events take place on the birth of the male child, He is caught up, and the woman flies. And in the order stated. Now it is upon the woman's fleeing into the wilderness, that the dragon proceeds to persecute the remnant of her seed. Now against this very plain statement of Scripture, what is the reason given why the catching up of the man-child is after the making war with the remnant? Simply that it must be so because the remnant is part of the man-child. Would it not be much safer to conclude that it is not a part, because the scripture places the catching up previous to the woman's flight, and the woman's flight previous to the war with the remnant?
But, further, deliverance from the devouring mouth of the dragon is not surely our ultimate destiny, nor catching up to God's throne either. It may be a general idea of glorious security and honour, but it is not what is anywhere presented as our ultimate destiny. As to our sitting on a throne (that is, on Christ's throne as a Son of man), this is an important point, because if so (and I have no doubt of the justness of the objection), the whole system of the writer entirely falls with it. For my own part, I am satisfied that the catching up of the man-child has no kind of reference to any final state at all: whereas it is assumed as the basis of the argument, and then the brethren and the remnant made the different parts which compose it in their previous condition. It seems to me that reading the chapter attentively would refute this. At least the basis of it ought not to be assumed, to wit, that the catching up is the final glory.
The fourth conclusion is a like argument. The remnant are assumed to be a part of the man-child, and therefore he cannot be caught up. The answer is, The scripture says he is. Moreover, the war of the dragon and the persecutions of the beast are assumed to be the same: or at least that the saints of God and the remnant of the woman's seed are the same, and the time spoken of the same. This may be, but it is a great deal to assume without any proof The fifth merely assumes what we have been discussing, and therefore I pass it over.
As to the sixth, I do not understand why it is said that the blood of these saints is mentioned (chapter 17: 6; chapter 18: 24; chapter 19: 2), and that the martyrdom of the first part takes place under her reign, part being under the beast's, when the passages quoted state that the blood of all the saints was found in her.
Seventh: I admit fully that the martyrs of the two last classes, though "they are such as have not been from the beginning hitherto," are the brethren of the saints previously at rest. But I would ask why it is said, "hailing the casting out of the accuser through the martyr spirit of those represented by the man-child." There is not a hint of this in the scripture. That, in general, God considers His saints in His judgments is true; but here, the casting out is attributed to another thing entirely -- namely, a certain war in heaven, whereon those above rejoice, because a company whom they call their brethren are thus delivered. Where we may remark that there is a company in heaven who can rejoice in this, who call these others their brethren. Moreover, if this were so, it seems strange that what delivered the one, if this were the reason for it, should plunge the remnant into war and persecution at the same time. And why "the morning star of their expectations"? "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down," etc. And, let us remember, that this proclamation of strength and power is consequent on the victory over the dragon, by which he was finally cast out of heaven. All the statements made here are really merely figures of speech. Again, twice it is repeated that the souls under the altar were long since martyred. Perhaps so: but there is not a word to rest this on, save the cry, "How long, O Lord?" We are also told, that the answer is given "to make us know that the former must wait for the latter." Wait for what? Not for everything clearly. For white robes were given to them. What they had cried about was vengeance on those on the earth: and they are told they must wait till their brethren were killed.
How "we come at once" to the eighth conclusion I cannot tell. I can only say, I do not see one word of the paragraph borne out by Scripture. They are, it is said, this, and they are that. But in vain I search why. The term virgins is clearly misunderstood. Believing a lie, and guile in the mouth, are hardly the same thing. And I would humbly ask how a remnant at the end are the first-fruits. Though there is nothing for us, in all this, still, the terrors of that day are sought to be inflicted on the soul,+ by being told that we should not be unprepared for all this: though I know not why, if there is nothing for us.
+It is worthy of remark, that wherever the New Testament speaks of latter-day trials and signs, it tells disciples not to be troubled, to lift up their heads, and so on. Let this be compared with the use often made of things with saints.
We are again told that the circumstances of the saints under the former of the persecuting powers were not so bad as under the latter. Scripture, I repeat, tells me that "in her was found the blood of all saints": that "she was drunken" with it. The rest of this page tells us that the chapters of Revelation before this chapter 12 are a preparation, by the display of millennial glories, and the judgment of the ungodly, of these precious ones for their trial. Is this the great object of the Revelation? That it may be so used I will not dispute. But is the church at large not instructed by these millennial glories? "The unnumbered multitude who came out of great tribulation, I consider to be the whole church of God." But why is the word "the" great tribulation, so much insisted on elsewhere, omitted here? But I pass over this.
But I must ask, Why is the woman the new covenant? Is the new covenant to flee into the wilderness, while those who are born of it do not, war being made against them? Or why is the moon (Israel) put under the feet of the new covenant? Or why is the moon Israel? or the crown of stars a heavenly family? There may be some elements of truth in all this, but a system thus arranged (might I not say, previously in the mind, and passages thus adapted to it?) cannot inspire confidence, when they are accompanied by no proof at all. And what is the meaning of the dragon's knowing how to cast down the saints of the heavenly places? The dragon does cast the stars to earth. Is he able to take Christ's saints out of heavenly places? And here, page 3, we find the contradiction too of the order on which all the previous argument of the tract was based; and the plain order of the passage, to which I already adverted, is recognised. The child is caught up, etc. "Next the woman has to flee." But then how is the catching up the final destiny of those who are persecuted after the woman has fled? or how can it take place after their martyrdom?
And again I ask, How do the saints ascribe this victory ("now is come the kingdom") to their brethren in the earth? They had overcome while he was not cast down. That was their victory; and a glorious one it was, to overcome by blood, and testimony when the kingdom was not come; but that is not what is celebrated here. That these saints overcome is clear, or they would not be crowned; but I see nothing at all of a company that overcame. Their brethren overcame; but they are spoken of as all other overcomers. Nor do they cause the accuser to be cast out of heaven. Nor is it said that they cause the beast and the false prophet to be cast into the lake of fire. That dreadful fate happens to them because they are found openly opposing and making war on the Lamb. No doubt they had sadly treated the saints in the way, and thus accumulated guilt on their heads; but the cause of their casting into the lake of fire was their being found in open arms against the Lamb. "They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb," is not said of those under the beast. See chapter 15: 2.
Nor is the difference unimportant. The saints had gotten victory over the accuser through that blood, when he was not cast down. That is very intelligible; nor is any other victory ascribed to them, unless we add victory over the fear of death: nor other instrument of victory besides the blood, but the word of their testimony. All this part of the statement therefore is unfounded too. When it is said that the church's faithfulness casts him out, I am not aware upon what it is founded. Christ's power casts him out; and I am not aware, save what we have already discussed, where its exercise is attributed to the church's faithfulness. I used to hear quoted, "when the Son of man cometh will he find faith on the earth?" The promise to the church of Philadelphia, which is connected with the promise of His coming quickly, is connected with a very different description of the state of the church.
The latter end of this first paragraph of page 10, is very strange. The accuser is cast out only by the flowing of the blood of the saints. No doubt this is avenged therein; but how does this cast him out? Or why has all the blood previously shed not done so? Besides, how is going out used here? Again, if this flowing of blood casts out Satan, how is it he makes it still flow when he is cast out? It is in vain to say, "verse 11, I consider, belongs to the whole company (I might ask, why so?) the others being in the first struggle though not put to death in it": because, according to the writer's system, they are put to death after the accuser is cast out, and that casting out they have obtained by identification with those who were joined with them in casting him out in the first struggle.
Lastly, we are told, "the view which counts those not of the church at all who are among the noblest of her sons, or if of the church, that their brethren will be caught up before their martyrdom, thus nipping in the bud the noblest ambition on the earth, namely, that of being of the company of those who, with their lives in their hands, go forth in testimony against earth's chiefest destroyers. This view, I believe, a more careful reading of this book will shew to be utterly without foundation."
Now all this may, forgive me the word, sound very well. But let us search the scripture as to this same period. Are not those who listen to the Lord's words (and I suppose these are the noblest sons of the church, assuming now that it is the church) desired to flee when they see the abomination of desolation, because the time of their testimony against the earth's chiefest destroyer is over? Are the disobedient then, who do not escape from the tribulation through the neglect of Christ's counsel, to be considered as cultivating a noble ambition? They are told to go forth from, not against, this chief destroyer.
But there is another difficulty. The writer refers to Mr. Newton's "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" as giving help on this subject. But a nipping frost sets in from this quarter also; because there we are taught that, during the reign of the beast, Christianity will be removed according to Revelation 12+ and Matthew 24 from Judea, and even from the whole scene of his power,++ though a few disobedient Christians may be found, and a new testimony, which is not the church's at all, will have been raised up, namely, that of the two witnesses who testify of judgment, not of peace, etc., and cannot give Christian blessings, nor Christian promises. So that the second class, which had the most difficult and so the noblest part, turn out not to have the testimony against earth's chiefest destroyer at all. Their brethren, indeed, Mr. N. will not allow to be caught up; but they are bound to flee, and the testimony is to be decidedly in other hands. I know not whether putting another testimony in other hands on the flight of the remnant be better than the catching up of the saints who may be faithful before the great tribulation; or whether it more encourages the noble ambition of the saints. But of this I am sure, "the more careful reading of the book" cannot sanction, actually nor morally, both these views; perhaps, as I fully believe, neither And let me be forgiven for saying that a more careful, humble reading of the book, with less of a system, would (at least so it seems to me) decide a good deal less and learn a good deal more.
+See "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," B.W.N., pages 124, 125. The whole subject of the man-child is interpreted entirely otherwise in the same work: see note, page 146.
++See "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," B.W.N., pages 148, 149.
I feel the spirit and tone of this tract to be incomparably superior to the others that I have read in support of the same system, but I find the same essential fault: a principle, deduced itself from a train of reasoning that has the support of the system in view, is laid down; and then, assuming this as a basis "we come at once" to a whole train of conclusions, instead of learning from the direct text of the word. And then something is urged that suits the natural and so popular feeling, such as here the noblest ambition of the saints, which I find contradicted in every way the moment I turn to the word. This carries away many. But where? A system takes the place of godly subjection to the word. And alas! this is suited to a decline of spirituality. As this becomes feeble, the exercise of mind, and the play of the mere natural feelings, become a necessary ailment. But to the soul, fresh in its spirituality, the word of God (and oh! how can it be otherwise?) has more sweetness in its least statements (for they come from God) than any indulgence whatever of the mental powers.
I know not what has led the author to publish this tract. For my own part, I desire the freest communication of the brethren's thoughts. It seems to me desirable. They correct and are corrected. There is more confidence and all are helped on. Still, where they are to be published, I cannot help thinking that what one would desire would be, either the fresh, even if imperfect, communication of powerful truths calculated to act by the Holy Ghost on the soul, or the matured result of spiritual enquiry. Such seems fitter to see the public day than every thought that suggests itself. At any rate, it will be owned that that which we publish, we should do so by the guidance of the Spirit of God. If it do not flow from this source, and if it be not done under His direction, it can be but the working of the flesh. I trust I have not erred against this rule in what I now commit to the press. In the particular subject which now occupies attention, I, for my part, desire the fullest publicity of every one's thoughts. Even in human affairs things generally find their level in the long run; and in the things of God surely their level in His sight.
I do not feel it necessary to say much on the postscript or last page of this tract. I agree that chapters 12, 13 and 14 are to be kept apart. It is indeed material to the understanding of the book. But I think it will be found that chapters 15 and 16 are a separate part too, "another sign in heaven." I do not see that the announcing the blessing first hinders the chronological order; and, after the general introduction of chapters 4 and 5. I do not see but that all is in orderly narration to the end of chapter 11. I do not exactly understand, however, how there is not particular difficulty in the order of this book, when three chapters in the middle are to be kept apart, the first seal is to be taken last, and the sixth seal, nobody knows why, is later than the seventh seal, and indeed, though in chapter 6, comes after chapter 19: 19.+ This seems tolerably intricate. Further, what is there about the tares in chapter 14? It may be so, but what proof have we? And, if so, does not the harvest apply to the same sphere of judgment, namely, the earth, as the vintage? But that upsets all Mr. Newton's system, referred to in the same page as affording much help: because, according to him, the harvest of Matthew 13 is of Christendom, outside the earth where the vintage of chapter 14 takes place. Again, is it in order without difficulty to have the great whore destroyed first as a moral system, chapter 17: 16, and then as a city, chapter 16: 19, and chapter 18? I do not see any very great difficulty in the order of the book myself; but surely it is not putting the first seal last, and the sixth after the seventh, that will render it clear and easy.
I think also anyone reading attentively Revelation 12 will find its structure not very difficult. Certain mystic characteristic personages are first given: the woman ready to bring forth seen in God's view and purpose as to her; the dragon; then the man-child (he who was to rule) being caught up, the woman is obliged to take the place of weakness on earth and flees to a place prepared of God.
+I do not see any possibility of connecting these two passages, or how chapter 19: 19 leaves any room for flight.
Then, verse 7 begins the historical part of the chapter from heaven downwards -- the war of Michael with the dragon and his victory over him. The dragon is cast from heaven to earth, and, he finding no more any place in heaven, they who belong to it triumph, and are called upon to triumph; but woe is on the inhabiters of the earth. Then we have the dragon's doings upon earth, in order to shew us specially the woman's place, and, historically, what drove her into the wilderness. She having escaped, the dragon goes to make war with the remnant of her seed, who, as I have said, are characterised as her seed (the dragon making his attack upon them because he was wroth with the woman). I confess I do not see a trace, either of the catching up being the final destiny, the man-child being a company, or the two classes being described afterwards as composing the man-child.
The heavenly history from verses 7-12 inclusive being given, the history on earth of the woman and the dragon is resumed, to wit, the woman who brought forth the man-child.
Regarding the reference to the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," I think it will be found by an attentive reader, that there is an entire discrepancy, on almost every point, between that work and the "Letter on Revelation 12." But I cannot enter into the detail of the comparison here.
The first grand and capital point is to have the end and design of God clearly and settledly in mind, so that it should be constantly before us as the key and test of all. For "no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation ... but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The divine glory is ever the end of all things; but I speak now of the effect of divine counsels in which God glorifies Himself. Now this is altogether in Christ, known in the various glories in which He is revealed. In the church the office of the Holy Ghost, who moved the holy men of old, is to take the things of Christ and shew them to us. Hence, though Jerusalem, or Israel, or even the church, may be that in connection with which Christ may be glorified, it is only as connected with Him that they acquire this importance. So of the word even of the Old Testament scriptures: they are all to make us wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. On the other hand, as it is evident that this alone gives, to whatever subject may be mentioned, its true and just importance, so, if Jerusalem is connected with Christ, with His affections and glory, Jerusalem becomes important; and I get in its connection with Christ, so far as I understand His glory, the key to interpret all that is said of it. It has, in the mind of God, its development in connection with the manifestation of His glory.
There may have been in the times of Israel certain manifestations of the governmental dealings of God, important for their faith and subjection to God by the way, which were partial accomplishments of such or such a prophecy. But these, though true, and though research may discover them, are, in a certain sense, comparatively lost now in the sum of the whole scheme of all which closes in Christ. It may be interesting and instructive historically, as regards God's dealings, to observe them in their place, but they become history -- important, interesting history -- not prophecy, for us.
The first point, then, important to understand is, that neither the church, nor Jerusalem, nor the Gentiles, are in themselves the objects of prophecy, still less Nineveh, or Babylon, or the like, but Christ. But this is what gives us the true scope and intelligence of the real importance and place of each subject; namely, as Christ is to be the centre in which all things in heaven and earth are to be united, various subjects become the sphere of His glory, as connected with Him, and each subject is set in its place in its connection with Him, and by this connection I get the means of understanding what is said about it. Thus, if the church is the Lamb's wife, it is in this character and in this relationship I must apprehend what regards it. If Jerusalem is the city of the great King, it is in this that I shall get the key to the dealings of God with it. If the saints are to live and reign with Christ, and to be kings and priests unto God and His Father, here I shall find the intelligence of what concerns them in this character: not united with the Bridegroom, but associated with the King and Priest. And so of the rest.
Not only is this the only way of understanding prophecy as to the objects of it, but, the affections being right, the understanding is clear -- the eye is simple and the body full of light. I see with God in the matter, for He regards Christ; and thus prophecy becomes sanctifying, not speculative, because what it teaches becomes a part of Christ's glory for the soul. The importance of this cannot be well overrated. I ought not to have to persuade Christians of the truth of this; I gladly would of its importance. This, however, is the work of God. Objectively, I may cite Ephesians 1: 9-11 as stating this great truth according to the purpose of God.
I may now endeavour to present some of the main subjects or landmarks for the study of prophecy; that is, of the revelation of God's ways for accomplishing His glory in Christ. No present circumstances, note, though they may be historically instructive and also confirmatory of faith, can be the proper accomplishment of prophetic truth; because, though they may be conducive to it, under God's superintending government, and a lesson at the time and afterwards, they are not identified with the manifestation of God's glory in Christ, nor the immediate objects in which that manifestation takes place (for we are supposing things precedently accomplished). This shews that, in accomplishment, all necessarily is found in the actors of the scene at the close, when judgment will fully manifest, not in measure to intelligent faith, but by the public acts of God, what His judgment is; and as this judgment is on ripened evil, the full character of this (whose principles have from the beginning been working, been discerned spiritually, judged partially so as to stay their power for the accomplishment of God's gracious designs) -- the full character, I say, of their fruit will then be shewn, and God publicly justified in His judgment before all, as well as bringing in blessing, by setting aside in power the evil, and replacing it by His own reign in good. And this is the vast moral difference of our present state, as well as of true saints in all times, from the world to come. We have the power of God internally, through grace and by the Spirit, to make good the will and glory of God in the midst of evil while subsisting; whereas then, i.e., by the presence of Christ, the evil will be put away by power, and good be at ease.
The next simple remark that I have to make is that, though the relationship of heaven with earth may be discovered to us, in so far as heaven and those there are revealed as the established governing power (that is, that there are, in the seat of government placed above, objects of special revelation), yet the proper subject of prophecy is the earth, and God's government of it. Ant it is only so far as the heavenly company are connected with the government of the earth that they become a collateral subject of prophetic revelation.
Further, providence is not the subject of prophecy. By providence I mean the ordering of the course of all things by divine power, in such sort that all results which happen in the world are according to the divine purpose and will. Often inscrutable to us in its reasons and even the means it employs, and leaving the government of God obscure, still it is certain to faith, and that by which it remains true that God is not mocked -- what a man sows this will he reap. Faith will recognise the hand of God in many things, and believes it in everything; but to the world all of it is hidden. Certain principles, universal with God in their application, by this means are verified, as "righteousness exalteth a nation." The men of this world see nothing of the bearing of the moral causes on the effect, or, if they do see the causes, the result issuing thence is that they ascribe the effect to them, and God is shut out. His immediate action and government is excluded. Now the subjects of prophecy are the contrary of this. The public products of God, coming in in power, are revealed. They are either the day of the Lord, or the characteristic results which bring it about -- a judgment which man has to acknowledge as of God. Now it is evident that the day of the Lord, properly speaking, closes the history of this world; it is the opposite of that secret course of government which is carried on, and from the checks of which the pride of man rises again to pursue his course of evil. When God sets to His hand, the proud helpers do stoop under Him.
I do not deny that certain grand and remarkable judicial interventions of God are called, in a subordinate sense, the day of the Lord, in virtue of their practical analogy with that time of which it shall be said "the Lord alone is exalted in that day." But even these are in contrast with the course of providential government, which, in its very idea, does not interrupt but regulate the ordinary course of events. There are prophecies which may, to some, seem to refer to the course of providence, but these confirm, in a remarkable way, the distinction.
Take the ten horns. What is the providential history of these horns, taken as usually applied by commentators? Scourges, which continued some one hundred and fifty years, from first to last, working the overthrow of the Roman Empire, as previously settled, and establishing themselves as conquerors in all its Western territory. We may enquire, if done humbly, with profit, why this scourge was permitted. Whether it was the public civil evil, or the corruption of the church. What moral causes led to it. How it executed the moral judgment of God on the evil. Why the East was spared. How it led the way to a more terrible spiritual tyranny than had yet been seen in the world.
Take the prophetic account. A beast rises out of the sea with ten horns all full grown, after which a little horn comes up, and the beast, horns and all, are the subject of God's judgment, not the executors of it. This is prophecy; that was providence. We have what characterises the object of prophecy and its judgment, and the reason of it. All the providential part, out of which commentators have woven an immense system, is left out -- so of the statue. It is all there at once, the application of it to the empires given, the character of four, the closing object of judgment in the feet and toes, and the execution. Of the providential course of events, by which one takes the place of the other, we find nothing.
I have taken the cases which would seem to give the greatest room for it, and of which in this respect men have said the most. And with what result? Such that, if taken as a literal accomplishment, a child can see the discrepancy. What analogy between one hundred and fifty years' war to destroy an empire, and ten kingdoms, all in full energy and growth, arising out of it and forming part of it as the symbol of its force?
In the Apocalypse, before the end, we find summary judgments executed with progressive severity in the seals, trumpets, and vials, before the King comes forth to destroy the beast: judgments inflicted of God; but not, in Scripture, providential history. They are all proper immediate judgments, though they be but preparatory, and introductory, inflicted on either the circumstances or the persons of the men of this world -- on the wicked. The hand of God is seen. But there is no explanation of causes or providential course. We find their moral state, exceptionally, in that which they refuse to repent of in one case; but, in general, it is not the course of events guided by providence to order all things well, but the earth subject to the judicial vengeance of God. No careful reader can question this. The end of providence is the present ordering of God's government to bring about His designs. The Apocalyptic history consists of judgments inflicted.
Further, we may add, that providence is occupied in the daily discipline of the children of God. Prophecy treats of the judgments of God (removing out of His sight those whom He judges), and of the full blessing of His people. I do not think any prophecy can be alleged speaking of a course of events applied to His people while they are owned. The nearest approach to it is Isaiah 9: 7 to 10: 25; but these are inflicted judgments, and no course of providence.
Having thus spoken of the subjects of prophecy morally, I may turn to the positive subjects it embraces.
Besides the creation, of which He is the Head, in which we may comprise angels, there are three great spheres in which Christ's glory is displayed -- the church, the Jews, and the Gentiles. The church, properly speaking, is not the subject of prophecy. As to Old Testament prophecy, the New declares in the most absolute and positive manner that it was a mystery hidden in all ages, and now revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit. The church belongs to heaven, is the body of Christ seated there, and while He is so seated. Prophecy relates to earth. The church is viewed, it is true, when it takes part in the government of the earth for that reason; and the marriage of the Lamb and the description of the heavenly Jerusalem give the epoch from which dates the character of this relationship with earth.
In the New, the relationship of the church with Christ caused the Holy Ghost to remain in it, and communicate the needed light on its position while waiting for the Lord. There was no presence of God attached to formal institutions subsisting, to consistency with which a series of prophets was to recall a people (necessarily, while they subsisted, the people of God). In one respect, however, though the church was not the proper subject of prophecy, while it subsisted as owned of God, certain things connected with it are predicted; that is, its decay and corruption, as a present moral warring; but this passes into mere apostate wickedness, as a distinct object of judgment.
Hence when, as I doubt not, and as a vast number of Christians believe, the Lord would give a picture of the church's history as an external body in the world, in a state for the most part in which He could not at all own it as His heavenly body, He selects, with divine wisdom, seven churches which afforded the moral character of the states into which it would successively fall, and presses His judgments morally on them. But it is not made a positive subject of prophecy. Whatever may be our judgment of the subsequent part of the Apocalypse, which treats of events subsequent to the period of the seven churches, it certainly consists of judgments on the world, not of any prophecy of the church, save as stated at the close. There is the simple fact, that the beast overcomes certain saints, and that he puts to death two witnesses. No general prophecy of the church itself is found in the course of the Apocalypse. It was right to give these facts.
The reason is evident to one who knows what the church is. It is not of the world. It, as such, sits in heavenly places in Christ, where prophecy reaches not. It never will be established on earth, as the Jews. It is not its calling. The government of God will never settle it there in peace. His blessing for it will be to take it away from earth, to be with the Lord in the air. A partial application of the Apocalypse to what has the name of the church, but is the power of evil in the world, I do not deny; but this does not make the church a subject of prophecy. Accordingly, we find, as we have said, the church in heaven at the end in connection with the earth, when all is united in Christ; but no account of any dealings of God to establish it, or a progress towards a result of any kind. She is to reign with Christ, and suffer with Him.
The remaining spheres of the display of the glory of the blessed Lord are the Jews and Gentiles, subjects in different degrees of His earthly government, as the church was the full exhibition of His sovereign grace in redemption, which places her in heavenly places in Christ, that in the ages to come God might shew the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. This distinction is full of interest. Man is not governed in introducing him into the church. He is taken as a rebellious lost sinner, a hater of God, a child of wrath, be he Jew or Gentile, and set in the same place as Christ. This is not government, it is grace. The Jews are the centre of God's immediate government, morally displayed according to His revealed will. The Gentiles are brought to recognise His power and sovereignty displayed in His dealings with them. I speak of the thing, properly speaking, in its revealed character; for every sinner in all ages, is saved as such, individually, by grace, and every Christian is under the immediate government of the Father as of the heavenly family; but even so the object of government is different. With the Christian, it is to prepare him for heaven; with the Jews, on the contrary, it is to display God's righteousness on the earth: I speak of them as a body or people. Christ and the church suffer for righteousness, and reign. The Jews, as a people, suffer for sin, and the result of their history will be, "Verily, there is a reward for the righteous; verily, there is a God that judgeth the earth."
Further, prophecy does not apply to a state where God's people, responsible under the government of God, walk well, so that He can bless them as walking under His own eye in testimony of His favour. This special intervention, for such prophecy is, applied to the case of their failure. Hence, when Shiloh was overthrown and the ark taken, Samuel was raised up, of whom the Lord therefore says, "Beginning at Samuel and all the prophets." This character of prophecy is completely . evident in reading the prophets, who addressed their prophecies to the people in general. Indeed, its principle is evident. But, if they shewed the people their transgressions, they pointed out constantly the Messiah, the great Deliverer. Thus it is in Hannah's song (1 Samuel 2: 9, 10), where the government of the world by Jehovah in sovereignty+ and the exaltation of Messiah are fully brought out. So, historically, Samuel was raised up on the failure and ruin of Israel, and introduced David Prophecy judges the people in their responsibility, and announces the sovereign purpose of God.
+It will be well for the reader to consult this passage, which, as the introduction of the new order of Israel, gives the character of prophecy in a very remarkable manner.
But this leads me to note two characters of prophecy, arising, as regards the Jews, from two different positions in which we find them in Scripture: first, a people more or less fully owned of God (God acting amongst them on known principles of government); secondly, rejected for a time (the sovereign power in the earth being confided to Gentiles). This last period forms the times of the Gentiles.
For the moment, I confine myself to the Jews. God, while He could in any sort own His people, addressed Himself directly to them. Until Nebuchadnezzar's time, God's throne and presence was in the midst of Israel. From that period, the sovereign power in the earth ceased to be immediately exercised by God and was confided to man, among those who were not His people, in the person of Nebuchadnezzar. This was a change of immense importance, both in respect of the government of the world, and God's judgment of His people. Both lead the way to the great objects of prophecy developed at the close -- the restoration, through tribulation, of a rebellious people, and the judgment of an unfaithful and apostate Gentile head of power. However the previous relationship of Israel and the nations is not left out; but we must introduce another all-important point for the development of this.
Israel, we have seen, as between it and Jehovah, had been unfaithful, and Ichabod written on it; the ark of God, His glory and strength in Israel, delivered into the enemy's hand; enemies left in the land by their unfaithfulness. But God comes in, in sovereign grace, and raises up David, figure of Christ, who descended from him according to the flesh, king of Israel in grace and deliverance. Evil arising in his descendants, the major part of Israel revolt from the king of his family: two tribes remain, and to a residue of them brought back from Babylon, Christ is presented and rejected. Hence two things gave occasion to Israel's judgment -- idolatry and rebellion against Jehovah, and the rejection of Christ.
Having brought out this second ground of judgment, I leave it for the moment, in order to consider the former ground, rebellion against Jehovah. Israel ought to have been the witness of the blessedness of being in such a relationship with the Lord. "Happy are the people who are in such a case; yea, blessed are the people who have the Lord for their God." Israel, on the contrary, learnt the ways of the heathen; yea, became more corrupt than they, and the Lord allowed the surrounding nations to attack and distress them. This had its full development in the ten tribes; the house of David, raised up in grace, being for a time a stay to Judah. Though all the surrounding nations had their share in these attacks, the principal in result was Asshur. Accordingly, in the end, this power prevails entirely against Israel and overruns Judah, the Lord only at the close defending Jerusalem, where the son of David was a stay in righteousness. Still, if Israel had deserved all this chastisement, these rods of chastening had in their animosity despised the Lord, His people, and His throne. Asshur especially had exalted himself against Him that hewed therewith. Hence they become the objects of destroying judgment themselves.
All these elements are found at the close, though they have a partial historical fulfilment, Nebuchadnezzar executing the judgment at that time. The nations will overrun the country. The Assyrian, in particular, will be the scourge of God as an overflowing flood, and the double event will take place; first Judah and Jerusalem then (by an attack before the end+ -- proof of its application at the close) the whole people will be overwhelmed; but afterwards, when the true Son of David shall be there, and the land will be actually Immanuel's land, Jerusalem will be preserved and all these nations judged. Jerusalem shall tread them down as sheaves upon the threshing floor. These vast circumstances, under God's teaching, open out a vast mass of prophecies, of which Isaiah gives the most complete and orderly course, other prophets taking up divers parts of it.
+There will be two attacks. Jerusalem will be trodden down by the first; at the second, Christ will be there, and the judgment takes place. Isaiah and Zechariah are clear as to this.
But the family of David itself, as placed responsibly on the throne of the Lord at Jerusalem, was, we know, unfaithful, and the sin of Manasseh made their government insupportable to Jehovah. Judah was removed out of His sight, as Israel had been. But, then, what remained of the sphere of the direct government of God on a given law? Nothing. His glory left Jerusalem and the earth, for it had filled the temple of Jerusalem. (See Ezekiel 1-10.) This judgment then was of a far weightier character and import. It removed the government of God from upon the earth, and confided power to the head of the Gentiles. Israel was laid aside for a time. But Judah, providentially restored in a partial way, have Messiah presented to them, but, as we have seen, reject Him, declaring that they have no king but Caesar. This placed Judah under the Gentile power, not only as a chastening for their rebellion against Jehovah in the person of their King and of David's race, but on the ground of their own rejection of the promised Messiah and taking the Gentile for their head. This also consequently has its accomplishment in judgment in the latter days. The special Gentile part of it is scarcely alluded to in the prophets, who address Israel as more or less owned. It is the subject of Daniel, and we may add of the Apocalypse, for a reason we will add just now. Judah is seen in prophecy in the latter days under the oppression of the head of Gentile power, deceived by a false Christ, and oppressed. But God regards Israel still as His, having caused it to pass through the deepest tribulation. Those who, through grace, cleave to the Lord, call upon His name, and receive the word of the Spirit of Christ, instead of joining idolatry with the Gentiles and their chief, will be delivered, and the apostate Gentile power and the false prophet judged.
Another element introduces itself here. On the rejection of the Jews, as we know, Christianity came in. But alas! man was as unfaithful here as in Judaism. Early in the apostles' time, the mystery of iniquity began to work, resulting in an apostasy, and the ten kings of the Gentile world make war with the Lamb. In a word, a public apostasy in the sphere of Christian profession and the revelation of the man of sin, the open war of the beast and kings associated with him against the Lord, came in as an element of the latter-day events, completing the character and description of the Gentile power, which had taken the place of God's throne at Jerusalem, and to whom He had confided authority in the world. This, with its antecedents, is that which the Apocalypse furnishes of the prophetic volume.
The result of the destruction of this power, as well as of that of the Assyrian and other nations, is the establishment of Israel in blessing under Christ upon the earth, the throne of the Lord being thus re-established in surety at Jerusalem. The destruction of the Gentile power does not reach this latter period entirely. Hence Daniel, who treats of the period of Gentile power, never speaks of the millennium. He is made just to reach the deliverance, and stops there. The effect of the destruction of the Gentile power is to reunite the Lord, Jerusalem and Israel, and then comes the judgment of the Assyrian and the various enemies who have risen up against the Lord and His people. This brings in the full reign of peace.+ Their connection with Israel has led in many respects to the anticipation of what regards the Gentiles. However, it will be well to speak of them also.
We have a double character of the Gentiles in Scripture, as will have been already seen: their opposition to the people of God when they had this character, at least externally; and their pride, and rebellion, and oppression of those who had borne the name of His people, when power was given to them of God. The difference of these two states was great. Until the time of Nebuchadnezzar, various kingdoms and nations were owned as such in the providential government of God, though left entirely, morally, to themselves, their existence being the fruit of His own judgment in Babel.
+As regards Israel, the moral effect is this. In order to save themselves from the overflowing scourge, Judah, who had rejected Christ, will associate themselves with Antichrist and the apostate Gentiles, and even join in idolatry; but the scourge will for all that pass through. A residue, despised, suffering, and rejected, will recoil from this, own Jehovah, and gradually grow up into more light, but in the midst of such distress as never was. When all hope is shut out and the enemy is coming up again in pride, the Lord will appear and save them, and take them up against all their enemies. As regards the ten tribes, at least the great body of them, this will not be their history. Having determined to be like the Gentiles, God has not suffered it; they are not under Antichrist and not cut off in the land, but brought, like Israel coming out of Egypt, under God s rod, and the rebels cut off, so as not to enter. Israel and Judah will then be under one Head, Christ, who will gather from all sides any left in divers lands.
Israel was the centre of this general system, being owned as His people (known alone of all the families of the earth), the Lord having, in separating the sons of Adam and dividing to the nations their inheritance, set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. But Israel having failed in this position, and the nations, and especially Assyria, having been guilty of wrong, God judges them all, for "it contemneth the rod of his son" (Ezekiel 21: 10), and how should the rest subsist? The whole governmental order is set aside, and with Israel the independence of all the nations is lost; and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the dominion of Adam is placed in the hands of the head of the Gentiles. Of all these nations, which existed previous to Nebuchadnezzar (besides which Isaiah 18 refers to some unnamed people outside their limits, and Ezekiel introduces the northern Gog in his inroad in the latter days), the history and judgment in the latter day is given in the prophets; and they are found in one way or another hostile to Israel, and gathered against Jerusalem in the latter day. In general, we find Zechariah 12 and 14, Isaiah 30, Micah 4, and other passages, reveal the gathering of the nations against Jerusalem. But these passages reveal also that it is taken once, and a second time is not, because the Lord is there and defends it. The nations themselves are judged. In this the haughty pride of the nations is broken, as that of Israel (who, save the residue, have sought help far from God, and have been broken and oppressed) is brought down by their own trials. And, however the nations may have exalted themselves, they are found to bow to the sovereignty and power of God, and own that He is in the midst of Israel whom they have despised. Those spared of them will own Jehovah in Zion when He has appeared -- Zion established in peace by the presence of Jehovah.
Such is the history of the nations, as such, but the statue (or the beasts) is besides all this a distinct history, as we have seen, and also a distinct prophetic subject. Man used the power confided to him of God to exalt himself against Him, to oppress His people and trample down His sanctuary. Nor was this all: the last beast in particular imbrued his hands (vainly washed before men) in the guiltless blood of the Son of God, and thus associated himself with the apostate part of the Jewish people.
Alas! this was not all. The mystery of iniquity working in the midst of the church brought on apostasy there, and evil men, crept in, brought out the peculiar character of those to be judged by Christ at His coming in the last day. This apostasy gave occasion to the rise of the man of sin, the full expression of the wickedness of the human heart under the full power of Satan. Owning no God, setting up to be God, deceiving as a false Christ by signs and wonders; such is the religious end of man left to himself; all this associated with and maintaining the public power of Satan on the earth. Such is the last character of the power of the Gentiles where Christianity had been introduced. It will have at once an atheistical and an apostate Gentile form, growing out of and accompanied by apostate Christian forms. The last rebellious and self-exalting actings of power at Jerusalem will bring down ruin on the chief and his supporters by the manifestation of the Lord Jesus. Thereon will follow what we have already spoken of -- the taking up of royal power in Israel by the Lord Christ, and the destruction of all the enemies who will have gathered together against Him.
Here it is we find the church in prophecy. The marriage of the Lamb having taken place with the church already gone up on high, the saints come forth with the Lord on the white horse to the triumphant destruction of the beast and the false prophet. And then the church is seen in her relationship with the earth in blessing, as the heavenly Jerusalem: striking contrast with the corrupt and corrupting intercourse of Babylon with the kings of the earth, which ends in the nations and the beast hating and destroying her.
In this scene of woe, which precedes the destruction of the beast, we find in the prophets a remnant of Jews, who, in the depth of their distress, look, and learn more and more to look, to Jehovah, being animated by the prophetic Spirit of Christ and taught by it. To this the whole body of Psalms apply, giving us, besides Christ's sympathy with them, the various expression of it. Isaiah 65 and 66 dwell upon this remnant. One other circumstance must be noted here, of which prophecy speaks. Before the execution of judgment, there will be within the circle of special evil, and without it, a testimony of God. These must not be confounded. In the earlier half of the last week of Daniel, there will be a testimony rendered to the God of the earth. The beast, rising up in his last form, will put an end to this, adding this to his other wickedness, in order to please men and pursue his career of evil unchecked. During the last half week there is none, save the refusal to adore the beast. At the same time, there will be a testimony of the coming kingdom sent abroad among the nations, that all who have ears to hear may, through grace, escape the coming judgment. This gives occasion to the judgment of Matthew 25. For this the reader may consult Matthew 24: 14; Revelation 14; Psalm 96.
The result will be the full establishment of what was shadowed, or rather connected with the responsibility of man, in the previous condition -- namely, the full blessing of that people and the throne of the Lord at Jerusalem; but there is added what was shadowed out in the Gentile power -- the full dominion of the Son of man over the world. It remains to add, that Old and New Testament prophecy alike declares that Satan will be bound, driven from on high (whence he has corrupted even the good that God has placed in the hands of men), and from earth soon after. He is shut up in the bottomless pit, and the blessing of the world is uninterrupted till he be loosed again. Even then it does not appear that the saints will suffer. They will be assembled together apart from those seduced. The judgment of the dead follows, and the new heavens and the new earth, the mediatorial kingdom being closed and delivered up, and the family of the last Adam enjoying the full everlasting blessing acquired for them by their Head.
"Christian Witness," Volume 2, Plymouth, 1835.
I send you some analyses of books of prophecy, which I may be enabled at some future period, with the divine permission and blessing, to fill up with some further details. I feel this to be a more satisfactory method than framing any system which the study of Scripture makes me feel I possess. What does appear plain and distinct to me, I trust may be occasion of study and of information to other minds.
I would begin with Daniel. The book is clearly divided into two distinct parts. The former comprises visions and dreams of unrenewed heathens, or circumstances connected with their conduct. This ends at chapter 6. The latter consists of communications to the faithful prophet of the events in their moral character connected with the people of God; many of them in point of time, antecedent to what is related in the former part, but separated into a distinct portion or book of themselves, as having a specific character. Thus the visions of chapter 7 and 8 clearly precede in point of time the circumstances in chapter 6, or we might, I think, add even chapter 5. But they are revelations to Daniel instructing him in the bearing of the subjects of previous visions on the state of the saints. The former portion shews the history of the world in its outward character, its manifested forms, and the question thereon raised between their powers and God. The latter (as might naturally be expected in revelations to a prophet standing as the representative of the people of God) reveals the position and character of the agents in relation to the saints, their full moral character, and all that internal history in which those saints were most especially concerned. The latter part is from chapter 7 to the end.
I shall give the briefest outline of this structure now. We have then Daniel's visions only from chapter 7 inclusive; the former are facts, or the king's visions. But in the former we shall find distinct portions. Chapter 1 merely gives us the character of Daniel as separated from the pollution in which he was mixed up by the judgment of God on the nation; and the privileges of him and the three other children; and Daniel's continuance to the year of deliverance to his people. We have then, in chapters 2, 3 and 4, Nebuchadnezzar's history. In chapter 5, the destruction of the remainder of his empire, for the profane usage of what belonged to God. And then, in chapter 6 another scene -- the kingdom of Darius.
In chapter 2, the first prophetic one, properly speaking, we have the divine wisdom setting forth distinctly the man of the earth, in all his varied characters; beginning with, and represented by, the head of gold -- Nebuchadnezzar; that which attracted the attention and comprised the power of the visible world beneath. The destruction of this by the agency of power in its last form; and the substitution of that power which filled, not merely awed and overlooked as it were, the whole earth. Daniel's God owned therein in the acknowledgment of Him; as it is written, "that seek thy face, O Jacob": and Daniel's exaltation over the known world -- he stood there as the Jew.
We have in chapter 3 the general character attached to this period in the person of the golden head of the whole. It was connected with religion -- that was not left out. It was not merely secular power: and while the man was the power in the world in the previous dream, here is that which it did openly: the exercise of its power, or Satan's power by it would not be complete. It was not infidelity, in the common sense of the word, or atheism, but a compulsory religion; in which the power and will of this man of the earth was shewn, to which the honours of the state were compelled to bow; an image all of gold set up -- a most beautiful and gorgeous display, and calculated to attract by its own excellency, and illustrate the honour of him who had set it up. It was, however, an image in the province of Babel -- a furnace to the faithful: not however, I remark, to Daniel, who I believe to have represented the Jew distinctively, but those whose help was found in one like to the Son of God being with them in the furnace, while they were thus in it, making them free.
Chapter 4 states the external glory of a tree, the symbol of exaltation in the earth, which God had made to flourish; and this change takes place. Instead of subduedness and intelligence (to, wit, of God), there is given to this exalted representation of power a beast's heart -- ravening and ignorance of God, till they should learn that the Most High ruleth. That a man's heart signifies this quietness and subjection, is shewn chapter 7: 4. The result is, that those that walk in pride He is able to abase. Compare Ezekiel 17: 24.
In chapter 5 it seems to me (sorrow is it to think) that profaneness against God in a degraded state, will be the mark of final judgment on this apostate state of things.
We have then in chapter 6 another state of things entirely -- an utter open casting off of God; bringing Daniel, the prophetic representative of the Jew, into the den of lions. That which had taken the place of the previous state of things, seized on Babylon, but was not it, in its power or its source; openly throwing off God in folly, and thereupon the Jew made a prey, but delivered, and the everlasting kingdom acknowledged, and the princes taken in the net which themselves had laid. I do not excuse the Jews from the former similar case; but this seems exclusively and definitely to belong to them. The character of the apostasy is different. Darius sets up himself as God, or at least as alone to be prayed to, not setting up in his glory an image to be worshipped. Both perhaps may characterise, in some form, the apostasy of the latter day. This seems in all its character confined to it, and to make way for the everlasting kingdom. The King of heaven, the Most High, is the acknowledgment of the former; the everlasting kingdom of the living God, of the latter.
All these things are consequent upon "Lo-ammi" being written upon the Jews, and the manifest throne of God amongst the Jews, having ceased and been cast down. Then, I take it, the beast's heart properly had its rise. Man could be given up to folly, and Babylon become the seat of exalted madness and folly of heart: he might exercise it uncontrolled, save by the watchful eye of God ruling from the heavens; for Jerusalem was cast down -- the throne of God had departed from the earth -- His earthly care was now hopeless. (See Ezekiel 10: 19, and the reasons in the previous chapters; chapter 11 and the statements following to the end of chapter 12) Daniel 4: 30 shews what took its place; and then properly came in the beast's heart for the seven times.
We have now arrived at the second portion of the book, wherein their general characters and characteristics of apostasy are brought into far greater detail in connection with the saints; and the book assumes the form of regular though symbolical prophecy, being direct communications to the prophet himself. We had before the beast's heart -- we have here the beasts described.
But in this portion also there are distinct and definite parts: chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the end, are all distinct visions -- four distinct visions, as may be seen by their dates. However, we shall see there is further order amongst them. Chapters 7 and 8 describe the conduct and circumstances of the four beasts, with interpretation and prophecy added. Chapter 9 is the specific consideration of the desolation of Jerusalem, with its appointed time.
Chapter 10 to the end, what shall befall Daniel's people in the latter days, preparatory to this; as God had not taken His eye off them, and yet they were "Lo-ammi." The circumstances through which they should be passed until connected with the prince that should come, as given in chapter 9 at the close, are detailed most accurately and minutely in the former part of chapter 11 -- the real history, God's history, of what is given apocryphally in the uncertain books of the Maccabees.
Thus chapter 9 also, it appears to me, more particularly connects itself with chapter 7; and chapter 11 with chapter 8 -- the close of it, however, connecting both in "the king," and the king of the north, and the king of the south (the last being the conclusion of the whole matter). Thus chapter 9, like the judgment on Belshazzar, comes in, dividing the general history of the beasts, and the specific detail of the last climax of deliberate open apostasy. The king shall do according to his will, not regarding any god.
Let us turn back to chapters 7 and 8; and here I must remark as to what is called interpretation in the prophecy, that it is by no means merely explanation, but a use and application of some previously declared general symbol to specific results; often involving therefore material additional revelations, or omission of circumstances, not affecting those particular results. This we shall see plainly in those two chapters. I turn to their analysis. Chapter 7 contains three distinct visions, and then interpretations. The first vision is from verse 2 to verse 6 -- four beasts, but the description only of three (the last being reserved for a distinct vision). The second vision is from verse 7 to the end of verse 12. The third is contained in verses 13, 14.
The first vision sees the first beast reduced from violence to subserviency, and is so disposed of -- it ceased to be a beast. The other two are merely described. The second describes the fourth beast, its little horn, and the judgment of the Ancient of days upon the life and body of the beasts because of it; but only considered as between it and the judgment. The third is the subsequent and consequent giving of the kingdom to the Son of man brought before Him, with its character and extent. Verses 15, 16 contain the request for interpretation. Verse 17 is the interpretation of the first vision -- kings arising out of the earth, with (verse 18) an additional revelation, that the saints of high places take the kingdom. Verse 19 is the request of the truth about the second vision, with some additional character in verse 20 of the little horn; and an additional vision in verses 21 and 22; for it is to be remarked that, in the visions, the outward position of the beasts in the world with the saints, or their internal history, is not at all introduced.
From verse 23 to the end of verse 26 is the interpretation, with many additional particulars. Verse 27 gives the result of the third vision on the earth; but, being identified and involved in its causes with what precedes, it is given continuously. The interpretation, in a word, is the bringing in of the heavenlies into the subject, though only as known in effect upon earth; but attaching that name which implied the possession of heaven and earth -- the Most High. It has been already observed, I believe, in some previous paper, that this word, when connected with "saints," is, as in margin, "high places," or "things"; the same, I doubt not, with the heavenly places of Paul. I would also refer the Christian reader to Psalm 2: 4: to me it opens a distinct field in Revelation 13: 6. This is all connected with the fourth beast, which, as well as the first, was thus far previously passed over.
In chapter 8 there is quite a distinct vision. We have two active powers, with characters sufficient to identify them with the beasts, but given in distinct and peculiar forms -- their own actings to the exclusion of the other two. We are told that they are, the kings of Media and Persia, and of Grecia. The vision continues to the end of verse 12. In verses 13 and 14 there is testimony as to the continuance of a given point of it.
Verse 15. The prophet seeks the meaning of the vision. The vision is to be at the time of the end (the former part being merely designative of character, for it includes the first king); and the interpreter is only occupied in shewing as his object, what shall be in the last end of the indignation. This connects itself, in my mind, with Isaiah 10: 25. It appears to me, that the accomplishment of the indignation is a distinct thing; as the fulfilling or accomplishment of a storm, and the end of a storm, would be different. Having then identified the parties in verses 20-22, verses 23-25 give the account of the person who is to appear when the transgressors are come to the full; the people are to suffer under or be destroyed by him, and he is to stand up against the Prince of princes, but be broken without hand. In verse 26 the vision of verses 13 and 14, which was told, is declared to be true; wherefore it was to be shut up, for it was manifestly for many days.
It is remarkable, that in the vision there is no mention of the putting an end to the practices of the little horn. In the interpretation, no mention whatever in his misdoings of anything to befall the daily, or the place of the prince of the host's sanctuary, but he is to stand up against the Prince of princes. I do not mean to say that nothing has struck my mind in connection with these circumstances, but I prefer leaving them at present to the consideration of my brethren taught of the Lord. I would just add that in verse 11 "from him" appears clearly the right translation; and I confess I should read in verse 12 "a settled time of affliction was appointed to the daily." This I leave to better critics to enquire into.
On chapter 9 I have little to add, as a continuous prophecy, including petition and answer. Only I would refer to verse 7, that it involves all Israel as well as Judah and Jerusalem; so in verse 11, "Thy city and thy people," and the matter of supplication. I would only remark, how intercession in the time of intercession holds the expression, "Thy people" (as with Moses in the mount), in spite of Lo-ammi written upon them, or a broken covenant; but the reference is at once in Moses to God's covenant, not the people's: so here the confession is complete.
The answer includes, after the decree to rebuild, Messiah, the people of the prince that should come (i.e., the Romans), and I believe Antichrist+ as that prince therefore, and consequent desolations -- a desolator, till the consummation, and that decreed shall be poured upon the desolate. This is the portion of Jerusalem. Where defined it is connected more particularly with the fourth beast, but merely under the character "of the people," etc.
+[The author would now probably say the beast. -- Ed.] See "Enquiry as to the Antichrist of Prophecy," in Prophetic Volume 2.
In chapter 10 we have a much fuller account of all the doings of the ram and the he-goat, founded upon the statement that the full exercise of the angelic providential power of God was continuing for the Jews, for the purposes of God, however as a nation they might be tossed to and fro in the times of the Gentiles: the power of evil in Persia was contending against, and though the prince of Grecia should come, all his doings were measured and understood in the counsels of God; the difficulty was felt, but measured. Michael their prince stood with the angelic messenger in these things, and he was now sent to let him know what would befall his people in the latter day. The history is complete, but abrupt, whilst Jerusalem stands restored; all the actings of the kings of the north and the south are detailed particularly, but the whole scene changed by the introduction of the ships of Chittim. It was not as the former, or as the latter. Sword, flame, captivity, and spoil, many days await the people, though those that understood instructed. The sanctuary of strength was polluted; so they continued to the time of the end. Then one well known in Jewish history (i.e., prophecy), "the king," is seen in his wilful career, one whose character is infidelity, disregard to what is loyal to God, and the honouring a false god -- who that is we may well know. The previous powers of north and south shall push at and come against him: still he+ shall pursue his career, till tidings from the north and east arrest him; he shall come to Jerusalem, set up in blasphemous array on the mountain of God's holiness, and come to his end with none to help him. Here it appears to me both the parties we have spoken of before are brought before us; the prince that should come and the king of the north, and the king of the south, of the which, save the king, nothing is told us here.
But there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, and then every one written in the book shall be delivered; it is then Michal (leaving it previously to the service of angelic messengers, merely standing with them in these things in ministrations, counteracting and controlling the power of evil) himself stands up, in connection with the people immediately, for the people; and deliverance comes. Many scattered ones are brought in, and all receive their just place. I speak entirely of Jews, to which this prophecy refers. It is sealed to the time of the end; and again we have, not a vision, but a distinct separate account of periods connected with, first, the finishing these things when the scattering of the holy people was finished; and then, after further petition and sealing these things, the period from the setting up of the abomination, and till the blessing is told; with this word added, that the faithful prophet should in the end of the days stand in his lot, making known to us (i.e., revealing) the resurrection of the expectant Jewish saints; and though he told not then the precise times revealedly, he did tell that he should be then in his lot at their conclusion.
I remain, sir, yours, etc.
+[The author holds this to be, not "the king," but the king of the north. -- Editor]
The form of this pamphlet sufficiently indicates that I have no intention of replying in a detailed manner to Mr. Gaussen's book, nor of discussing the points on which there are differences with him. I do intend to shew that the bases of his system have no solidity, no foundation whatever. I believe there has been up to a certain point an accomplishment of the prophecies in question in the ages which have just expired. Circumstances morally analogous may be found in them, or at least systems and an activity animated by the principle which will have its entire development only in the last days. The word authorises me to judge thus when it says that there were already many Antichrist in the time of John.
I believe also that the irruption of the barbarians furnished the elements of that which by and by is to be the accomplishment of certain prophecies as to the Roman Empire; so that I have no desire to combat ideas a long time since spread abroad, and now reproduced, discussed, and embellished by Mr. Gaussen. But since the system of [Bp.] Newton and his successors, there have been different views published on several important points. If these views are not false, the reproduction by Mr. Gaussen of the old doctrine of Newton and others is but a step backward, a retrograde course calculated to turn aside souls from light that God has given.
However, though I do not accept the old system, I should not have been drawn in to contest its solidity by the mere fact that people have sought to support it with new arguments; I should have preferred to unfold the truth directly. Here are the passages which induced me to shew in few words the nullity of the reasonings which Mr. Gaussen has laid down as the foundation of the capital points of his system.
"Now it was very natural, as you will understand, dear children, that at the reading of such a lecture, the Christians of Thessalonica should imagine that the return of Jesus in the clouds was very near, that our gathering together unto Him (as St. Paul expresses it) might happen during their life."
+Paris, Geneva, and Montpellier, 1850.
With respect to this expression the most complete confusion is found in the ideas of Mr. Gaussen between the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, and the coming of Jesus from heaven to earth. The passage of Daniel 7 is applied by Mr. Gaussen, sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other, of these two things. (See vol. 3, pages 24, 26, 29-31, 157, 162, 165.) The confusion of the coming of Jesus in the clouds with the rapture of the church is also found in the book; so that these three things, the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, the rapture of the church to meet Jesus in the air, and the appearing of Jesus with all the saints to judge the world, are confounded together by Mr. Gaussen The practical effect of the confusion of these last two events is shewn in page 86, and also in 172 and 173. Here is a part of this last passage. "Yes, if the coming of Jesus filled with so much emotion a soul so pure, a man of so many prayers, a prophet so holy, to whom the angel said, 'O Daniel, a man greatly beloved' -- if the great Daniel saw this day with so much concern, twenty centuries before the event, what must it be for those who shall be there personally, who shall hear the trumpet, and see its brightness?"
Is this the Christian's hope? Nothing more opposite. I pray the reader to pay heed: it is of all importance for the system we are examining. What a difference between this language and that of the Saviour: "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also." We shall "go to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." "Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then also shall ye appear with him in glory." "We know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." "Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." "When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe ... in that day." But, however sad the pages of Mr. Gaussen may be, I bless God that they lay bare for him who loves the Lord the system he is supporting.
'Hence it is that the apostle, learning that in fact such was their mistake, hastens to write a second epistle to them, in which he tells us the first words this dear child has just read to us': "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." 'Here again, dear children, a word of explanation. The day of Christ is always very near for each believer, since we are all at once transported thither at the hour of our death, time thenceforth being nothing for us, and a thousand years less than a day. But for the church it is not so. For the church this day of Christ is at a distance; and even in this sense the day was certainly many ages off from Paul and his contemporaries. You will understand then that this false notion of the Thessalonian Christians (who believed the church to be only a few days from the return of their Master) could easily, as St. Paul told them, shake their minds and sadly trouble their faith.'
Pay attention to this expression ["transported thither at the hour of death"], which neutralises wholly the force of the phrase, "The day of Christ." It is also found again in page 173. Assuredly, at the hour of death, the soul is not transported to the judgment of the habitable world, which is the scriptural sense of the words "day of Christ" (or "of the Lord"). I know not whether this goes along with the sad opinion of some Christians that the soul sleeps at death. Because it is said in speaking of the death of a man living in this world that he fell sleep, they have concluded that the soul sleeps in the other world. But these two things have no connection whatever. The language of the Lord as to Lazarus, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth," proves that it is only a question of his bodily death -- an expression of which He made use to explain it to His disciples. Were this idea true, the Christian would not be transported to the day of Christ. You have only to take a concordance and search the phrase, "day of the Lord," and you will soon see that it is God's judgment on the inhabitants of the earth, whether partial or find. Now for the execution of this judgment Christ must appear. But, when He "shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory." "Those who are with him are called, chosen, and faithful." "The armies which were in heaven followed him." Thus, we shall be in the full enjoyment of glory before the day of Christ. All is confusion in the teaching of this book on this point.
Besides, Mr. Gaussen tells us that the reading of the first inspired letter of the apostle made the Thessalonians fall into an error. I will not characterise this reasoning: but there is no room at all for such a supposition. The apostle attributes this error (which besides was quite another thing from what Mr. Gaussen says) to deceivers and to a pretended letter. Mr. Gaussen has here abandoned the version of Lausanne, which renders the sense correctly ("the day of Christ was there"), to adopt the word "at hand." Now the Greek word (enestecke) is always, without exception, employed in the New Testament for a thing present, and even in contrast with things to come. The translation which says "is there" (present) is good; that which says "is at hand" is false.
The deceivers troubled the Thessalonians by affirming that the day of the Lord was come -- probably (see 2 Thessalonians 1) taking advantage of the violent persecutions which had fallen on the church in Thessalonica, and certainly pretending that they had inspiration, the word, and even a letter of the apostle's to confirm what they alleged. The apostle gives two reasons wherefore that terrible day could not be there. The first is our gathering together to Christ. The rapture of the church had not yet taken place. We shall be in heaven before that day arrives -- a truth taught in the clearest way in the word to which we shall recur. The second is, that the object of the judgment was not yet there, and consequently the judgment could not possibly take place.
Here are proofs in support of what I have said. First, it is certain that the sense is not that the day is at hand, but that it is arrived. Here are all the passages of the New Testament where the word in question is employed: Romans 8: 39, where it is translated "things present"; 1 Corinthians 3: 22, "things present"; 1 Corinthians 7: 26, "present necessity"; Galatians 1: 4, "this present evil age"; Hebrews 9: 9, "time then present"; and 2 Timothy 3: 1, "shall come" (i.e., shall be present or there). These passages prove, so as to leave no doubt whatever, that the sense of the word is "present" in contrast with "things to come." Besides, the Greek for "at hand" is another word. Mr. Gaussen in other places approves of the version of Lausanne: why has he abandoned it here?
Moreover, in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1 the true force of the word is certainly "we beseech you by" and not "as concerning." The English version, that of Luther, that of Geneva in 1605, Desmaret's Bible, and the Vulgate, have rendered it thus. It is true that huper in certain cases signifies "as concerning"; that is, it has almost the sense of peri. But it is unquestionable that, when it is employed with words of prayer and request, its regular meaning in Greek is "by," "for the sake of." No person who is at all familiar with the Greek tongue, or who is willing to take the trouble of using a good dictionary, would deny it. Here then is the passage in its true force: "Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present. Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because [it will not be] unless the apostasy have first come and the man of sin have been revealed," etc. That is, the apostle gives two reasons why they should not believe that the day of the Lord was come: first, the rapture of the saints is not yet; and secondly, the object of the judgment is not revealed. It is this passage which, twenty years ago, made me understand the rapture of the saints before -- perhaps a considerable time before -- the day of the Lord (that is, before the judgment of the living.)
I add what is found at bottom of the last column of the Pentables. "After Babylon has been burnt by the ten kings, and the ten kings themselves, the beast and the false prophet have been judged in their turn, then comes the first resurrection; the saints reign with Christ a thousand years." Then again the third column, under the title of "Eternal Monarchy," says: "The stone, after smiting the image, becomes a great mountain, and fills the whole earth"; and on the mount in, in the engraving which accompanies this passage, we find inscribed -- "the church."
Such are the passages which, with many other similar ones, have induced me to bring out the utter want of foundation which distinguishes Mr. Gaussen's book. I do not reason upon the passages themselves. It is evident that the object of the first is to hinder souls from waiting for the Lord, to destroy the waiting for Him, as a practical truth. The present and practical waiting for the Lord, according to Mr. Gaussen, was nothing but a false notion of the Thessalonians: "For the church, thus day of Christ is at a distance." Paul had said, "We, the living." And it was quite natural they should be led into error by the inspired epistle which he had written to them.
It is true that those words "we, the living," had naturally thus effect, to lead them to await the Saviour continually. That this was an evil is the very thing I question, for they had "turned to God" "to wait for his Son from heaven." But my only answer to such reasoning is this: It is certain that it is not to this that the apostle attributes their error; neither was it this error which he feared for them. Whatever might be their error, the apostle attributes it to a source totally distinct from his own epistle, namely, to the seduction of other persons, who alleged inspiration, and pretended to have the apostle's authority in a letter, he says, "as [if it were] by us"; so that the real source of the error was not the true epistle of the apostle, nor his words, but those of some seducer and a pretended epistle. Mr. Gaussen attributes their error to the first epistle, which, he says, would naturally enough produce it. The apostle attributes it to a false epistle.
Mr. Gaussen mistakes again when he says that time is no longer an object with those who are asleep in Jesus. The souls under the altar say, "How long, O Lord, dost thou not avenge ...?" "And it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little season."
But I will not notice all that is to be found in this passage: it contains nearly as many ungrounded assertions as it does phrases. My object in quoting it is to shew why I make these remarks. It is this: one main design of Mr. Gaussen's book is to make people believe that the day of the Lord is at a distance for the church, by varnishing over a very old system, and carefully confounding the hope of the church with the day of Christ. I confess I do not understand the difference between this and "My lord delayeth his coming." If there be any, I should be very happy to learn. Let us come to the proofs which the author gives of his system.
With the design I have pointed out, Mr. Gaussen seeks to shew that it is a question of papal succession in the little horn of Daniel 7 and in other passages. We shall examine in a few words the grounds he lays down for the support of his proposition. First of all, he will have it that it is a theologian king. It is on this he greatly insists, and, in effect, it is the main point of his system. Where is the proof of it? He thinks "to change times and laws." But why should the one who changes the times and the laws, be a theologian, or even an ecclesiastic? Jeroboam did change the times and the law; he was not a theologian. The French Revolution abolished Christianity and established decades in the place of weeks. Was that theology? This proof, which is the basis of his whole system, is no proof at all; it is absolutely worthless.
Moreover, to demonstrate that the little horn is papacy, he insists on this, that it continues to remain little as regards territory, whereas the ten others are great. It is the political side of the character of popery which he makes to be one of his proofs. Now, according to Mr. Gaussen, that little horn destroys or brings down three others, that is, three of the great ones, and appropriates to himself their territory (2, pages 26, 27); how then does it remain little? The proof that the passage applies to the civil character of the pope is null and void; it destroys itself.
Another main point for Mr. Gaussen is, that the twelve hundred and sixty days indicate a period horribly long, necessarily twelve hundred and sixty years. It is evident that his whole system is at stake. He repeats, even to satiety, that the time is horribly long. Now I open my Bible, and I find that, speaking of the twelve hundred and sixty days, it says, Satan, being cast out of heaven, comes down, "having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time"; that is, the Spirit of God tells me the very contrary of that which forms the basis of Mr. Gaussen's system. In another passage it is said that "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; this is said of that which, on our Saviour's own authority, refers to the twelve hundred and sixty days which follow the setting up of the abomination of desolation.
The reader will observe that I only touch upon the main points of the author's system The moral or civil character, and the duration of the horn, are the points on which his whole system hangs However, I have scarcely found in the book any assertion which has more foundation than those I have just pointed out He says that the fathers agree with him In what? Mr Gaussen believes that the horn is a succession of persons. This point is necessary to his system. The fathers believed that it meant an individual; and this utterly destroys his system. The fathers believed that the days must be days; Mr. Gaussen believes them to be years.+ They believed that the end was near; Mr. Gaussen believes the contrary. They believed that the man of sin would give himself out to be the Christ, not his vicar; two things which are incompatible, whatever Mr. Gaussen may say. They believed that he would sit in the temple of God, which he would raise up again in Jerusalem; Mr. Gaussen believes quite the contrary.
+Mr. Gaussen admits that this point divides commentators irresistibly into two great schools, radically opposed to each other, never to be reconciled, and differing from each other on every point. (Preface to Volume 2, pages 15-16.)
In a word, the principles of the fathers utterly subvert Mr. Gaussen's whole system in the points on which he insists, and on which he differs from the system he opposes. They only agree with him on the points which his adversaries admit as he does. All believe that the fourth beast is the Roman empire. All believe that the ten toes of the feet are ten kingdoms. All believe that the Antichrist will continue till the coming of Christ. The questions between Mr. Gaussen and the opposite system are these: Is the Antichrist an individual who will have dominion literally twelve hundred and sixty days at the end of times? or is it a succession of individuals, which will last twelve hundred and sixty years? Now it is this last proposition which is absolutely necessary to the Gaussen system (or, rather, that is his system). The fathers maintain the other, that is, the opposite of his. Their system and that of Mr. Gaussen are incompatible; they are antagonistical on his own avowal.
Besides, the word says that ten kingdoms are to arise out of that empire. But Mr. Gaussen tells us of enemies who attack the empire and take possession of it. They do not in any way arise out of the Roman empire. If one would consider them at a later period, when they have become kingdoms, his system of dates is subverted. I would here add that his reasoning on the date of the appearing of the little horn is also without any force. He says (vol. 3: 15) that it cannot have appeared later than the year 711, later than the time when the last three of these ten kingdoms were plucked up by the roots. But this proves nothing, because, according to his system, the horns which were plucked up by the roots have always been succeeded by others, so that there might always be ten vol. 2, page 190), and thus, at any moment, it might have plucked up by the roots three of them, without its being among the ten first kings who divided the empire. And so true is this, that the horns which Mr. Gaussen believes to have been plucked up by the little horn were all the successors of others which had already been plucked up. (See vol. 2, page 189.) This reasoning, then, has no force whatever; for if the little horn could subdue three of them, when two were already succeeded by others, it could do it when this had even happened ten times. The date then is worthless.
Moreover, enemies who divide the empire are not kingdoms which arise out of the empire.
Mr. Gaussen insists on this, that a horn is always a succession of kings; but it is no such thing. A horn is a power; sometimes, it is we, a succession of kings who have a moral unity. But this expression is applied to Christ. He is called a horn elsewhere.+ He has seven horns on his head, the perfection of power; assuredly there is no question of a succession in this case. It seems to me clear enough that, when it is said that the great horn is the first king (Daniel 8: 21), the application to Alexander personally is the thought of the Spirit. In 2 Thessalonians 2: 9 the words "whose coming," an expression by which the lawless one is put in personal contrast with the Lord, shew clearly enough that the object in question is an individual. However that may be, the assertion that a horn is always a succession of kings is without foundation.
Mr. Gaussen is anxious to shew that the true church is an invisible church. Such is, according to him, the true character and nature of the church of God, of the body of Christ.++ What is the proof of this? Here it is -- "It worships (vol. 3, page 257), as we have seen, in the inner temple": that is, that the state of believers, six hundred years after Jesus Christ (when, according to Mr. Gaussen, the falling away was already come, "the great apostasy, the all but universal apostasy of the Roman world," the place in question in the passage; when the little horn had established its power; when God had given up the holy city to be trodden under foot by the profane) -- that that state, I repeat, is the expression and the proof of the true character of the normal state of the church of God. How truly sad is all this!
+Mr. Gaussen quotes vol. 1, 133) 1 Samuel 2: 10; Psalm 18: 2; Luke 1: 69, all which passages prove that "horn" simply means power. In any one of these cases can there be succession?
++Here Mr. Gaussen places the words "the church of the elect" between inverted commas, as if they were a quotation from the word. I do not remember that there is such an expression in the word. Sometimes people add the word "church" to that of "elect." We find an instance in 1 Peter 5: 13: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you." But the word "church" does not exist in the original; and if that word were found there, it would hardly suit Mr. Gaussen, because it would then be a particular assembly which was elect. I must warn the reader to be carefully on his guard with respect to apparent quotations from the word, which are to be found in this book. Not that I have the least idea that there is any dishonesty on Mr. Gaussen's part; but having attributed his opinions to the word, he uses phrases, in the form of quotations, which do not exist in the word, as if the word said what he thinks. For instance, page 255 we read: "The mother of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and have made their robes white in the blood of the Lamb." There is no such passage to be found in Scripture. There are several passages tacked together (the words, "the mother," being added), which have no connection with each other, except in Mr. Gaussen's system. In the same page we find: "The apostle takes great care to tell us that the church has there a place prepared of God; that at a later time they should feed her there twelve hundred and sixty days." But the apostle did not say it was the church, neither did he say "at a later time -- two things without which the passage is of no value as a proof of the point for which Mr. Gaussen quotes it.
Moreover, the question is, for Mr. Gaussen's system, to apply Revelation 12 to the history of Christendom, and particularly to the time of Constantine. How does he make use of that passage? "At the time of the great red dragon, it (the church of the one hundred and forty-four thousand) was to bring forth a man-child, that is to say, a people politically and corporately united as a nation, and victorious over their adversaries ... when two out of the three emperors who divided the empire between themselves, Licinius and Constantine, published at Milan their edict of toleration, then, at last, did the woman bring forth that man-child, which was soon to rule heathenism with a rod of iron, and who is one day to govern all peoples. Nevertheless," etc. What can be said of a system which is obliged to rest upon such a use of the word, or rather, which is obliged to alter it in such a manner? The reader must remember that the passage of Psalm 2, which is here alluded to, is one of the most striking prophecies of the glory of Christ, when He shall rule all nations in glory, which the church is to share with Him (Revelation 2: 26, 27) in the age to come. And they turn this into an edict of toleration, "a people politically united"!
The reader must also remember that, according to the word, the "child was caught up unto God and to his throne." But even with that alteration the passage cannot yet have such an application; it must be changed. The passage says, "who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" -- one sole idea, for which Mr. Gaussen substitutes, "who is soon to rule heathenism with a rod of iron," and "who is one day to govern all peoples" -- two distinct acts. This distinction, which separates the government of all peoples from the rod of iron, deprives that government of the character which the word has given to it; and, besides, introduces two objects of the prophecy where there is only one, and two dates where there is only one. To authorise this last change Mr. Gaussen adds, "one day," giving these words as a quotation. And, mark it well, all this was absolutely necessary to the author's system; because "to govern all peoples" cannot in any way be applicable to the period to which he applies the rod of iron, according to the explanation he gives of it.
Constantine accomplished the judgment, of which Mr. Gaussen speaks, in the same year that the edict of toleration was published; whereas the people, politically united, has never to this day governed all peoples. Quite the contrary. The twelve hundred and sixty years of apostasy awaited it. According to Mr. Gaussen "the triumph was only for a time." Can one listen for a moment to such a system and to such reasoning? And, I repeat, all this cleaves to the root of the system. These are not accessories which one may lay aside, while preserving the system in the main. It is the system itself which is in question, and the system is found to be incompatible with the word: it mutilates and changes scripture. If one wishes to have an instance of the reasoning, one has only to read pages 257 and 258, where the author presents the Roman empire as sending forth the barbarians against the true church; but this again was necessary to his system of interpretation.
With respect to the computation of times, we see (pages 68 to 76 of vol. 3) an examination of Daniel 7: 12. In page 72 Mr. Gaussen says, "You will presently see that we can also, as to the little horn, draw a conclusion which will give us the tenth feature of its description. And here is that conclusion: it is, that its duration will be very long, horribly long." Thus (page 73) we see that the tenth feature is the duration of its life.
Now what is the proof of this capital point? It is that "a time and a time" form seven hundred and twenty years, that is, that the interval from the foundation of the Babylonian empire to that of the Roman empire; or, more exactly, a time is a season (that is to say, five hundred and forty years, taking a zeman for the half of a hiddan). But if it be more exact+ to say a season, and to take this word as the half of a year, it is clear that the other sense is not exact. But why do I use so many words? Mr. Gaussen makes use of the same phrase to mean seven hundred and twenty, and five hundred and forty years; one of these figures giving, according to him, the duration of the three empires, reckoning from the foundation of the first; the other, that same duration, taking as a date the siege of Jerusalem. This has the appearance of confirming one of these applications of the passage by the other; but in reality they contradict one another. If one be true, the other is false; for if the phrase means seven hundred and twenty, it cannot mean five hundred and forty. For the rest, it is certain that the word is not that which is elsewhere translated by "a time," and consequently that the computation is entirely false according to the author's system. He acknowledges that the duration of the three empires has been seven hundred and twenty years. But according to that interpretation of the word which is the most exact according to him, one hundred and eighty years are wanting in the passage which he applies to that duration; that is to say, that the passage is not applicable to it at all. There is nothing here but a false translation to support the author's conclusion as to the duration of the little horn; and what is the proof that zeman means the half of a time? There is none. Zeman signifies a fixed appointed time. Ostervald translates the two words together by "for a certain time." I have no doubt this is the true sense, and for my part I am fully assured that it is no question of the duration of the empires, but of their existence after the cessation of their imperial power. This is the sense -- very evident and simple -- according to the translation Mr. Gaussen approves, and which I believe to be true. Dominion is taken away from the other beasts, but a prolongation of life was granted to them; whereas the life of the fourth beast was taken away at the same time as its dominion. The beast itself was destroyed. This was not the case with the others: they still subsisted, but not as empires. But this I say by the way.
+Nevertheless, at the end of the volume, he allows the children to speak of it, as if there were two tunes in the passage (page 334).
I leave what I have said to the judgment of the reader who is taught of God. What I have to do with is the reasoning of Mr. Gaussen, who finds in the same words the figures seven hundred and twenty, and five hundred and forty -- a reasoning which destroys itself, and which acknowledges that the first figure is merely the result of a false translation. And this avowal overthrows the use he makes of the passage he is treating of, since, historically, one hundred and eighty years are wanting, so as to fill up the interval, the era of Nabonassar and Augustus. Thus every basis fails as to the duration of the horn.
Moreover, what Mr. Gaussen tells us appears to me to rest merely on a false idea he has formed of the use of the word "season" in English. It is used, indeed, in that language, in French, for winter, summer, etc.; but in English it has another sense, which is much more vague. It is used to designate any period; when taken alone, it is rather used for a short period. With an adjective it receives the sense of the adjective. The English translation used it in this passage so to leave the thing undetermined, as Ostervald (French) did. I do not, however, think that Mr. Gaussen would maintain that zeman signifies a season of the year: otherwise, his whole reasoning is without force. But what can one think of a system founded on a computation (the basis of all, mark it well; for these twelve hundred and sixty years are essential to his system) in which the same word is taken in two senses which destroy one another, and one of which Mr. Gaussen acknowledges to be false, whereas the one which he considers to be true makes an error of one hundred and eighty years, out of seven hundred and twenty, in the period on which he founds himself, as being, according to him, historically fixed? The fact is that, in Hebrew, the word has not the sense of any period whatever.+
+In saying this, I rely on the best dictionaries, without pretending to be a Hebrew scholar myself. It comes from zaman, which signifies to be "appointed," "fixed."
The distinction made, page 62, between "the duration of the persecution," and "the end of the power of the beast," is worthless, since it is said (verse 21, 22) that the horn is to make war with the saints and prevail against them, until the Ancient of days come and judgment be given to the saints of the Most High. Now I do not think that Mr. Gaussen will pretend that the empire subsists after the coming of the Ancient of days, and after judgment is given to the saints of the Most High. Thus, a simple comparison with this passage is enough to destroy another important part of this system. The persecutions terminate by the coming of the Ancient of days and judgment given to the saints. Besides, Mr. Gaussen formally contradicts himself on this point. In pages 181, 182, he applies the verses we have just quoted in the same sense which our reasoning attributes to them; he makes out "that the church is oppressed, until at last the time arrives when the monarchy of Jesus Christ and His saints commences on earth." In pages 181, 182, he says as much of the little horn, "that ungodly power which is to prevail against the church until the end of times." See also vol. 2: 4, the same thing. In vol. 3, page 234, Mr. Gaussen tells us, "It now then remains for us to see it again in chapter 13, under the decem-regal form, and in chapter 17, under the democratic form. It will be the time of the little horn." Now in chapter 13 the duration of the decem-regal beast is "to continue forty and two months." The little horn makes war with the saints until the Ancient of days come and (Daniel 7: 25, if the words are applied to the saints) they are given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of times. Mr. Gaussen tries to make a distinction between "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them," and "shall be given into his hand" -- an unwarrantable distinction, as we shall see, but which, at all events, does not remove the contradiction which I point out here. One has only to compare pages 62, 181, and 182. The distinction was necessary for his democratic beast, but it is evident that the little horn and the ten-horned beast go together and perish together.
It is well to pay attention to another thing; it is this, that the most important possible point is treated in the author's system as an admitted truth, as an uncontested principle, namely, that it is the church which is in question in these prophecies. Now many persons believe that it is a question of a Jewish remnant, and they quote the word to prove it. This is a main point. Mr. Gaussen does not take the trouble to discuss it. He keeps on this point an absolute silence. It is necessary to his system that it be the church; he cannot prove it, and he asserts it without any proof. On this subject Mr. Gaussen lays down a principle that is entirely false, namely, that God is leading the world with a view to the church. It is Christ and His glory which are the object of the counsels of God. The church will share that glory, and thus it is also included in the counsels of God.
But the difference is complete; because, if Christ be the object, the Jews, whose head and sovereign He will be, are the object of the government of God with respect to the world, and even of the arrangement of nations. "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance," Deuteronomy 32: 8, 9. Now, this revealed object of God's arrangements on earth is left aside, and the church, a heavenly people, is put in the place of Israel by Mr. Gaussen.
It will be understood that this changes everything in prophecy. For instance, the greater part of the prophecies apply to a time when Israel is more or less owned in their land. All this is left aside, and finds no place in Mr. Gaussen's system. Now, when Israel is owned, and when it is a question of that people, the church, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, is necessarily out of the scene. It is no longer a question of length of years, but of "a short work" of God upon the earth, in days, of which it is said, "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved" -- a passage where the Saviour Himself directs our attention to Daniel and to passages where it is a question of the twelve hundred and sixty days. This therefore goes to the root of the question on the point which is disputed between the two great schools. Mr. Gaussen entirely avoids it; even in his preface he already speaks of the coming sufferings of the church as of an admitted truth. The idea he has formed to himself of the church, becomes therefore a very important point to examine. Now, having left aside the Jews as objects of God's counsels, there remains in his ideas on the church a confusion one can hardly understand.
Thus volume 2, page 2: "The first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is the beginning of the captivity of the church under the first monarchy." Here the rebellious and perverse Jews under the judgment of God form the church. Page 4, he supposes that in Daniel it is a question of the destinies of the church. No proof is given. Page 12, "God was pleased to reveal to Daniel the history of the church." Here again no proof. In page 13, he makes of this a point which must always be borne in mind. Page 23, "When in succession He caused the kingdoms of Moab, of Ammon, of Idumea, of Damascus, of Assyria, to prosper and to fall, it was for His church." If I open my Bible, I find it is for the Jews and for His own glory. Here it is said, "the church," without proof and without taking into account that which is in the word.
"When He exalted Egypt to the highest degree of splendour in the days of Joseph, and afterwards brought it into the Red Sea in the days of Moses, it was for His church." Here also, we well know, it was for Israel.
Now, this confounding of the church with Israel, while deeply hurtful in spiritual things, becomes capital in prophecy; and all the questions which Mr. Gaussen treats of are connected with the solution of that one; because, if Israel means Israel, then the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel which he quotes have an application which he does not admit, and his system of interpretation, save a few analogies, is false from beginning to end. However precious the type which is found there as to redemption, does anyone believe that Israel was the church at the Red Sea? or that the fall of Moab or Ammon was for the church? Is it not evident that Mr. Gaussen ought to have proved that passages which speak positively of Israel, in the clearest and most simply historical terms, refer to the church and not to Israel, and the more so because a whole system of interpretation hangs on that question? All this Mr. Gaussen considers as admitted, whereas it is just that which is questioned.
Volume 2, page 50. The mountain, out of which the stone is cut without hands, is there "to figure the church of God, which will end by filling the whole earth." Here, first of all, the mountain out of which the stone is taken is confounded with the one which fills the earth, and both are called the church, not only without proof, but in spite of the passage itself, which says that "in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." Now it is certain that in no sense whatever was the church set up, nor began to increase, "in the days of these kings."
I pass on to volume 3.+ Page 3, "The little horn," he says, "is fatal to the church." No proof that it is so to the church. The importance of this application of divers passages to the church will be understood, when I shew how often, in a part of the third volume, that application finds a place in the explanation, which, in effect, depends on the fact of knowing whether it is a question of the church -- the point which is supposed from the beginning.
The reader will find this application of prophecy to the church in pages 16, 23, 28, and 29. In page 42 we find again applied to the church Psalm 74, which evidently speaks of the Jews, of the taking of Jerusalem, and of the havoc made in the temple on that occasion. See again pages 58, 59, 171, 181, 189, 191, 201, and 207. I do not go farther, because after that page Mr. Gaussen enters upon the explanation of the Apocalypse, and if I occupied myself with that, I should have to enter upon the ground of discussion, instead of shewing how the principal parts are supposed without any proof in support of them.
Now to omit the Jews, and apply all to the church, is to introduce complete confusion in prophecy. To do so, without discussing that point, is to build up a system without any real foundation. We shall see by some other instances, how few there are that are solid, among the things which Mr. Gaussen lays down as bases.
Already, in page 2, Mr. Gaussen supposes, without proof, that which is in question: "An ungodly personage, whose reign, of itself, will last longer than that of the three first monarchies put together." Page 4, when he says, "our days," he again supposes that the little horn forms a part of the history of the past. This is the thing in question.
We have already called attention to the assertion that "the horn" is a kind of theologian, since it pretends to "change times and laws" -- the basis of all, which he always supposes to be proved after this passage; whereas the proof he gives of it is absolutely nothing.
+There are many other passages, however, in volume 2 where the word "church" is used in the same way.
Pages 6 and 7. That the prophecy may apply to the papal system, the writer makes a supposition as to the extent of the evil, without I word being said by Daniel as to that extent. Page 7. The horn is called a spiritual power, which is the point in question, and that without proof. We have already spoken of the dimensions of that horn; we have only this to notice as to the chronology, that is, that to present, in order to fix a date, the ravages which overturned the empire, as being kingdoms which rise up out of that empire, is anything but satisfactory; and this is the more evident because, in the Apocalypse, the ten horns receive authority one hour (that is during the same period)+ with the beast.
Page 10. Mr. Gaussen says: "The ten first horns presented themselves to Daniel all at the same time, already great, and threatening, all in the midst of the foaming sea, in contrast with the little horn which came up afterwards." How can that be, if, as he says, it is a question of the invasions which begin in A.D. 412 and end in 526? How comes it that the little horn comes up in silence and under the most innocent, the most "modest," appearances, etc., if (page 22) it is to fill with noise thirteen centuries (that is during the whole course of its existence) -- if (page 27) it is always distinguished from all the other kings by its speaking great things?
What proof (page 11) that it takes its place "under the safeguard of the imperial power?" This is true of the pope; but what does Daniel say about it? We have already spoken of its increase -- another main point, and of the proof of its date (pages 13-15).
+Mr. Gaussen seeks, it is true, to distinguish these two things, and to explain the passage by saying that the ten uncrowned kings take that character of power, at the same time as the democracy. But one cannot understand how ten horns, which have existed twelve hundred and sixty years, take their power through losing their crowns by a revolution; and since that takes place in each kingdom, at a different epoch, it cannot be at the same time with the beast which is the unity of the Latin empire. Besides, mian horan (Rev 17: 12), being accusative case denotes time during which; whereas he de hemera (Luke 17: 29) ("on which day" or "on the day that") and Revelation 18: 17 ("in one hour"), have the dative case denoting time at which; whilst Revelation 8: 1; 11: 2,3; 17: 10, have examples of time during which (accusative) "about half an hour" -- "forty-two months" -- "1260 days" -- "a little while." (See the Greek text.)
Page 21. What proof that the horn receives its first power from the authority of the Roman emperors? If it is because it was on the head of the beast, that always remains true: it will not be only its first power. What Mr. Gaussen says is true of the pope; Daniel says nothing about it. Page 24. "Putting thus its own traditions." This suits the pope; nothing that relates to it is to be found in Daniel. "He will excite all the other kings of the Roman earth against the people of God." What proof? "It must be so" -- no proof even that the horns do it. It suits the pope; that is all. Page 35. Observe that Mr. Gaussen places the angels on the thrones, a thing unknown to the Bible, because if the church was seated there (a thing that is certain through the Bible), all his system would fall to the ground, since, according to him, the judgment is executed before the resurrection of the church. Now this last doctrine is totally inadmissible according to the word, as we shall shew; but if it were true, as Mr. Gaussen pretends, the church, in effect, could not yet be on the thrones. That is why he puts the angels there.
Pages 58-60. All that is contained in these pages is nothing but suppositions as to what the horn may be with the view of applying it to the pope, without there being found a single word which refers to it. The prophet's explanation tells us that the horn "shall speak great words against the Most High," and, as it appears, it is the horn+ that has dominion at the end. All that Mr. Gaussen says on this point, "We must suppose," applies no doubt to the pope, but it is quite different from what is found in Daniel.
In page 101 observe the conclusion drawn. "Before the man of sin was manifested, and, consequently, before the Thessalonians could see Jesus Christ coming on the clouds." Now it is certain through the word, that the Thessalonians, when Jesus shall appear, will appear with Him, will come with Him, because they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful. There is at the same time the confounding of the mystery of iniquity and the man of sin.
+Mr. Gaussen supposes, with the other commentators, that it is the saints who are given into the hands of the little horn. I do not believe this, but the times and laws. I do not believe that God gives His saints into the hands of the enemy. It is certain that it is the words "times and laws" which immediately precede that phrase. Times and laws are the ordinances or regular feasts of the Jews, and their laws.
Page 93. What is the proof that the man of sin is the little horn? It is included in these words: "That is to say," which are very convenient for the discussion of a main point. And then the children "will have well understood that as to the man of sin, it is a succession of men of sin" -- the least probable thing possible, since his coming is spoken of, as well as the coming of Christ. And where is the proof? Alas! one must be content with this: "Nothing is similar." Now of this I very much stand in doubt, and this is the reason why I find a false prophet who bears a much greater resemblance to this man of sin; and then there is also the beast that has dominion, and in Daniel it is the dominion of the little horn that is taken away at the end.
But I do not discuss here; I am shewing that the main points are nothing but suppositions without proof. I have spoken of the fathers, and shewn that on the very point which, by the avowal of Mr. Gaussen himself, is the main point, they are all entirely against him. I add here (see page 125) that a person cannot be vicar and rival at the same time. The fathers say that the Antichrist would hardly shew himself as being the Christ. For my part, I have hardly a doubt about it; but, at all events, they do not say what Mr. Gaussen makes them say (page 125), "the pretended vicar." They had about it quite a different idea, as may be seen by the quotations given by Mr. Gaussen himself. But the expression suited the pope.
Page 187. Mr. Gaussen calls Daniel 2 the prophetical map of the world, and tells us that the horn cannot merely have a very short duration at the end of times, because that idea stands in contradiction to the map of the world. The revelation made to Nebuchadnezzar says nothing about the little horn, and therefore discussions as to its date cannot affect the map of the world. That it may have come up soon after the ten, as Mr. Gaussen affirms, is a possible thing, but Daniel says nothing about it. We have already examined what is advanced to shew the accuracy of the dates adopted by Mr. Gaussen; we found it to be without foundation, and we saw that the ten horns, in the Apocalypse, receive authority at the same time as the beast, instead of overthrowing the latter. If the predictions of Daniel refer to the time when the Jews are on the scene, all Mr. Gaussen's system is thoroughly overthrown. Now the Spirit says so several times in the latter chapters of that prophet (see Daniel 10: 14; chapter 11: 14, 30, 31; chapter 12: 1, 7, 11), where it is a question of those numbers; and the Lord, in speaking of Jerusalem, refers us to the prophecies of Daniel, where those numbers are given us. I do not dwell at greater length on this; but one may see the extreme carelessness with which Mr. Gaussen quotes the word (page 205). It is a thing truly inconceivable.
Page 209. The rule as to the number seven, namely, that "it always exhausts the history of future times," is not exact. The seven vials, for instance, exhaust the wrath of God; but the judgment of the beast comes afterwards; for the marriage is after the destruction of Babylon, and the destruction of the beast after the marriage; and nothing shews that the seven churches go on until the millennium. The Apocalypse declares that all the prophetical parts are "after these."
Page 211. I find very sad what is said of Sardis. After Rome (Thyatira), Mr. Gaussen tells us, Sardis is the church which is reserved from the midst of the darkness of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; that is, it is the same period as Thyatira, where were some of those, whose last works were better than the first.+ This remnant, reserved, according to the election of grace, is, according to Mr. Gaussen, the church which has a name that it lives, but is dead, and this at the same time as Thyatira. Meanwhile, in this remnant according to the election of grace, there are only a small number who shall walk with Christ in white, as being worthy of it. Hence, if it did not repent, the Lord was to come upon this church as a thief.
+This interpretation demands that two very different states should have been presented by the Holy Ghost as characterising the same period -- a thing hardly possible. But it would have been too painful for Mr. Gaussen to admit that the state of death of protestantism is represented by Sardis, according to the system which Mr. Gaussen adopts, and which I believe to be true as regards the seven churches. Nothing more solemn than the manner in which Sardis is put on the same footing as the world. (Compare 1 Thessalonians 5.) I beg of the reader to pay attention to this; the contrast with Philadelphia renders the thing more striking. The energy which produced the blessed Reformation was a precious gift of God. But the seven churches depict to us, not energies which produce certain results, but the various states which followed the effect of those energies; for it is a question of the judgment of the Son of man. Now the power of the Spirit of God is not the object of the judgment of Christ; that which is its object is the state of man when he enjoyed that power. It is never a question, in these churches, of grace communicated. There 'are threats and rewards -- in a word, motives and responsibility. However, let us do justice to Mr. Gaussen, as regards Sardis and Philadelphia; he found, if I mistake not, this part of his system in Vitringa.
And wherefore all these inconsistencies? To make of Philadelphia the blessed Reformation. Unhappily (pages 230, 231), during this period the outward churches, official and visible, will be given up unto the enemies of God. Page 218 Mr. Gaussen tells us that the horse "is the historical sign of Rome." It is certain, according to Zechariah, that the horses are not simply the Roman empire.
Page 220. "Thus the Roman world henceforth will hold on the earth the place of the twelve tribes of the ancient people. The oracles of the New Testament will be committed to it." Add to this (page 221) that soon it would be the great apostasy, "which was to bring upon the Roman world all the chastenings revealed by St. John under the seventh and last seal ... . What will God do with His dear church, during this long revolt and these tribulations? We will answer: He will bring it out of them pure; He will keep it according to His election of grace. But, in order that this may be, what will He do? Listen, for this is what is told us in that admirable chapter 7, 'He will go and take His elect from generation to generation, in the twelve tribes of this prophetical earth, which henceforth fill the place of the ancient people Israel, for these twelve tribes here named are no longer Jews; they are, says St. John, men out of every nation, of every tribe, of every people, and of every tongue.'"
I say nothing of the idea that the oracles of God were committed to "the Roman world" -- Christianised. I say nothing of this, that the real twelve tribes were an elect people, and redeemed on the part of Him whose gifts and calling are not subject to repentance. I merely point out here the way the word is treated to be accommodated to a preconceived system. "He will go and take His elect from generation to generation." Where is this said in that admirable chapter 7? Nowhere. Quite the contrary; it is a very special period, where God holds fast the winds that may hurt until these one hundred and forty-four thousand have been sealed. Now, in order to adapt this also to his system, Mr. Gaussen affirms to us that John says they are people of every nation, etc. But John does not say a word about it. Having spoken of the one hundred and forty-four thousand of the twelve tribes of Israel, he says, "After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations," etc. That is, we have a multitude, which no man could number, of Gentiles, in contrast with an exact numbering of the elect of Israel. There is not- a word of what Mr. Gaussen says, but the contrary on every point.
And do you know, reader, why these elect are presented here rather than elsewhere? It is "for a most simple and most beautiful reason: it is at this period of history that God raised up the admirable Augustine." All this, it is true, is borrowed from Mr. Elliott, but this ought to have given Mr. Gaussen time for weighing such assertions.
Page 223. The one hundred and forty-four thousand "reappear from generation to generation in all the great scenes of the Apocalypse." Where? There is a mention of one hundred and forty-four thousand in chapter 14; but it is not said they were the same.
The reader will do well to notice the crowd of things which are supposed in these pages of Mr. Gaussen, of which we have just been giving extracts -- serious and important things, advanced without proof. The twelve tribes are the Roman empire; the one hundred and forty-four thousand are the church; and from generation to generation the church will pass through tribulations. I find, on the contrary, that there is a promise to the faithful of Philadelphia that they will be kept out of the hour of trial. But I do not discuss these points. I call the attention of the reader to these assertions, because, if they are not pointed out, they would leave an impression on the mind as if they were true.
Page 229. I leave the trumpet called Russian, since Mr. Gaussen does not explain it: only I would call on the reader to observe that these chapters of Ezekiel which, as commentators have remarked, speak of the Russians by their very name,+ apply to Israel and to the land of Canaan, and to them alone.
But, with regard to what is said in page 232, I have an observation to make. Mr. Gaussen brings in the killing of the witnesses at the end of the testimony of the twelve hundred and sixty days. It is well for the reader to pay attention here to the dates. It is not, however, of this that I would speak. This it is to which I would call attention: that, during the twelve hundred and sixty days of their testimony, no one could touch the witnesses: "if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies." They it is who smite the earth with all kinds of plagues. They are clothed in sackcloth; but they are like Moses and Elias How could they be delivered up into the hands of the beast and the little horn during that period, and be overcome by the beast? What is here said of the witnesses overturns the whole system. Mr. Gaussen avoids one of the difficulties felt by the other commentators, in distinguishing between the beasts. But he is in the same perplexity after all; because the horn is to have power over the witnesses, and the beast will overcome them, contrary to what is said here. I must add that I have no difficulty on this subject; for my part, I see two distinct halves of the last week of the seventy weeks of Daniel; and I think that it is in the last half week that this peculiar testimony is given.++ But I do not discuss here.
+The word in the Hebrew, translated "chief," is "Rosh." Its position, it seems to me, renders necessary that it should be used as being the complement of "prince" -- "Prince of Rosh."
++The phrase here is altered, as the writer then followed the division into two half weeks in chapter 11; now he sees ground for seeing here only the last, as in Matthew 24.
We have spoken enough of the reasoning of the writer on the invisibility of the church. I add, however, that it is rather singular that the writer should scatter in the outward court (page 240) and in the holy city those who worship in the inward sanctuary. I do not return again to the monstrous things which are said on Revelation 12.
Page 246. We have another proof of the fallacy of the system. The dragon is the pagan beast, according to Mr. Gaussen, but "one recognises it to be the same beast," he says, "by the duration of its war against the saints." The war of the dragon! Is it the pagan empire that persecuted during the twelve hundred and sixty years? This also, which we indeed find in that chapter (for the woman flies into the wilderness from the face of the dragon, there to be fed twelve hundred and sixty days), overturns all Mr. Gaussen's system, which brings in that period after the complete change of the dragon through Christianity;+ and not only that, but he makes his period of twelve hundred and sixty days to begin under the second form of the beast. The dragon has nothing to do with the twelve hundred and sixty days in Mr. Gaussen's system, but it is what he has in Revelation 12. That is, the system is untenable. It is in vain to say that it is the same beast. Observe by the way the uncertainty which reigns here. Mr. Gaussen says (page 248), "It [the empire has] nevertheless had emperors at the same time as kings, until the days of Buonaparte." In page 250, "The ten kings have hardly ever ceased to own a holy Roman empire." "One might almost say it has lasted till our day." He had positively affirmed it two pages before. But, elsewhere, he confesses there had been an interval of sixty years (vol. 2, page 255); and more positively (vol. 3, page 274), where it is said that it must perhaps be prolonged even two hundred and sixty-three years more.
+The woman should have clothed the dragon with a sheep-skin, or a lamb-skin.
But the conclusion on the subject of the beasts deserves a few words more. According to the word, the child is caught up unto God and to His throne; He is to rule all nations with a rod of iron. But (page 256) He rules paganism (that is, according to Mr. Gaussen, the dragon) with a rod of iron, already under Constantine. The triumph, however, is not long. The dragon all of a sudden becomes (page 257) the furious power of the Arians! Then Augustine prepares wings for the woman, that she may be in a state to fly into the wilderness. Finally, the dragon (pages 252, 253), that is, "in religion, a pagan and persecuting power," and with respect to the political side, the absolute power of the pagan emperors (say the imperial head from the third to the fourth century) becomes, after the second Arian attack, "the enemy of souls, making use of the Roman empire" -- Christianised -- "to cast forth after the woman the impetuous flood of barbarians." But the Latin empire (that is, the dragon, at the beginning of the phrase) swallows them up; they are absorbed into the empire, and are incorporated with it.
Page 270. Another passage is given as a quotation, with the expression "the church" added to the text of scripture.
Page 277. Mr. Gaussen makes of the destruction of the saints the source of the universal authority of the beast, adding, "as St. John says here, verse 8." There is not an idea about this in John.
Mr. Gaussen adds "semi-religious," in speaking of the character of the beast that is worshipped, whereas it is the second beast that is the religious party. He would only (page 214) speak of the empire, in contrast with religion, where it was a question of explaining the verse which speaks of worshipping the beast. And there, mark it well, the beast was the Roman empire under Justinian or under Charlemagne, who could hardly be said to have been objects of worship.
They have taken it to be certain that the twelve hundred and sixty days, and three times and a half, are necessarily the same period; but that period is the half of a week; and the question whether the two halves are not referred to, nor the possibility of reconciling the state of the witnesses in chapter 12 with the state of the saints in chapter 13. However that may be, Mr. Gaussen supposes the thing, and proves nothing. As to the empire, every one acknowledges it is the same.
Page 280. "An empire within the empire in the same countries." Why in the same countries? No proof. The Lamb was Christ. Why is not this beast a false Christ? When Mr. Gaussen attributes miracles to the horn, the word does not support him. There are only words against the Most High and persecution of the saints.
Page 282. There is something more serious which, when compared with other passages of the writer, demolishes the whole system of Mr. Gaussen. "The second" period of the empire of the Latins "continues to the French Revolution in 1789." "Yes, it is the time of the twelve hundred and sixty days, or of the war of the little horn against the church of God."
This is absolutely necessary to his system, because his beast -- decem-regal -- makes war during forty-two months, and the little horn during the three years and a half, that is, during the same period. Now the little horn makes war with the saints, "until the Ancient of days came," and, according to Mr. Gaussen (page 182), "this prophecy is there to tell us how will arise in the Roman empire that impious power which is to torment the church to the end of times." Now mark well that the persecution is attributed to the horn, and not to the beast, in Daniel 7. But this one remark destroys all the system of Mr. Gaussen, because if that horn, which lasts twelve hundred and sixty days, or three times and a half (the same period as the beast of chapter 13 of the Apocalypse), torments the church to the end of times, the theory of a third period of the beast under another form is imaginary. It was to take place after the end of times -- after the coming of the Ancient of days. Here then, in a word, the third goes on till the coming of Jesus Christ. In Daniel, and according to Mr. Gaussen elsewhere, it is the second. This is a main point, because it is a question of the identity of the period of twelve hundred and sixty days and of the three times and a half.
89 Page 284. There is again something very serious. The question is about the beast in its last form, and of its destruction. "The beast is slain, and his body destroyed; it is given to the fire to be burned. Then, immediately after, the Son of man comes on the clouds of heaven." Very well, we see now why it was necessary to confound the presenting of the Son of man to the Ancient of days with His coming on earth, in using the passage of Daniel, as we have already noticed, sometimes for the one, sometimes for the other. The doctrine here announced excludes the Son of man from taking any part in the judgment of the beast. He does not come upon the clouds till after that judgment. Daniel presents unto us the Son of man brought near before the Ancient of days to receive the kingdom. Mr. Gaussen alters this in order to make it to be the coming of Christ, and he quotes Revelation 19 in confirmation.
Now it is certain, according to Revelation 19, that it is by the coming of Jesus that the beast is destroyed. That He who is seated upon the horse is the Lamb is what is told us (chapter 17: 14); that those that are with Him are the saints is what is certain from that same verse. The marriage of the Lamb also has taken place before that judgment (chapter 19). In spite of all this, Mr. Gaussen puts the coming of the Lord, who is the One that judges the beast, in chapter 19, after the judgment of the latter. Chapter 20: 4 is a new vision, which introduces a new order of things; namely, the session on thrones, and not the coming in glory. Daniel 7 is also divided into visions, which begin at verses 1, 7, 13; and then comes the explanation: that is, verses 13, 14, contain a distinct vision.
What Mr. Gaussen calls anarchy (page 285), mark it well, is the effect of the judgment and of the setting up of a kingdom on God's part; it is the explanation that the Spirit of God Himself gives of what He says of the little stone; Daniel 11: 44, etc. That kingdom, which God sets up, breaks in pieces these human kingdoms; the ruin is not prepared by anarchy; the feet are smitten by the little stone, and all is broken to pieces by the power of the kingdom that is set up, and no place was any more found for that which existed before. What can one of an interpretation which applies this to a democratic anarchy?
Here also in the Apocalypse, there is no question of anarchy. The beast is taken and cast alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. Is this anarchy? Now that beast is, according to Mr. Gaussen, democracy, and it had not been judged before by another judgment; those who compose his army are slain; and mark well that it is the blow of judgment, given by the kingdom that God sets up, which is here in question, and which produces what Mr. Gaussen so unadvisedly calls anarchy. It is not a state of things brought on by political revolutionary movements, which prepares the ruin (see page 255); it is the ruin itself through the judgment of God. Is the little stone cut out without hands, which becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth, a democratic and revolutionary spirit? And yet it is this which will grind the statue to powder.
All the system is untenable. As to the rising up and movement of democracy, it is a certain thing; it has been known well enough for many years. But the system which Mr. Gaussen founds on this is entirely opposed to the word. That is not all yet. The beast is the Latin empire in its unity. This is what he lays down as a landmark; but here he abandons that idea to bring his democracy into action. The beast becomes the people. But it is the people under citizen kings in all the ten states of the Latin empire (page 289). The unity is lost. It is the multitude of the people become sovereigns, in every one of those kingdoms. This circumstance renders impossible the application of the passage to their receiving authority at the same time as the beast, as Mr. Gaussen conceives; for that reception of power is at about ten different epochs. Moreover, the Greek for "one hour" in Revelation 17: 12, does not mean at the same epoch, but during the same period. See, above, the note at page 121. But finally, what is the grand proof that this beast is the democracy? It is this, that the woman, sitting on the beast, sits also upon the waters. The beast is the people, "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (See pages 286, 295.)
These expressions are very far from giving the idea of unity. The expression "nations" and "tongues," does not shew the beast in a democratic unity or any other unity. But this is not all: we see in the last page quoted, that Mr. Gaussen grounds himself on the idea that the woman sits at the same time upon the beast and upon the waters.
Here are his words:
"It is the people sovereign, under kings delegate, who are deprived of the diadem."
"The angel who speaks to St. John."
"Rome sits on the beast; it is also said to be seated at the same time upon many waters; therefore the beast is the many waters."
Now Mr. Gaussen did not pay attention to the original text. By consulting it, he would have seen he was building in the air. The woman sits, "sits upon a beast" (Revelation 17: 3) (the Greek is in the accusative), and "upon many waters" (in the genitive). If I say that Antwerp is situated on the Scheldt, it does not mean that the city is built on the water, but on the side of the river. I suppose that Mr. Gaussen, when he has reflected, will not question that this is the sense of the passage. The woman, seated upon the beast and exercising dominion over the beast, was placed on the side of the waters, and spread her influence over peoples and nations, and this beyond the beast properly speaking.
That the evil of the last days is great is a thing I do not doubt. That the saints are in the tribulation I do not believe. Those who kept the word of Christ's patience will be kept out of the hour of trial which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, "to try them that dwell upon the earth." That those, whose portion is more or less earthly, should dread what is about to come, I understand; he who has his citizenship in heaven will not find it affected. Dread as to the future is not faith.
Page 304. In the text of the work we find, in a clear way, the contradiction which we have pointed out, and which affects the basis of the whole system. The writer speaks of the destinies of that little horn which was to torment the earth during the last two periods we have just been speaking of. But the first of the two, which lasts twelve hundred and sixty days, as well as the little horn, was to go on to the end, so that the contradiction is evident.
Page 307. We find here the practical effect of all this false system, that is, that we must wait for the Antichrist in order to wait for Christ, a principle which destroys on this subject all the moral teaching of the Lord, who always insisted on the constant waiting for His return -- a principle which confounds the judgment of the world with the blessings of the church -- which results in this, that the church, attached to the world, settles down here in heart, until the Lord comes, instead of understanding and believing, according to the positive declarations of His word, that, when He comes thus, it will come with Him, the marriage of the Lamb above having already taken place.
Page 308 presents to us an instance of a curious feature of this book. Speaking of the Antichrist it is said, "During which of those three+ forms have we also ascertained he was to live? During the two last ... yes; that is, unto the end of times?
What simplicity in the expression, "ascertained"! Is any proof given? Not in the least. To touch upon that question, when dealing with the third form, would have been fatal to the whole system. The thing is stated without going any farther. It cannot be denied that the horn continues to the end; but, in that case, the whole system is false, since the duration of the second form of the beast is identical with that of the horn. This duration is for twelve hundred and sixty days. And having glided over all that, now the thing is "ascertained." Compare pages 182 and 278, where we have "mathematical evidence" of that which overturns all that is said on the third state of the beast.
"How long was that war of the decem-regal beast against the saints to last according to St. John?
"And how long according to Daniel?
"Daniel says in his verse 25 that the saints should be given into the hands of the beast and the little horn, until a time and times and the dividing of time."
Yes, and after other proofs taken from Revelation 11 and 12 the writer concludes that nothing is better established than the identity of these two prophecies. Now, as we have said on page 182, the ungodly power of the little horn of Daniel 7 is to torment the church up to the end of times;++ so that the twelve hundred and sixty days go on to the end of times.
+It is well to remind the reader that Mr. Gaussen teaches that there are three forms of the Roman empire; the imperial period, which lasted up to the establishment of the ten kings, the period of the ten kings or decem-regal, say that of the twelve hundred and sixty days, and the period of the democratic form -- the last two being depicted in Revelation 13 and 17.
++It is well to bear in mind that the duration of the life of the little horn and that of the war against the saints are the same, and end at the same epoch. It makes war until the Ancient of days comes, and then it is destroyed, since the war of the horn lasts during the same period as the existence of the second beast Mr. Gaussen seeks, farther on, to avoid the contradiction between these truths and his idea of a third beast, by distinguishing between "made war with the saints," and "given into his hand." The little horn may make war with the saints and overcome them when they are not given into his hand, according to Mr. Gaussen. We shall deal with that distinction farther on; if the little horn and even the persecutions last after the twelve hundred and sixty days, the identity of the period with the authority of the beast has very little meaning. Moreover Mr. Gaussen deals with his own distinction in pages 72 and 73: "The war of the little horn with the saints makes in the style of prophecy a times, times, and half a time," that is, only lasts during the decem-regal period.
Now (page 308), it is the two last: the decem-regal form and the democratic form; "that is to say, thus unto the end of times."
We need only remember this to be brought to understand that what is said in page 318 has no foundation. For the rest, during the twelve hundred and sixty days that the witnesses give their testimony, it is not a question of overcoming them. They kill those who would torment them. These persecutions unto the end of times degenerate (page 319) into a "perhaps."
Pages 321, 322. Observe the pains that are taken to confound the saints of the Old and New Testament, and the way in which the portion of the church, which is to go and meet the Lord, is carefully set aside. Page 324, Here again the fallacy of the system betrays itself.
In the fifth place, it is "until the beast and its Antichrist are broken to pieces, and that the dominion and greatness of the kingdoms which are under heaven are given unto the saints of the Most High."
In the sixth place it is "this ecclesiastical power which, during the decem-regal period." One will recollect that Mr. Gaussen's democratic beast comes after the decem-regal beast.
Which of the two things is true? In both he speaks of the same thing, that is, of the little horn, as we see in the note added to the fifth remark and in the text of the sixth.
This complete and total contradiction, fatal to the whole system, breaks out again (page 325) in a way which only allows a feeling of astonishment that the writer could publish it. He speaks of Daniel 7: 22. "It clearly declares that the life of the beast, that of the Antichrist, and the war with the saints, continue till the coming of Jesus Christ, and till the reign of the saints. We must therefore conclude from this that this personage still exists in our day, and that the term of the war with the saints is not yet come." Now we read (page 282), "The second (decem-regal beast) continues from this to the French Revolution in A.D. 1789. Yes, it is the time of the twelve hundred and sixty days, or of the war of the little horn with the church of God" -- a war pointed out in Daniel 7: 22.
"The third goes on from this unto the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Which of the two, page 325 or page 282, contains the truth on the point?
Page 327. "In what precedes we were told of its great words; but here it is blasphemy, it is against the most holy Trinity." Where is that distinction found? Simply in the fact that Mr. Gaussen had himself given a very long explanation, of which there is not a word in Daniel, in order to apply it to the Pope, and "here" Daniel, or rather the Spirit of God, gives quite another one, which hardly leaves room for that of Mr. Gaussen. "We were told" is candid enough.
Page 335. Mr. Gaussen has omitted what alters all the value of the passage to attain the object in view of which he quoted it. The word says, "They ... of the kindreds shall see their dead bodies three days and a half," etc. They were not therefore at so great a distance. They of the kindreds -- it is the class; that is, they of that category of persons who were there. When it is a question of sending gifts, nothing is said of the time spent for that. However, I think it is simply characteristic. For the rest, there would be no difficulty. They will rejoice at it, when they receive the tidings, were it even at the ends of the earth. At all events, the passage is not what Mr. Gaussen says, and cannot be accommodated to it.
Here also Mr. Gaussen gives as being the word of God that which is not found there, namely, "Seal the vision, Daniel, for it shall be for marry days, and goes on unto two thousand and three hundred days." Now there is nothing of the sort in Daniel. The words, "it shall be for many days," are not thus connected with the two thousand three hundred days.
Page 335. "It shall be for many days." This does not speak of the duration of what is to happen, but of the interval unto the effect of the vision, as in chapter 12: 9: "Go thy way, Daniel; for these words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end [until the time determined]," or, according to the French translation of the passage of Daniel 8 which we are examining, "for it shall not be for a long time." There is no passage like what Mr. Gaussen puts between inverted commas. It is too serious a thing to say "An angel says to him," when the angel said nothing of the kind. What the angel did say to him is, "Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the last end of the indignation."
Pages 335, 336. Observe, as regards Daniel 12, which is referred to here, that the Lord, speaking of the times that are in question, speaks of Jerusalem, of fleeing into the mountains, of the sabbath-day, of shortening the days (but for which "there should no flesh be saved"); that is, what He says makes it perfectly clear that it is a question of days and not of years. If I am told, But it is a question there of the taking of Jerusalem, I answer in that case, It is a question of the same thing in Daniel; for the Lord says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet ... whoso readeth, let him understand." That passage, where it is a question of the abomination of desolation, is the passage where the three times and a half, the forty and five days, and the thirty days, of which Mr. Gaussen speaks, are mentioned.
In contradiction to what Mr. Gaussen here insinuates, it is certain that, as to the twelve hundred and sixty days, the oldest readers of Daniel whose writings we possess take them as days. Mr. Gaussen has already admitted this, founding himself on the good sense of the Jew Trypho against their opinion.
Mr. Gaussen tries to remove these contradictions about the duration of the persecutions of the little horn -- a duration which he declares to be of twelve hundred and sixty years (page 72); then (page 182) unto the end of times; page 282, until the French Revolution in A.D. 1789; page 311, making it the general duration of its life; page 324, a war carried on until the reign of the saints; in the same page, during the whole decem-regal period; page 325, the life of the beast, that of the Antichrist, and its war with the saints until the coming of Jesus Christ and until the reign of the saints. He seeks, I say, to reconcile these contradictions by saying, "It is true that they [the saints] are to be, in a certain way, given into his hands, but only until a time and times and the dividing of time; but the war and hatred will last until the second coming." But, further on, we equally find that, though the action of the little horn, as a wild beast, is transformed into that of the woman -- or court of Rome -- leading the democracy, the horn does not cease to act thus, just as the woman had acted before the democracy (pages 347, 348). Mr. Gaussen could not avoid thus modifying what he had said, because it is clear that the second beast, which he identifies with the little horn, perishes as false prophet after the destruction of Babylon.
But let us come to the root of the distinction. I have already called attention to this, that the application made to the saints of the words "given into his hand," is, I doubt not, both arbitrary and false, of which, however, others besides Mr. Gaussen are guilty. It is the times and laws that are given into the hand of the horn. He will think to change all that and will change it. But if we take the little horn according to Mr. Gaussen's system, the distinction he has made is a most unhappy one, because the witnesses, as we have already seen, are in no wise given into the hand of their enemies during the twelve hundred and sixty days, that is, during Mr. Gaussen's second period -- say that of the crowned kings; but, quite the contrary, those who would hurt them are killed. It is after having continued their testimony during that period without being hurt, that they are given into the hand of the beast of Mr. Gaussen's third period -- "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit." It is that beast which, making war against them, will overthrow them and kill them. They are given into the hand of the beast of the third period of Mr. Gaussen's system, and not of the beast of the second.
The description of the acts of the woman (page 346) is not in the least according to the word, either for the decem-regal period, or for the time that comes after. The horn and the woman are confounded without saying why. Yet the things are given between inverted commas as quotations. The papal system answers to what Mr. Gaussen says: but what he says does not at all answer to the word. It is the history of the whole book. The little horn, says Mr. Gaussen, has "two periods which St. John has clearly defined to us, the one in his chapter 13, the other in his chapter 17." "The little horn will always be on the side of the strongest." "During the polycratic period, it will, as much as it can, associate its power with that of the ten absolute kings"; it will exercise, we are told, all their power before them; Revelation 13. But during the democratic period, "it will make drunk with its heady wine the ten citizen kings, and will contrive to ride on their revolutionary peoples." That such, up to a certain point may be, the probable history of papacy, according to the Abbé de Lammenais, is possible; but -- to say nothing of the arrogance which we were told of elsewhere, which associates itself with nothing, but exalts itself above everything; not to repeat, what I have already called attention to, that it is not a question of their authority, of their presence, but of exercising the authority of the beast in his presence, which is quite a different thing, and that it is not said that it would make the kings drunk and would ride on their peoples, but that the nations would be made drunk, and that the kings of the earth would commit fornication with it; which changes every thing (a grievous thing when the word of God is in question), -- I ask, Who will do all that? The little horn, says Mr. Gaussen. But it is a question of the woman in those passages, and the little horn is not the woman. That horn subsists, according to Mr. Gaussen himself, when the woman is destroyed.
Besides, John does not speak of the little horn, whether in chapter 13, or in chapter 17. He speaks of a second beast and of Babylon; that is, the writer supposes (contradicting himself as to Babylon) the very thing he would have to prove, namely, that these two things are the horn, and he does so without any proof whatever. Then he says, "This double period of the little horn is therefore clearly established" (page 347). If Mr. Gaussen tells me, "But I have proved it by its duration of twelve hundred and sixty days, which are found both in Daniel and in John," I answer, That duration, if it proves anything, shews that it is impossible to apply to a double period of the little horn, for it ends with the decem-regal period. Moreover, nothing at all is said of the duration of the second beast.+ The only proof given is, that the fact of there being a woman, who is not the little horn, shews that the little horn will subsist during that second period, as that woman. And how are these things connected? Mr. Gaussen's ideas on the papacy alone form the connection.
+I have no doubt that the little horn exists at the same time as the beast of chapter 13; but I absolutely deny that the beast of chapter 17 is a form which takes place during a subsequent period. I do not admit that the woman takes the place of the horn. She is quite another thing. I do not admit that the little horn is necessarily the second beast. These are things which it is essential to prove in order to support Mr. Gaussen's explanation. He does not take the trouble of touching upon them. The duration of the horn, its dominion, its blasphemies, rather resemble the first beast.
For the rest, to apply Babylon to that democratic period, as characterising it, is an idea both unfounded and false. That the kings of the earth will begin to commit fornication with her, in order to restrain the democracy, may very well be. But in Babylon is found all the blood shed upon the earth. We have also in Revelation 17 the description of the beast from the commencement of its existence; and it is with the beast in its unity when it ascends out of the bottomless pit, after it had ceased to exist, that the kings receive their authority. It is not a question of an opinion, as Mr. Gaussen represents it, but of the empire, and whatever may be the political opinion and the woes which flow from the passions of men (the sober-minded Christian will acknowledge it), to have ascended out of the bottomless pit goes much farther than the revolutions caused by the passions of men. I believe that all these things tend to bring about the result; but the beast is always the empire, and not a political principle. "Was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" can be said of the empire, but not of a principle which is of the bottomless pit, nor of the peoples of different kingdoms under an influence. Babylon is the city of abominations, that is, quite simply, of idols; but it is not only during the third period supposed by Mr. Gaussen. The description is moral and general, without date. I do not believe that any allusion is made in it to democracy, when it is said, "Seven heads and ten horns," although we know very well that historically the strength of democracy has greatly increased.
And see how easily the writer's imagination carries him away. He says that those who, as I believe, form in the present day the great majority of the Christians who have carefully studied the word, have a veil upon their heart when they read both the Old and the New Testaments, like unbelieving Jews. Now, this judgment rests on a confusion which flows from his pre-occupations. After a long dissertation on the merchandise of Rome, which I leave to the judgment of each, Mr. Gaussen asks, "If the unbelief of the Jews is inexcusable as regards the Christ, will one not be able to say as much on the Antichrist?" It is somewhat rash to place the testimony rendered by the life and death of Christ on the same footing as his own reasonings on Daniel and on the Apocalypse. We forgive him also the charge of blindness, which one would have with difficulty forgiven in others. But I will make this sole remark, that Babylon (and the question here is about Babylon) is not the Antichrist. If even it were granted to Mr. Gaussen that the bodies are relics, and that one must be blinded by God like an unbelieving Jew not to believe it, it is none the less true that the Babylon which is referred to is certainly not the Antichrist. I could even question the solidity of a reasoning which would accuse the pope of a crime horrible above anything else, because he thought to change the Scriptures, while "holding nevertheless those holy scriptures to be the Scriptures of his God" (page 323), and which would prove at the same time that the pope is the Antichrist, because he regards no God. But there would be no end to it.
Page 361. I make an important remark here on a point which has given a false turn to all Mr. Gaussen's thoughts. "This image," he says, "is the key to the prophecies; it is the abridgment of the great plan of God's providence for the government of the nations." Now I affirm that whatever be the importance of the image (and it is very great), it is the very contrary of what Mr. Gaussen says, that is true. The government (properly so called) of nations on God's part ceases during the continuation of this image, although providence always acts. The image represents the empires which have subsisted during the period called the times of the Gentiles. God governed the nations before the image, having Israel as the centre and pivot of that government. He will inherit the nations and govern them after the destruction of the image. The duration of the image is the period during which Israel is put aside, and which is introduced by these words, "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all." Before that, there were different nations, the existence of which was recognised, which were the fruit of the judgment of Babel; Israel had been placed at the centre of the bounds of all nations -- bounds which were set according to the number of the children of Israel; and God, having set up His throne at Jerusalem, and built His sanctuary as a building set up on high, from that centre governed all nations in relation to His people. Now, finally He visited them in judgment, as He had done to Shiloh (Jeremiah 7); and when Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, His glory visited the city, shews the prophet the iniquity of the inhabitants, and then leaves it; Ezekiel I I. Instead of different nations, and a people -- a special nation owned of God -- where God reigned, He sets up an imperial unity in the hand of a human head, by committing unto him all that was recognised of the world, and by placing His people in captivity Finally, He gives up Jerusalem to be "trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Then He will again take up the government, in judging that imperial power which will be in rebellion against Him. But is the government of God on earth limited to the time during which He has given up His people (which He yet always owns) into the hand of His enemies, when His people are groaning in captivity, and when His holy city is in the hand of the Gentiles? Is the whole of prophecy included in a book written by a son of the kings set up by God, "on the throne of the Lord," captive in Babylon, fasting and presenting his supplications unto God, and praying that such a state of things might come to an end? Clearly not. The time during which God's people are in captivity is not properly the time of God's government; and a system which considers it as such, and which takes no account either of that people or of the mass of prophecies which apply to them, necessarily falls into that which is false. Daniel naturally speaks only of these times of the Gentiles. He belonged to that captivity, and God gave His precious servant the divine light which gave him to understand that God had not forgotten His people. But the most detailed prophecies of Daniel are given after the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, a circumstance which makes one feel that the true captivity, the times of the Gentiles, still existed -- a truth to which the chief priests put their seal, by crying, "We have no king but Caesar." Daniel confines himself to that period. He goes on till the judgment, by God, and His taking possession of the government; and there he always stops.
He never describes that government nor its effects; he remains the prophet of the captivity. Nothing more important in its place; but, I repeat, to neglect all that is said elsewhere, and to present, as the government of God, the period during which God has committed it to the Gentiles, until He takes it up again in judgment, on account of their unfaithfulness, is to pervert all the truth and all the force of the word on those subjects. In Psalm 82, we have an appeal made to God, that He may interpose by taking the judgment into His hand. I repeat then, all Mr. Gaussen's system is wrong in its first idea, in its starting-point. It is false, completely false. And the fallacy of his starting-point which leaves aside the Jews and the government of God exercised in relation to that people (a government left in the hands of the Gentiles in Nebuchadnezzar, and taken up again at the time of the judgment of the beast), gives a false turn to everything he has built up thereon. The times of the Gentiles -- times during which His people is rejected -- are not properly the time of the government of God, although in one sense He always governs. Certainly it is not such exclusively. The system of the nations, and Israel chosen from among them, existed until Nebuchadnezzar. It will be recommenced in a far more excellent way, when the beast shall have been destroyed. The interval is the time of the beast in contrast with the government of God. Therefore do we find the church, which is in heaven, placed by Mr. Gaussen, as the great mountain on the earth, in the Pentaples, column 3.
I have only two things more to call attention to, what Mr. Gaussen calls the rule of the two ends, and the end of the last column of the Pentaples. The first, the rule of the two ends, is this: The man of sin (that is, the little horn, which he has nowhere shewn to be the little horn) reaches from the time of the invasion of the barbarians, at one end, to the reign of Jesus Christ, at the other end. As to the last end, I have nothing to oppose; the little horn will be destroyed by the coming of the Lord. It is the other end that is in question. Listen to Mr. Gaussen: "The little horn was growing slowly, and with unperceived progress. The ten first horns had presented themselves to Daniel, all at the same time, all already great and threatening, all in the midst of the foaming sea" (page 10). How in the midst of the foaming sea? Historically, as to the dates, they were not on the beast when it came up from the sea. We must add, according to Daniel, that "four great beasts came up from the sea" (chapter 7: 3), and the fourth "had ten horns." Now, if the ten horns were in the midst of the foaming sea, they were on the beast who was coming up from it, already all there, and all great. Now, it is quite evident that the Roman beast did not come up from the sea at the time of the invasion of the barbarians. And yet the ten horns were all there at the same time, great and threatening. Besides, there was nearly a century and a half between the first invasion of the barbarians and the last. Nevertheless Daniel sees them all great at the same time. What consequence do I draw from this? That the ten horns are a description, without there being any date supplied by the symbol seen by Daniel. There are there, possibly, when the little horn comes up; but as to the moment when the latter shews itself, there is absolute silence on Daniel's part. The existence of the horns is not given there as a date.+ They are there on the beast; nothing is said of their beginning, nor that it is a question of their whole duration since they began, nor that the little horn began immediately after. There is not a single trace of what Mr. Gaussen advances. The chapter does not lend itself to dates, for the beast has ten horns when it comes up; they exist when Daniel sees it. He saw it come up out of the sea.++
+In the Apocalypse there is an element which overturns Mr. Gaussen's system, namely, that the horns and the beast subsist during the same period. But I confine myself here to the examination of Daniel.
++Mr. Gaussen makes this sea to be the Mediterranean, and sitting on the Mediterranean is, according to him, that which the beasts characterise. Coming up from the sea has no reference whatever to that, the sea being the multitude of nations. Now that is the only connection of the beast with the sea. To sit is not to come up.
If I examine the Apocalypse (chapter 13), the beast with ten horns acts during twelve hundred and sixty days; but as to the invasion of the barbarians which lasted such a length of years, there is no question of it. As to the second beast, which Mr. Gaussen, without proving it, pretends to be the little horn, there is no question of a date. So that there is absolutely nothing to shew that that beast -- and, in general, that the man of sin -- reaches up, by the only end which is referred to, to the time of the invasion of the barbarians.
Perhaps I am as blind as a Jew, but I do not even see in it the Pentaples to which Mr. Gaussen refers me (page 382). I see a frightful head, which comes out of the sea, with ten horns and an eleventh horn which is smaller than the others. But how does this plainly shew that the existence of this little horn begins at the time of the invasion of the barbarians?
In a word, the teaching of the prophecy does not bear upon any beginning whatever of the ten horns, nor upon a beginning of the little horn, at any moment whatever of the existence of the ten. There is a complete absence of proof. The little horn will continue till the coming of Jesus, twelve hundred and sixty days, and the beast with ten horns during twelve hundred and sixty days; but this only overturns the writer's system, because he would leave time enough for his democratic beast afterwards.
Finally (and this is the last point), the writer places the resurrection after the judgment of the beast and the false prophet. Here are the passages which shew this cannot be. 1 Thessalonians 4 teaches us that we shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air before He is on earth to execute judgment. Therefore it is not possible that the resurrection should be after that judgment. Colossians 3: "When Christ, who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory": so that we shall have been raised before He appears. Jude says, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints."
The appearing of Jesus is with all His saints, and, in Revelation 17, those who are with Jesus are "called, and chosen, and faithful." The marriage of the Lamb takes place before He comes on the white horse, and the armies which are in heaven follow Him, for the destruction of the beast. Mark well that the angels, although chosen and faithful, are not called ones. The connection which Mr. Gaussen seeks to establish between the church and these prophecies, is entirely contradicted by the word. Pay attention to this, reader, for it is most important.
You are misled by the book as to your faith: in it, the church is put out of its place. Its true position is denied. Had it not been for this, I would never have made a remark on Mr. Gaussen's system -- a system where an ardent imagination has united to the beauties of an attractive style serious errors, and thoughts which nearly all deviate from the word. I own that I find something very serious in the way of quoting the word, that is, in advancing things which are not there, with a "St. John says so," or "It is written," etc. In the beginning, I had no other idea but to point out the four or five main points which I have shewn to be destitute of all proof; but the importance of the questions, and the gravity of the errors, induced me to touch briefly upon nearly all the foundations which the writer has laid down. I have avoided all discussion of doubtful points. I have confined myself to shewing that the system has no foundation whatever in the word.
It is a mixture of a few elements of truth, already explained two centuries ago, with the most grievous errors, recently introduced in order to oppose the light God has vouchsafed to His church in these latter times -- errors to which Mr. Gaussen adds a few new and false elements, taken from the events of the day, clothing the whole with an attractive style, used to turn away the church from waiting for the Lord, and to confound the judgment of the world with our gathering together to Jesus.
The publication of the second edition of the first volume of "Daniel the Prophet" gives me an opportunity for adding a few words to what I have just been saying on the second and third volumes. Mr. Gaussen's remarks on chapter 11 make us understand more exactly what his views are on the ways of God at the end of time. I am only occupied with his views on prophecy. I respect the piety one meets with in this first volume, although it is wrapped up in such a mass of history and imagery, which no doubt have attraction for most readers, but which, at times, may tire those who look for biblical explanation. I leave to every one his judgment in this respect, and I only take up the interpretation of chapter 2.
The little stone, according to Mr. Gaussen, is "some feeble portion of the church of God, which will become the occasion of the ruin of the colossus, and of the coming of the reign of Jesus Christ." The mountain itself out of which it is cut "is the church of God, which has subsisted in all ages by the side of the image and before the image, but which is only then to obtain dominion among men." The first thing here that fixes attention is, that the stone, this "feeble portion of the church," is to be separated from the mountain by "the providence of God and by the power alone of His divine Spirit." This is singular, if the mountain is the true church which has subsisted by the side of the image in all ages. Why should this little portion be separated from the true church? But I let that pass. According to Mr. Gaussen it is the little stone which itself, at a later time, becomes the mountain which fills the whole earth. And as to the other mountain, what becomes of it? Do the separatists absorb the aggregate of the church? and do they, by themselves, execute the judgment?
But I leave all this. I only remind the reader of the remark already made, that, according to the word, the kingdom is set up in the days of the ten kings, and that assuredly the church was not set up in the days of the ten kings. And, pay attention to this, that it is the kingdom that God has established in those days which breaks in pieces and consumes all the kingdoms of the image. "But," says Mr. Gaussen, speaking of the little stone (without saying clearly whether he speaks of its existence, or of its work of destruction), "it will begin in the toes of the image." How will it begin? The stone was cut, without hands, out of the mountain which was by the side of the image. The stone was not in the image; it did not come out of it, and formed no part of it. It smote the image and broke it to pieces. What was it then that began?
But see in what way Mr. Gaussen has changed according to his fancy that which the word says. "It will begin in this way; true Christians will never rise up against the powers that be. But if any one of the children of men is unfortunate enough to rise up against the church of Jesus Christ, sooner or later he will there destroy himself;+ if he will seek to break it to pieces, certainly he will there break himself to pieces ... . It is thus, dear children, that in the last days the church will break to pieces its adversaries; it will overcome by the blood of the Lamb, as it is written; 'it will overcome through the patience and through the faith of the saints.'" So that this terrible blow of the little stone, which grinds to powder the image and utterly destroys it, is an attack of one part of the image against the church, which will overcome through patience. Is this a serious interpretation of the word of God?
"Finally," says Mr. Gaussen, "the following are the immense results of this awful collision. One of the kings or several of the kings that belong to the Latin Church, angry with a certain portion of the people of God, will seek to crush it; but they will be broken to pieces like the chaff," etc. "There will remain nothing but their dust, nothing but a frightful anarchy; the complete and universal breaking up of all the governments and powers that are will begin in the toes of the image" "In the midst of that frightful trouble one will see this little stone growing, growing, growing, by the power of God. Some time later it will have become a great mountain; and still later it will finally fill the whole earth." After these ideas of Mr. Gaussen, I take the liberty of presenting the word of God:
+It is also remarkable enough that the Lord Himself speaks of the two things, that is, the result of falling on the stone, and the falling of the stone on any one, placing them in contrast. He says, "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." So that the teaching of the Lord places what is in question in the passage of Daniel, in contrast with the application Mr. Gaussen gives of it.
"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."
Do we find there one single idea which resembles those of Mr. Gaussen? Do the toes attack the stone? Does the stone manifest the Christian mildness and patience which bears with the evil? Is it not quite evident that the word of God speaks the very contrary of what Mr. Gaussen says? Is it not evident that the time of patience is ended, when the stone acts and when the time of the judgment is come? Is it not clear that the blow from the stone is, above all, a judgment which utterly destroys every trace of the kingdoms of the image? Is it not evident that it is the only thing which the little stone does, and that it is after this has been done that it fills the whole earth? Is it in the midst of anarchy that it grows? All Mr. Gaussen's system is only an endeavour which tends to substitute its own ideas in the place of the testimony of the word.
Reflect well upon it, reader; I say it seriously. That explanation presents to us, perhaps, the expectation of Mr. Gaussen in the year 1837; but not one single thought of the passage in Daniel. And remark how carefully Christ is excluded from this judgment. "Thou wilt fill the earth, O church of my Saviour. This work of the little stone will become the occasion of the coming of the reign of Jesus Christ." Will He not then come Himself to execute the judgment? Let us examine what is said by other passages of the word. Will there be "an anarchy, a complete breaking up of all governments," before His arrival? By no means.
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour [during the same period] with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." There will be no anarchy there, no breaking up of governments, before the Lamb comes. And how then are they broken to pieces? The word relates to us the accomplishment of the judgment, of that victory of which the passage just quoted has spoken to us. "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called, The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Is that a feeble portion of the church, which overcomes through patience? And yet there cannot be two judgments of the same kind, for the blow from the little stone consumes the kingdoms, so that no place is found for them.
Finally, here is the judgment itself:
"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."
Who is it that executes the judgment? The kings, smitten by the stone, are found here. Their power is not yet carried away like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors. Is it against the church on earth that they are making war? Read also the end of chapter 14. Who is it that treads the winepress of the wrath of God, so that His vesture is dipped in blood? Read also Isaiah 63, and you will see who it is that is come from Edom, with garments dyed with red, after having been alone, as to the peoples of the world, to tread the winepress.
I have already called attention to the manner in which Mr. Gaussen excludes Christ from the judgment of the beast, so that I do not return to it. There have been judgments executed on the beast, vials poured out, and that even upon its seat or throne; but here it is a question of a final judgment with respect to the image, with respect to the ten kingdoms -- a judgment which causes them to disappear from the face of the earth. To exclude Jesus from it, so as to make it a consequence of the persecution of some little portion of the church, is enough to shew that the whole system which hangs upon it is nothing but the sport of the imagination of man. I respect, I repeat, the piety of the writer; I honour him, as sincere; as a man, I respect him. But I frankly own that I feel no respect for such a use -- for such a perversion -- of the word. I make allowance for an ardent imagination; I acknowledge how easy it may be for one to make a mistake on such subjects, if one goes beyond the plain teaching we may have received from God, and of which every one who has studied prophecy with piety will bring his share, whatever be his system. But as to Mr. Gaussen's book, it is not only that it contains an erroneous system. The writer avows that it is good to consider the coming of the Saviour as being at a distance for the church. He destroys the great foundations of the word, not on prophecy, but with regard to the judgment executed by Jesus; and he gives as quotations that which is not found in the word, in a way that deserves the strongest reproof of every faithful soul. The more Mr. Gaussen is surrounded with esteem (and I do not doubt that he deserves it, humanly speaking), the more important it is to denounce the evil. The piety and apostolic authority of Peter only served to carry away all the converted Jews and Barnabas by dissimulation, when he fell into it. The failures of a godly man are the most dangerous of all failures.
The question, Will the saints be in the tribulation? suggests itself to every one who is occupied with the hopes of the church of God and the prophetic declarations of Scripture as to the close of this earth's painful and laborious history. Personal anxiety suggests it on one hand, and on the other it connects intimately with the gravest and most vital points of prophetic enquiry; or rather of the true character of the church of God and its condition at the close.
I cannot, in the space allowed me here, enter at large into the declarations of the Old Testament as to a remnant, nor of the New as to the church. But a short answer to the question itself will help to throw light on the points I allude to and on the rapture of the saints. I purpose adding a development of the true force of 2 Thessalonians 1, 2, so often introduced in the discussions which have arisen on these subjects.
And first, as to our being in the tribulation: How do I know there will be a tribulation? I must get some revelation of it. He who would place the church in it will answer me, I am sure, that the Scriptures are clear on the point. There will be at the close a tribulation, a time such as there has never been, till the Lord's coming brings deliverance. What, then, are the Scriptures which tell us that there will be such tribulation? I am not aware of any other direct ones than these: Jeremiah 30: 7; Daniel 12: 1; Matthew 24: 21; Mark 13: 19 (Luke does not speak of it nor of the abomination of desolation); to which we may add the more general passages of Revelation 3: 10; chapter 7: 14. The first four passages do effectively prove that there will be a time of tribulation such as never was since there was a nation, or, as it is expressed in Mark, "such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created, neither shall be." The passages from Revelation apply, we shall see, to a wider sphere than the preceding ones; but as they speak of a great tribulation, I have, of course, quoted them. There will be then a tribulation. The other part of the question still remains: Shall we, who compose the church, be in this tribulation?
The answer to this question must be sought in the passages which speak of the tribulation itself. The first of them, Jeremiah 30: 7, is as clear as possible in announcing those to whom it applies: "It is the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be delivered out of it." This time, then, of trouble, such as never was nor will be (so that there cannot be two), is the time of Jacob's trouble. Nothing can be clearer or more distinct. The whole chapter may be read, which sets it in the clearest light. It is not merely that Jacob may be found there, but when it is said, "Alas! for that day is great, there is none like it," the trouble spoken of is Jacob's trouble.
The next is Daniel 12: 1. This is also positively declared to be of Daniel's people. The whole prophecy is the description of what is to happen to Daniel's people in the last days. Daniel 10: 14. Michael, also (compare chapter 10: 21), Will then stand up for that people, and, as Jeremiah had said, they will be delivered (that is, the elect remnant -- those written in the book). Daniel's testimony then is also quite clear. The tribulation is the tribulation of Daniel's people. But this is the rather important because it carries us at once to Matthew, the Lord Himself declaring that He speaks of this same time and same event, using the terms of Daniel, and referring to him by name as well as to the statements of the passage. Compare Matthew 24: 15; Daniel 12: 11.
But all the language of the passage in Matthew confirms this. Those who are in Judea are to flee to the mountains. Those who are on the housetop are not to come down to seek anything. The abomination which causes desolation stands in the holy place. They are to pray that their flight may not be on the sabbath. False Christs and false prophets are to seduce with the hopes cherished by the Jewish people. All is local and Jewish -- has no application to hopes which rest on going to meet Christ in the air. What is in question is "flesh" being "saved" (i.e., life spared on earth). Mark relates evidently to the same event and almost exactly in the same terms. Thus these four passages, which speak of the unequalled tribulation, apply it distinctly to Jacob, Jerusalem, and Judea, and the Jews, not to the church. It is entirely another order and sphere of things from the church, and professedly so.
There are two passages which, as I have said, are more general: Revelation 3: 10 and 7: 14. Do these, then, apply to the church? The language of Revelation 3: 10 is this, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world to try them which dwell on the earth." That is, when the church is addressed, it is with a declaration that she will be kept from that hour which shall come to try others. So that thus far the testimonies of Scripture declare that the unequalled tribulation is for Jacob, and that, when the time of temptation is spoken of in addressing the church, it is to declare that the faithful shall be kept out of it.
Revelation 7: 14 may seem more difficult; still it bears witness to the same truth. For the heavenly kings and priests (that is, the elders who have represented them from the beginning of the second or strictly prophetic part of the book) are professedly another class of persons, who have not come out of the great tribulation. One of these elders explains to John who those who have come out of the great tribulation are, another class of persons from themselves. One of them asks John, Who are these who are arrayed in white robes? etc. John refers to him, and then he explains. That is, the crowned elders are quite a different class from them; so that, while admitting the passage to be obscure in certain points, it is clear in this -- in giving us the elders and those who came out of the tribulation as two distinct classes. The crowned elders are not at all represented as having been in it, but as pointing out others as those that come out of it. Every element of the description of these persons confirms this distinction.
Another passage -- Revelation 12 -- while not using the term tribulation, yet speaking of the epoch at which it is to happen, strongly confirms this same truth. When Satan and his angels are defeated by Michael, he is cast out and come down to the earth, having great wrath, knowing he has but a short time, and persecutes the woman. Now what is the effect of this most important event on those who can celebrate its bearing? That the trial of the heavenly saints is ended, and that of the inhabiters of the earth and the sea just about to begin in its most formidable shape, because Satan is cast down there. The language is this: "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night: and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea," etc. Now I do not say that this is the moment of the rapture, for I think it is included in the man-child's being caught up. But I say this that, at the moment of the commencement of the great rage of Satan for the three times and a half, the entire deliverance of the heavenly saints from his power, and their definite triumph is celebrated; that is, they are not exposed to that last time of Satan's rage. This chapter, then, confirms, in the fullest way, the exemption of the church from the last and dreadful time of trial. I am satisfied that the whole teaching and structure of the Revelation confirms the same truth; but this would evidently lead me into too large a sphere of enquiry.
We have found that the passages which speak of the tribulation first apply it directly to the Jews on one side, and then exclude the church from it on the other. I do not see how such a point as this could be made clearer by scripture.
I now turn to the interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 1, 2. There is in the latter chapter and (I think I may say) acknowledged mistranslation, of which the true and undoubted sense gives the key to the whole passage. I refer to verse 2, "as that the day of Christ is at hand": it should be "is present." The word is used for, and translated in two different places, "present," in contrast with things to come -- "things present and things to come." This is always its sense in Scripture. What the Thessalonians were troubled and upset in their minds by, then, was that they had been led by false teachers (pretending to the Spirit, and even alleging a letter of Paul to this effect) to suppose that the day of Christ was actually come. The violence of persecution was very great; and as the day of the Lord is in effect spoken of as a day of terror and trial in the Old Testament, these false teachers had profited by this to persuade them it was there.
The apostle with divine wisdom sets them morally right in chapter 1, as to their feelings and sentiments as to this, before entering in the second into positive instruction as to the fact of the Lord's coming. He shews them the folly (since Christ was to appear for that day, He Himself being present in it) of supposing that it was His own people and faithful ones He was going to make suffer and cast into distress and tribulation. No; it was His enemies and theirs who would be in affliction in that day, and they themselves in rest and peace. The very righteousness of God would assure this. It was a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble them, and to His troubled ones rest, when Christ shall be revealed, for this was what brought in the day. It was only shewn by their tribulations that He counted them worthy of His kingdom that was then to come.
In a word, as the day was Christ's and brought in by His personal presence, when it was there they would have rest and their persecutors trouble. It is the contrast of state when the day is there, not the epoch of its commencement, which is spoken of. Indeed, had it been so, it would have been a poor and uninspired comfort, for they would not have rest yet. On the other hand, the adversaries of the constant expectation of Christ would gain nothing; for the apostle's words so interpreted would have led the saints at Thessalonica to a constant expectation of His appearing, instead of their rapture, as the moment of getting rest. But the truth is, the using the Greek word anesis (rest) as significative of the moment of attaining the rest is a mistake. The word, though used for the time of obtaining relaxation, is equally used for a state of ease, or even pleasure. It is never used in Scripture for the moment of obtaining relaxation from trial, but always in the general sense of a state of ease, one contrasted with theipsis (distress). The whole and sole force of the apostle's reasoning is this, that as the Lord Himself was to bring in the day, it could not, when there, be a day of distress for His people, but evidently for His enemies and their persecutors. In chapter 2 he proceeds to unfold to them the real order of the events, and especially in connection with the place they had in them.
Here, again, we meet a question of criticism, but it affects very little the reasoning of the apostle. Some would change here the authorised English version, and read, "But we beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming," etc., instead of "by the coming." The preposition itself is used in both ways; but its constant force with words of beseeching is 'by' (sometimes 'for,' which has no place here). The force of the apostle's reasoning is this, that as they were to be gathered together to Christ, they could not be in the day which was to come by His appearing; they were to go to meet Him in the air, and hence could not be in the judgments of that day, it trials or its terrors.
The apostle had taught them in his first epistle that they were to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Hence he could refer to it as a known truth. The saints were not to await the coming of the day of the Lord on the earth, but to go up to meet Him in the air, and be for ever with Him. Did He appear, they, we know, would appear with Him. But here he speaks of what they ought to have remembered, that they would go up before the day, and hence they could not possibly be there in their actual state on earth, if the day was. The church's connection with the return of the Lord was, to go up to meet Him in the air, to be gathered unto Him. The day was entirely another thing; it was vengeance from His presence. Neither could the day therefore come before the objects of vengeance were there. An apostasy would come, and the man of sin would be revealed, whom the Lord would consume with the breath of His mouth, and destroy by the appearing of His presence.
That is, we have two things (which from other scriptures also we know to be distinct, exactly in this way, Christ's coming, and the manifestation of it; for when He appears, we shall appear with Him -- hence we must be with Him before even He appears at all, yet at His coming), the coming of Christ and the public epiphany of His presence, with one of which the saints are directly connected, by being gathered together to Him; with the other, the day, because at His appearing He will execute judgment against the ungodly. They will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power. But He will come to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe; that is, they will be in the display of this glory in that day. They will appear with Him in glory -- be like Him. Now it is quite certain they will not appear with Him when they are caught up to meet Him in the air. Thus it is not merely particular expressions, though these are clear and forcible, but the bearing, and object, and course of reasoning of the whole chapter, which shews the distinction of the rapture of the saints before Christ appears, and the coming of the day when He is admired in them.
What is important to remark is, the entire difference of relationship in which the saints are put with Christ: we belong to Him, go to meet Him, appear with Him, are glorified together. The practical result is, not merely to clear up a question of dates and of time, but to change the whole spirit and character of our waiting and Christ's coming. We wait for Him to come and take us to Himself, the full realisation of our heavenly calling. There are no events connected with our relationship with Christ. We have no need of judgment to participate in blessing under Him; we go out of the midst of all events to meet Him above. The Jews and the world are delivered by judgments. Hence they must await the course of events and the full ripening of earthly evil for judgment; for the day will not come before. Hence, we find in the Psalms the appeal for judgment and the times of it, the declaration of the overwhelming character of evil, and the cry to God to shew Himself and render a reward to the proud. The church on earth has no need to seek this; she belongs to Christ, and will be caught up to heaven out of the evil.
I add a few words on another passage suggested to me as one by which difficulties have been created in some minds, really desirous of the truth. I mean the connection of chapters 4 and 5 of first Thessalonians. I confess it does not affect my own in any way; but as it does the minds of others, it is well to notice it. The difficulty, if there be any, arises from a serious confusion in the minds of those who make it -- the very confusion into which the Thessalonians were led, namely, taking tribulation for the day of Christ. For the day of Christ, Christ must appear. Let us only keep this clear in our minds, and all these difficulties vanish.
The Thessalonians looked so earnestly for Christ's coming, with no further knowledge of the manner or order of it, that they thought believers who had died, and perhaps died even for Christ, would not be there to meet Him. This mistake the apostle corrects. He tells them that they must not grieve as those without hope; that they would not be left out of the cortege of glory; that Christ would bring them with Him. He then explains to them the manner, and shews that it is by their resurrection, which would take place before even the then living ones are changed; and when this is also wrought by divine power, all would go up to meet Him in the air, and so they would be for ever with the Lord. This parenthetically explains the manner by express revelation. They will go up to meet Him -- subsequently, as we have seen from Colossians, appear with Him when He appears. The parenthetical part merely gives the association of the saints with Christ Himself, which is our proper portion.
But he had said, as a general truth, in answer to their fears, that God would bring them with Christ. This leads him naturally to the general subject. He had no need to speak of times and seasons. The Thessalonians knew perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night, and when they (the world) say Peace and safety, sudden destruction would come upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; he adds, "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief: ye are all children of the day." It is alleged that the apostle could not have said that the day would not overtake them as a thief, if they were not to feel liable to be in some sort overtaken by it. Now, if the teaching of the apostle be examined, even in the place, there is no possible ground for this: for the day of the Lord Christ must appear. But he had just taught them that they were to be caught up to meet Him in the air and be brought with Him. That is, he had taught them what made it impossible to suggest that the day could overtake them in any way or manner whatever. They were of the day, so to speak, as he indeed says, "ye are children of the day," "let us who are of the day."
This passage says nothing of not being in the tribulation -- we have treated that point already; but the objection confounds the tribulation and the day which really closes it. The tribulation is Satan's power (though God's judgment in woe); the day is Christ's, who makes it and binds him. But the passage speaks not at all of the tribulation, though it supposes nothing of the kind; but it does speak of the day of the Lord, and with instruction as to the portion of the saints, which shews that it can have in no way whatever to do with them. They are of it and to come in its power. All it says is -- The day will overtake them as a thief: but it will not overtake you, for ye are of the day. It says nothing of times and seasons, but negatives the application of the well-known truth to them.
The rapture of the saints to meet the Lord in the air, before His manifestation to the earth, and the existence of a Jewish remnant, in whom the Spirit of God is graciously working, before the Lord manifests Himself to them for their deliverance, is happily attracting the attention of Christians. It has made sufficient way to be the occasion of a renewed opposition, which can only do good by urging serious Christians to examine the scriptures on the subject -- an examination, which will, under grace, spiritually enlarge their apprehensions on many most important points, full of blessing and interest for their souls. The true character of the church of God will appear, and the nature of its connection with Christ, on the one hand, and the ways of God in the government of the world on the other -- the two great topics of which the Scriptures treat; besides that first of all concerns, the reconciling of the soul with God. On this last also, indeed, a right intelligence of the other two casts abundant light. The rapture of the saints before the appearing of Christ, strange as it may appear to some, has nothing to say to the church, directly or exclusively; but as we form part of those caught up, it, of course, interests us in the highest degree.+ The rapture is in connection with the glory of the kingdom; and the saints in general, who are to reign in the kingdom, have part in this rapture. Still, indirectly, the enquiry leads to the question, What is the church? because the doctrine of the rapture of the saints, before the appearing of Christ, connects itself with the existence of a Jewish remnant waiting for deliverance after the rapture and before the appearing; and the position of this remnant connects itself, more or less, with the spiritual condition of the saints before the manifestation of the church on the earth.
+Hence, indeed, it is often, in a practical way, treated of, in Scripture, as applicable to those who now believe, without going farther.
Those who believe in the rapture of the church before the appearing of Christ hold that the church has a special and peculiar character and connection with Christ, in virtue of its being formed into one body by the descent of the Holy Ghost from heaven; and that, while salvation is always necessarily the same, the relative condition of the saints previously was a distinct one. They are convinced that in the Psalms a Jewish remnant is found, and that thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, into which the Spirit of Christ enters prophetically with and for them, are there expressed in their behalf. This remnant is believed to be continually spoken of in the prophets, as existing before the appearing of the Lord, and waiting for that appearing, and delivered by it. But, further, the Lord Himself being a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, as well as a Saviour, presented Himself necessarily to Israel, according to these promises, and became associated with the remnant, and the leader of it, as far as it was awakened to know Him. Hence the interpretation of many passages of the New Testament also became involved in this question; and, indeed, the whole order of the dispensations of God. But above all, the question of the church and its privileges, as formed by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, is important and essential in this matter, and a right understanding of it a key to the interpretation of the word of God.
On the other hand, the denial of the existence of a Jewish remnant, such as is above spoken of, involves the most grave and, indeed, fatal consequences; because it connects, especially through the contents of the Psalms, the Spirit of Christ, which speaks in them, with the ungodly and unconverted Jews, and makes the declarations of integrity and uprightness, not the breathings of a righteous soul pleading with God -- yea, its pleadings furnished to it by the Spirit of Christ -- but the pride of self-righteousness presenting itself to God. It is hard to suppose that any could allege that the Lord should give all this self-righteousness by revelation in connection with -- yea, identified with -- the breathings of Christ's Spirit and the piety flowing from it; but such is the theory of those who deny the rapture of the saints before Christ's appearing, and, consequently, the existence of a Jewish remnant, in which the Spirit of Christ is at work in connection with the hopes proper to Israel.
A point connected with this has been insisted on by the adversaries of the truth, to which I advert here only to leave it aside, as not touching the main point, even if true, and used by them only to obscure the great and vital truth of the rapture of the church -- I mean the secrecy of the rapture. The two points on which it is important to have the clear testimony of Scripture are -- first, that there will be a Jewish remnant at the end, with a place belonging to itself as such; secondly, the true character of the church of God.
That there will be a Jewish remnant at the close, delivered and blessed by the Lord at His coming, blessed on earth, is, beyond all controversy, the doctrine of Scripture. This remnant has neither the church's heavenly blessings nor the church's hope. For those who have enquired into these subjects, it ought not to be necessary to quote passages of scripture to prove this. Still, as it is in its consequences a very important point, I will reproduce here some of the principal passages which prove the fact that there is a remnant, and shew the state in which that remnant is. First, as regards the Jews, Zechariah 13: 8, 9: "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."
As regards the ten tribes of Israel, the case is somewhat different; the rebels will not enter into the land. Of Ezekiel 20: 33-38 I quote a part: "And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face ... . And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: and I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the Lord." Still they will be united in the land. See Ezekiel 37: 11-28. In verse 19: "Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand." Verse 24: "And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt ... my tabernacle also shall be with them."
As regards Judah, Daniel tells us: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." I have no doubt verse 2 refers to those scattered in the countries; but on this point I do not dwell here. Only let the reader remark that the wise and those that instruct the+ many in righteousness are distinguished from the rest (v 3; see chapter 11: 32-35). The general blessing and promise to Israel may be seen at the close of Hosea 2 and 3. I do not quote in detail here, because these passages do not touch the question of a remnant. For the great day of trouble the reader may compare Jeremiah 30: 4-9, and for the certainty of their blessing in general, that chapter, and chapters 31, 32, and 33. I might refer to a multitude of chapters besides, but this may suffice.
What I have quoted also shews that it is the remnant of Israel which is blessed with Israel's blessings. As it is said in Isaiah 10: "For though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall return"; and verse 21, "'the remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God." The points thus made clear are that it is the remnant which is blessed, and blessed with Israel's blessings, according to promise, in the land, with Jehovah as their God. The next and capital point (for what precedes is generally admitted), is their previous state: is it a Christian or church state? And now I pray the reader to mark one most important consequence of any supposition that this remnant of Israel is previously in a Christian or church standing. Their blessings are, the earthly glory, under Christ, in the land, according to the promises made to them.
+Not "turn many to righteousness." It refers to chapter 11: 33, and other passages, where these wise ones are noticed. (See chapter 11: 35; 12: 10.)
Now, if their hopes have been church hopes, and their spiritual condition the same as ours, their hopes are not fulfilled, they are disappointed in them; or (and it is this I pray the reader especially to remark) if they are not, our hopes are reduced to the level of Jewish earthly and temporal ones. Now this is the great object of the enemy in all this scheme, for that it is the positive work of the enemy I have no doubt at all. In denying a distinct Jewish remnant, having Jewish faith, Jewish hopes, and resting on Jewish promises, it reduces the church to the level of these; and the value and power of spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, and the place of Christ's body in union with Him, is denied and lost. It is this which makes the question vital for Christians themselves. The great object of the enemy in denying the rapture of the saints before the appearing of the Lord, and in the consequent rejection of a distinct Jewish remnant, with Jewish hopes and Jewish piety, is to deny and destroy the proper faith of the church of God, and to set the church itself aside. Far be it from me to say, that all who have fallen into this system have any such purpose, or are even aware of the effect; but the effect is nothing the less produced, and the loss theirs, though the intention be not. They are deceived by the enemy, though far from intending to deceive with him.
But my task now is to shew, from Scripture, that this honoured and glorified remnant are previously under the influence of God's Spirit -- a people waiting on the Lord; I repeat, that those who are blessed as Israel by the Lord are previously waiting on the Lord, and that the Lord recognises them in this character.
There are two classes of texts referring to Israel in the latter day, to one of which I only refer here, and leave aside, though full of interest, as not bearing on our present subject. I speak of the texts which speak only of the intervention of God in power, whether to deliver or gather Israel, blessing the nation in contrast with their previous depression and misery, without touching on the question of a remnant, or the state in which that remnant is found. I refer to such passages as Amos 9, Jeremiah 30-33, and many like passages.
The other class refers explicitly to the despised remnant and its state previous to Jehovah's intervention in power to deliver. Texts of this character are what I would now lay before the reader, quoting as many as are needed to shew the existence of a godly though oppressed remnant, which is under the influence and working of the Spirit of God. This truth rests not on a few casual texts, but on the constant teaching of the Scriptures. For the Lord shall judge His people, and repent Himself concerning His servants, when He seeth that their power is gone, and that there is none shut up nor left. Not only this, but it will be found that these scriptures connect this remnant of the latter day with those who had ears to hear when the prophets spoke. The connection of "the day," or "that day," with the testimony delivered by the prophet at the time, and that without supposed interruption or interval, is characteristic of prophetic scriptures. But we shall find that this is applicable to the testimony of Christ viewed as the great Prophet of Israel, by whose Spirit alone the prophets prophesied; and that thus the prophetic witness is continued in connection with a waiting remnant during His life, and even after His lifetime, in connection with God's government of Israel, and as long as God dealt with that people as such; and that the doctrine of the church alone took the witness of God entirely out of this connection. The doctrine of a heavenly calling paved the way for this, though not the same thing as the church, though the church had surely a heavenly calling; while the destruction of Jerusalem, and the judgment of the nation connected with this event, and the warnings which refer to it, closed and broke all connection of God's testimony with the nation, and left the church and the Gentiles the only acknowledged place of witness, as such, until that of the Jews is resumed, according to the clear testimony of the prophets.
Our first duty will be to produce the testimony of scripture to the existence of a godly Jewish remnant in the latter day, with Jewish hopes sanctioned of God. This once distinctly shewn, the whole question as to the state of things in the latter day is really solved, and the modified or transitional state of the remnant becomes easy to discern. God would not deprive the Jews of the hopes of Israel till they deprive themselves of them; meanwhile He introduced the church, and their hopes gradually died down, giving place to exclusively heavenly ones, till judgment closed all other relationship between God and them. I shall begin by a very plain and strong testimony, which will set the state of the Jewish remnant in the latter day in the clearest light, and then quote passages to shew it was a constant theme of prophecy; some shewing the fact that a remnant will exist, others its character.
Malachi 3: 16: "Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not." Chapter 4: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth [land] with a curse."
Such are the last solemn words uttered by the prophetic Spirit to Israel before the coming of the Messiah and His precursor. The provisional application to Christ and John the baptist will be noticed, and is most important, to shew the way in which the testimony of their day took a Jewish character and application; but the last days are definitely here in view. A godly Jewish remnant is the very subject of the prophecy. They are contrasted with the wicked, they fear Jehovah's name, and unto them the Sun of righteousness arises with healing in His wings. They triumph judicially over their wicked oppressors in that day. They are identified with the godly in Israel in the prophet's time; they speak often one to another: God will spare His in that day. They are called on to remember Moses and the law given to him for all Israel. Nothing can be more distinct and plain, more specific and positive in its character; and it has all the peculiar weight of a final and closing testimony, the last words of prophecy to Israel.
Let us now see if this doctrine of a remnant is constantly recognised in the prophetic testimony, and in what way. Isaiah, a prophet who unfolds to us the ways of God with Israel as a whole, will abundantly instruct us on this point. The general principle, which connects the remnant with all God's moral dealings with Israel, is found in chapter 1: 18, 19.
Before I proceed to quote the passages in detail, let me here state the great principles which this first citation suggests. I have already noticed that, after the question of personal salvation or relationship to God, two great subjects present themselves to us in Scripture: the church, that sovereign grace which gives us a place along with Christ Himself in glory and blessing; and God's government of the world, of which Israel forms the centre and the immediate sphere. Only we have to remember that in this government grace must have a part, or it would not be the government of God. It would be simple judicial condemnation, and impossibility of blessing. These ways of God are revealed in Exodus 32, 33, 34, and Deuteronomy 32. The prophets, founding themselves on the law given in Horeb, are sent in grace to seek the fruit which the vine of the Lord's planting ought to have borne. They reproach Israel with not producing it; and solemnly warn the people of the consequences in judgment.
But as God, and therefore grace, was at work, there were the purposes and will of that grace to be revealed: only that it was not in Israel's case made effectual in a simple sovereign gift to the divine glory in a new creation, but in a display of God's ways in divine government in connection with the responsibility of man. This grace must be in Christ, for He is the centre of all God's ways. He is the Messiah, then, of the Jews, the King that is to reign in righteousness, and to display fully and in perfection God's immediate government. (See Psalm 101.) Hence there is a double test applicable in the ways of God in government in Israel. Have they profited by and glorified God in the privileges, in the enjoyment of which they were originally placed? Are they in a condition to meet Jehovah in glory, coming in the Person of Christ? These two questions may be seen treated in Isaiah 5 and 6.
The question of the remnant is treated, let the reader remark, entirely in connection with the second of these subjects (i.e. in connection with Christ). It is the same nation, of course: the residue have the law necessarily before their consciences, and this fully maintained; but it is, after all, the presenting of Christ, the dealing of God in grace, which brought the state of the nation to an issue, separated the remnant, and brought judgment on the body. After sending the prophets, speaking by the Spirit of Christ which was in them, to seek fruit, the Lord of the vineyard said, I have yet one Son: it may be they will reverence my Son when they see Him. We all know the result. Judgment came upon the nation, a remnant clung to Him through grace. But this necessarily raised another point, "the kingdom" as well as the law. The kingdom was not set up, but the King was there, and the kingdom in that sense among them; and, moreover, since John the baptist, it was preached as at hand. It passed, on the rejection of the King, into its mysteries as unfolded in Matthew 13. It will be established on the earth; but on the return of the Ring from heaven, where He is gone to receive it. The reader may see that in Isaiah 5 the remnant is not brought into view; in chapter 6 it is, while the people's hearts are made fat.
Now, the whole of this process of government is unfolded in Isaiah: in the early part, before the history of Hezekiah, in judgment, and connected with all God's ways, and the national condition ending in the millennial glory and blessing in connection with Emmanuel the Ring; in the second part, after the history of Hezekiah, in grace, shewing that Israel had failed in maintaining Jehovah's glory as His servant, that Jehovah had substituted Christ come in humiliation as His servant, "the true vine," and that He (rejected and despised of men) would inherit the Gentiles also. The restoration of Israel was a small thing; but still God would, in and with the remnant, bring in the final glory of Jerusalem and His people.
Thus the whole of the ways of God in government, in connection with Israel, are unfolded in this prophet. The question which exercises many saints connects itself with this whole in this way: Christ having been rejected, and having gone on high, has become the Head of the body, the church; but how far can we, admitting this great and blessed truth, consider the disciples, viewed as associated with Christ during His life -- or even in some respects for a time, through God's patience, after His death -- as entering (though, in result, then merged in the church) into the scheme and course of God's ways with Israel? Are they ever, whatever higher privileges God may have granted to them, viewed and treated as the remnant of Israel according to promise? How far did Christ act and speak in this character, or did He at all? And will not a remnant be found in the latter days, associated, according to God's will, with the hopes of, and promises to, Israel; taking up the link where it was suspended and broken off, a remnant to whom Jehovah (Jesus) will shew Himself in glory, to bless them on the earth, as having waited on Him and for Him, the Lord Jehovah, for their help in their trouble? Or is it the church which will continue to the appearing of Christ? And will there be no remnant of Israel waiting, with a right Jewish faith owned of God, for the accomplishment of the promises? This is the point at issue.
Let us now examine the testimony of Isaiah as to the remnant.POSTSCRIPT
A FEW BRIEF REMARKS ON "A LETTER ON REVELATION 12"
ELEMENTS OF PROPHECY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHURCH, THE JEWS, AND THE GENTILES
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL
J.N.D.SHORT BUT SERIOUS EXAMINATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ISSUED BY MR. GAUSSEN IN HIS BOOK ENTITLED "DANIEL THE PROPHET"+
WHAT SAINTS WILL BE IN THE TRIBULATION?
THE RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE JEWISH REMNANT: SHEWING THE POSITION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES GIVE TO THE REMNANT IN ISRAEL, IN THE LATTER DAY, IN PROPHECY, IN THE PSALMS, AND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT; AND THE RAPTURE OF THE SAINTS, GATHERED BY THE HOLY GHOST SENT DOWN FROM HEAVEN, BEFORE THE TRIBULATION OF THE LAST DAYS