The Methodist Quarterly Review
1875

ART. II-THE MILLENNIUM AND THE ADVENT.
THAT there is to be a millennium, and that there is to be an advent, is generally admitted by Christian people. That the millennium and the advent sustain very definite and very important relations, is the general conviction. That one must precede, that the other will follow, is freely conceded. But will the advent precede the millennium? or will the millennium precede the advent? This is the vital question to be determined, and this issue must be squarely met. Will the Lord come to introduce the millennium? or will the millennium prepare for the coming of the Lord? In some form or other the thoughtful mind propounds this inquiry, and in some way this very serious inquiry must be answered. Until this point is settled, there is but little use for inquiry or disputation about any other relating to the general subject. The settlement of this cardinal question determines many others.

We do not purpose to enter upon a very extended argument in our investigation of this specific point. We choose, rather, after a plain statement of two or three important facts, to put the inquirer on the track of the needful information, that lie may be assisted in coming to the right conclusion. And, with reference to the specific question to be settled, we affirm as follows:- First. There is not a passage of Scripture, literal, figurative, or symbolical which treats of the millennium and its relation to the advent, that teaches, indicates, or in any manner represents the millennium as preceding the advent. Second. There is not a passage, literal, figurative, or symbolical, which speaks of the advent and its relation to the millennium, that represents the advent as subsequent to the millennium.

Now, these two very important facts settle, if not the principal question at issue, at least this not unimportant fact, that the now prevalent belief in a millennium previous to the advent is without Scripture authority. Since, as before stated, there is not one passage that speaks of the millennium and its relation to the advent, or of the advent and its relation to the millennium, which teaches directly or indirectly, by its immediate connections or its parallels, or in any manner whatever, the post-millenarian doctrines that are now so generally prevalent.

And yet, in the nature of the case, questions of order and relation must be decided by the authority which treats of order and relation. Isolated revelations-if there be such-cannot decide questions of relative order, unless-of which there is no example-the specific revelation should relate to the specific point to be established.

There is no dispute about the fact of our Lord's second advent. There is no dispute about the fact of a coining millennium. There is no dispute about the face that the two great events sustain important chronological relations. The whole disagreement, as it respects the cardinal questions, is concerning the relative order. Is the millennium before the advent? Is the advent before the millennium? This is what should claim our attention first of all. A multitude of minor questions must be determined by this question of relative order.

This point must be decided, not by conjecture, nor by unauthorized statements, but by Divine revelation. Human authority is of little account in deciding questions of this nature. If the Lord has not spoken relative to this matter it will be useless for man to speak. If he has spoken, "Thus saith the Lord" must be deemed decisive.

Thus far we have treated the subject on the purposely-assumed logical ground that the Scriptures have not determined the question at issue; thus leaving one side of the controversy as much without Divine authority as the other, and making it, therefore, a matter of logic, learning, and research. On this assumption, it would appear that the manifest advantage would be with the pre-millennialists, for these several reasons: First. The post-millennialists being the witnesses, we prove that the pre-millenarian belief was primitive in the Christian Church. And our advantage in this respect is equal to the probability of the TRUTH being primitive, and not ERROR, in the Church apostolically founded, guided, and instructed. Second. Our advantage, on this assumption, still further appears from the fact, that authentic history, and still preserved formulas of belief, show that pre-millennial views were primitive in the reformed Protestant Church. After the Church came out from the communion of Rome, renouncing the human traditions, the manifold perversions of the Word of God, and the unauthorized assumptions of the Papacy, and planted itself squarely on the teachings of the Bible; then, as we itself squarely upon the teachings of the Bible; then, as we have abundant testimony to prove, the Primitive Protestant Church, deriving the great foundation doctrines directly from the Word of God, was quite generally, if not universally, pre-millenarian in respect to this point of relative order. And our advantage in this respect is equal to the improbability that suck men as God raised up, and wonderfully qualified for the reformation of the Church, should generally, perhaps universally, misunderstand their diligently studied Bibles in respect to this vital question of relative order. Third. On this assumption of equality, so far as it relates to direct revelation, our advantage as pre-millenarians is to be estimated as equal to the improbability that nearly all the chief founders of the subdivisions of the primitive Protestant Churches-the theological giants of those heroic days-should be led into essential error on this vital question of relative order.

It will not be denied by those who have faithfully investigated this matter, that many, probably most, of the principal founders of the English, the Scotch, the Congregational, arid the Baptist Churches, and the larger portion of the Westminster Assembly, were decidedly millenarian; or, as we are using the term, pre-millenarian, iii their belief and teaching. Luther, Calvin, Knox., Wiclif, Melanchthon, all gave expression to convictions which showed that they looked for the advent before the complete subjection of the world to Christ. They seem to have apprehended the advent as very near. Not the prospect of the immediate triumph of the Church, but the fearful ravages of the Man of Sin, impressed them that the day of the Lord was near. And this was evidently scriptural. Charles Wesley, the sweet singer of Methodism; Fletcher, the matchless polemic; and Coke, the father of our missionary enterprise, all looked for the advent before the millennium.

And thus we might go on, almost indefinitely, and show conclusively that, on the assumption that the Bible leaves the question undecided as to the relative order of these two great events, the pre-millenarians evidently have the advantage of their opponents as to the probabilities of the case. It would invalidate all the axioms relating to the primitiveness of religious truth, in reference to the manifest illumination and providential guiding of those whom God has raised up for reformative purposes in his Church; and it would conflict with all history and mental philosophy, as exhibited in innumerable instances, if we should be obliged to conclude that in the Primitive Church, in its first utterances of cardinal truths, as developed from the Word of God, radical error, and not essential truth, was primitive.

Since the great perversion and corruption in Eden, down to the latest development of heterodoxy, corruption of primitive truth, and not truth developed from corruption, has been the history of human kind. God may indeed reform and reclaim his people when they err and wander, and bring them back to original truth and virtue. But to assume that God suffered the Primitive Church to he established in essential error, and thus suffered the principal branches of the Church in later times to be founded in essential error, in respect to the momentous question under review, is sufficiently alarming and humiliating, to say the least.

Having said so much, on the assumed ground of scriptural equality between the two sides of this great question, and of the advantage which pre-millenarians have over their opponents, on the supposition that the Bible leaves the question of relative order undetermined, we purpose now to abandon that merely assumed position, and boldly take the ground that this great question of the relative order of the millennium and the advent has been authoritatively decided by the Word of God; not by one passage only, which, if it were clear, would settle the whole controversy, but by passages literal, figurative, and symbolical, almost without number. And we do not forget that the Word of God is to be understood, not as any of us might wish, hope, or endeavor to make it appear; but fairly, consistently, and according to its Divine adaptation to impress the unsophisticated mind.

"To the law and to the testimony." The question to be settled being one of order and relation in respect to the two great associated events, the coming of the Lord and the coining of the millennium, it is necessary to determine the point by Scriptures that relate to these two events in their associated order. A text merely proving the millennium, since it proves as much for one side as the other, proves nothing in respect to the point now under discussion. Sometimes reference is made to explicit revelations of the millennium, without regard to the connections and parallels of the passage, and it is assumed that these isolated and fragmentary passages, since they prove the millennium, settle the questions of relative order. The eighth verse of the second Psalm, the ninth verse of the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, and half a dozen texts of similar nature, which, indeed, prove the fact of the millennium, and are, therefore, in this respect, just as favorable to one side as the other, appear to be stereotyped arguments on the post-millennial side, and are quoted with a frequency and a confidence which leave no doubt concerning the convictions of those who refer to them, as authoritative judgments in the great question in dispute. Whereas, the careful examination of these isolated quotations will demonstrate the fact, which seems to have escaped the notice of many, that these texts either prove nothing at all relative to the great question in controversy, or else-which is usually the case-by their immediate connections, or their manifest parallels, distinctly prove the pre-millennial doctrine concerning the relative order of the two principal events.

The portions of the Scripture which relate to these two great associated events, and which are relevant to the argument, therefore, because they indicate the relative order of the events, are very numerous, explicit, and, by their connections and parallels, easily interpreted, in' strict accordance with the established usages and laws of literary criticism. But as it would unduly extend this article to quote in full all the passages which we might be disposed to examine, in order to fix the meaning of isolated and fragmentary texts, by carefully considering their connections and their parallels, the thoughtful readers, who are willing to give this important subject a little attention, are desired to read what immediately follows, with their Bibles open to the chapters and passages referred to:

1. The eleventh chapter of Isaiah is by all, perhaps, admitted to refer to the millennial state of the world in connection with the kingdom and reign of Christ. It exhibits, (1.) The manner in which millennial blessedness is brought in. (2.) The state of the world and its inhabitants during the happy period after it is fully established. (3.) The conversion and restoration of Israel and Judah "in that day." Verses 10-16 refer to this latter event. Verses 6-9 describe the state of millennial blessedness. Verses 1-5 describe the manner in which the millennial state is introduced. This examination will determine what is the testimony of inspiration concerning the vital point of relative order which we wish to ascertain.

Connected inseparably with this disputed point are the two conflicting theories of introducing the millennium: the one, by the increase and triumph of grace, by which the whole world is converted; the other, not specifying bow far grace will ultimately triumph, bat at a certain period introducing Christ, not as the priestly successor of Aaron, occupying the intercessional throne, but as the royal heir and successor of David, ruling upon the Davidic throne, and, as a sovereign, divinely sceptered, ruling, judging, rewarding and punishing.

Taking these two theories of the introduction and establishing of the millennial dispensation, as the necessary concomitants and exponents of the two theories of the relative order of the advent and the millennium, which one of them is sustained, and which disproved by the eleventh chapter and ninth verse of Isaiah, interpreted by its connection? By carefully reading the chapter it will be seen that Christ is Present, not to save sinners, as he is now doing in heaven, but to judge and to destroy them. (Verse 4.) Christ is present in his royal relations to David, the son of Jesse, exercising his regal authority and power among the nations, and judicially smiting and destroying the wicked. (Verses 1-5.) And in this manner he brings in the millennium. With which of the two conflicting theories does this representation agree? Is the millennium introduced, without the personal presence of Christ, by the spiritual triumphs of the Gospel until all are converted? Or is it introduced, in connection with the personal presence of Christ, not then converting his enemies to friends, and saving them, but finding them enemies, treating them as enemies, judging and destroying them as enemies? In short, does the millennium introduce Christ at the close of it? or does he appear at the beginning of it, and reign during the continuance of it? What does this millennial prophecy, interpreted harmoniously with itself throughout, teach us concerning this vital question of relative order respecting the advent and the millennium?

2. We turn now to the Second Psalm, a portion of the Scripture which is more frequently quoted, perhaps, against the pre-millenarians than any other passage in the Bible. It is conceded by all that this psalm, especially the eighth verse, describes the kingdom of Christ upon the earth, and this eighth verse seems to be regarded by the opponents of pre-millenarian ism as a triumphant demonstration of the complete spiritual subjection of the whole world to Christ by the Gospel one can reasonably object to the interpretation of a text by its intimate connections and evident parallels. This we now proceed to do, with reference to the great question now under consideration. Which of the two conflicting theories is favored by the second Psalm?

Here we notice, first of all, King Messiah, not on the priestly throne in heaven, exercising the offices of mediation and intercession, as the high-priest before the throne, but as the Lord's anointed king, throned upon the holy hill of Zion; not to save the disobedient among the nations, but to rule, judge, and violently destroy them. (Verses 5-9.) And thus making this psalm parallel with the many other prophecies of his judicial procedure in ruling and preparing the World for his universal kingdom. According to this psalm, he first appears as the appointed king in Zion. The jealous rulers of the unsubdued nations become excited and enraged. What becomes of them? Do they submit to Christ, yield to his Gospel, become his friends, and finally obtain salvation? Or do they continue in hatred and rebellion until the time of mercy expires, and then perish under his judicial wrath ? The question has manifest pertinency as an exhibition of the method by which the result is brought about, which we all agree to call the millennial state. What is the testimony of the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, in this psalm? It exhibits the period of "the wrath of the Lamb." (Verse 12; compare Rev. vi, 16.) The wicked rulers and judges of the earth are exhorted to "kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little."

And yet this very psalm, or a disconnected fragment of it, rather, is the perpetual resort for proof of the whole world's spiritual subjection to Christ through the Gospel, and that the world will be converted before the coining of Christ! Whereas, in the first place, there is no such universal conversion to Christ indicated in this psalm; but, instead thereof; a terrible and universal destruction of his enemies is signified. And, in the second place, Christ, as king upon the hill of Zion, is distinctly represented as having already come; as being personally present, ruling, judging, and destroying his enemies in his hot, judicial displeasure. And this signifies universal conversion to Christ! This means the spiritual subjection of the wicked world, and the ushering in of the millennium before the coming of the King in Zion!

Permit us to inquire, Does this breaking with a rod of iron, this dashing in pieces as a potter’s vessel, this vexing them in his sore displeasure, this being angry with them, and causing them to perish from way when his wrath is kindled-does all this indicate a work of love and salvation? Is this the moral triumph of the Gospel? Would any one ever receive-did any one, could any one ever receive such an impression from these terrible threatenings and this awful imagery, if he had not a previously-formed and a fondly-cherished dogmatic theory that demanded this violence to all the recognized rules and usages of literary criticism, and this unparalleled perversion of the natural teachings of verbal statements and symbolic imagery? Is there an admitted example in any book, except the Bible, where such terrible imagery and verbalism are ever used to indicate a reformative, merciful work of grace, and not of judicial wrath and severity? If such be the appropriate expression of love and mercy, what would be the legitimate expression of the opposite? Furthermore, if this imports mercy and redemption, why is it held up as a warning to wicked kings and judges, lest it should be visited upon them, and they should perish under his wrath?

The true parallel of the second Psalm is Rev. ii, 25-27: "But that which ye have, hold fast TILL I COME. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will 1 give power over the nalions: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: EVEN AS I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER."

Now, it is the teaching of the Word of God that the saints are to "reign with Christ:" that "the saints shall judge the world;" that when the Lord shall return from his "journey into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return," charging the servants whom he leaves behind, "Occupy till I come," (Luke xix, 12-27;) it is the Scripture doctrine that the faithful servants' will, at their Lord's return, "having received the kingdom," "enter into the joy of their Lord," which is more definitely explained, " have thou authority over ten cities."

But when and where is this governmental association with Christ, 'as the returned King, to be realized? Not "now in this time" (Mark x, 30,) bat in the "palingenesia," (Matt. xix, 28,) "when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory," (Psa. ii, 6,) when the twelve apostles sball " sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Can any thing be plainer than this? Is not this a manifestly just and natural method of interpreting the Word of God by its immediate connections and evident parallels? The bearing of this argument upon the question at issue is unmistakable.

We boldly affirm, after due examination, and after weighing well the statement, that there is not a passage in the Bible relating to the great question in this controversy, interpreted fairly by its associations and parallels, that does not distinctly indicate the pre-millennial theory of the relative order of the millennium and the advent, and that does not as distinctly disprove the theory of the opposite.

We have thus far considered some of the passages most relied upon apparently to sustain the anti or post-millennial theory, and have shown from their connections and parallels, that the true millennial, or, as we prefer to call it, the pre-millennial, theory of exposition is not only legitimate, scriptural, self-consistent, and logically demonstrative; but that it is the only interpretation possible for those passages, without doing violence to literary axioms, Scripture precedents, and the legitimate impressions of symbolical imagery and common verbalism. And we are genuine Protestants, believing that the Bible was intended for the people; for those who mainly rely upon the legitimate impression which the language and imagery of inspiration produce upon the uncorrupted mind.

If there is any thing more unmistakably revealed than another, respecting the state of the world at the advent, it is this that it will take the world by surprise. As a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. It will come as a thief in the night. When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape. The advent will not be when it is generally expected, but when it' is not. Now this must be accounted for, for it is unmistakably revealed. And which of the two theories is best adapted to explain it? Let us suppose that the pre-millennial theory is generally prevalent at that decisive epoch, and that the advent is considered imminent, and is daily watched for and expected. Would the world then be overtaken by the advent unexpectedly? Certainly not.

Let us suppose, on the other hand, that a false theory is generally prevalent at that epoch; for example, that the advent is not to occur until after the millennial, whereas it takes place before. Would not this general misapprehension of the true order of the events completely explain the predicted fact as to the unexpectedness of the advent? Which, then, of the two theories is the more likely to be the true one? Would the general prevalence of essential error, respecting the relative order of events, be the best preparation for the primal event? Again, would the general prevalence of true impressions, as to the relative order of events, be the occasion of general unpreparedness for the, primal event? Certain{y not. Which, then, of these conflicting theories gives the rationale of the undeniable fact?

Do post-millenarians dissent from applying this simple test to the pre-millenarian side of the question, and consent to apply it to the advent subsequent to the millennium? Consider the logical consequences: 1. It would not then be a question of relative order, as it is now. For, as the advent did not occur at the beginning of the millennium, it must, of course, occur at the end of it; and it would then be a question of belief or disbelief of the Word of God; inasmuch as the advent is predicted to take place either at the opening, or at the close of that dispensation. 2. The general unpreparedness of the world at that time, as the supposition is, would show that general disbelief of what is distinctly revealed in the Word of God will characterize the close of the millennium.

As it would be impossible to compress within the limits of this article the examination of a tithe of the passages of Scripture which we deem decisive in settling this great controversy respecting the relative order of the millennium and the advent, we must be content with the consideration of only a few, and these chiefly from the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ. It will be remembered that we are not discussing the general subject of the millennium, nor the general subject of the advent, nor the numberless collateral and more or less dependent questions which are usually treated in connection with the general theme. All these are more or less important in a general discussion, but they are purposely excluded from this. The settlement of the great question now under immediate review will necessarily dispose of many of the collateral issues.

How did our Lord represent the relative order of these two great events? While it must be admitted by all that he did not use the term millennium, yet it will not be denied by any that lie often referred to a coming state or dispensation, when, as all, perhaps, will agree, the millennial prophecies will be fulfilled. His kingdom will come, and his will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven. He will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity. The righteous shall yet shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The meek shall inherit the earth. The apostles will yet sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The obedient and the faithful shall yet enter into the joy of their Lord. We are not now called upon to give the precise signification of these various representations of the coming glory and blessedness of the true disciples. Perhaps even millenarians might not exactly coincide iii their views of the particulars included in the general representation of the coming felicity. But the good time coming in must include the restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. It must then embrace the millennial blessedness promised t9 the Church in this world. To suppose that our Lord overleaped and over-looked the millennial state, as of too little consequence to be referred to, and contemplated only what we usually call heaven, or the eternal state, will not be admitted by any true millenarian of either of the two kinds contemplated in this article.

With this restricted view of the general subject, let us for a little consider the great prophecy respecting His coining, and the end of the world.* [Not kosmos, but aion.] Leaving untouched innumerable topics, which might unnecessarily detain and embarrass us, we consider only these:-

* Matt. xxiv, and parallels.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXVIL-25

1. Here is a chain of prophecy that stretches through the whole breadth of this dispensation, beginning chronologically with the first persecution of the infant Church, and extending down to the coming of the Lord at the end of the aion, when the Master returns to reward the watchful and the obedient, and to punish the disobedient and the disbelieving.

2. There is not the slightest indication of any such condition of general virtue and blessedness as the Scriptures authorize us to expect in that age, dispensation, or state that we denom mate the millennium.

3. Instead of all becoming holy and harmless, the unfaithful and the unbelieving continue so until the end, and are found by the returning Master eating and drinking with the drunken, and smiting their fellow-servants, and screening themselves with the plea, "My Lord delayeth his coming." Is there any millennium here?

4. The days of persecution, distress, and tribulation continue until the last; so that the signs of the Lord's coming follow "immediately after the tribulation of those days."

5. The day of the Lord, or the coming of the Son of man, overtakes the unbelieving, unwatchful, unprepared generation by surprise, as they are eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, as the Noachian flood came upon the wicked antediluvians and took them all away. The Lord will come "in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," (2 Thess. i, 8,) as the fire-storm fell upon Sodom and consumed them in their lusts.

6. There is not in all this broad prophecy, that covers the whole dispensation, extending down to the end of the aion, [as long as the Gospel commission continues, Matt. xxviii, 20,] the slightest intimation of such a state of the world, or of the Church, as the millennial prophecies give us reason to expect.

7. Closing up the long-continuing ajon, during which wickedness and the wicked continue until the end, the Lord suddenly comes to reward and to punish.

Thus have we explored the whole breadth of this dispensational sea. Launching out on the first advent side of it, we have sailed in search of the millennial isle; but we have not discovered it. We know where it is indicated in the modern charts; but we have traversed every Scripture parallel of longitude and latitude in that vicinity, and have not found it. We have found the second advent on the farther coast; but there is no island of Paradise this side of it.

Is there any millennial indication beyond the advent?

1. We find, in connection with the advent, a gathering together of the elect from the four winds of heaven. So here we have the proper subjects of the expected blessedness.

2. We find them redeemed from all the tribulation which afflicted them through all the Gospel aion until the close of it. The Lord has added to his description of the signs of the advent these words of instruction and cheer: "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look' up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." So here we have assurance of the good things that follow.

3. That state is of the nature of a kingdom. When the Son of man is revealed from heaven, coming in his glory, he will sit upon the throne of his glory, and speak and perform as "the King." This will be in perfect accord with all the prophecies of the millennium; for it is almost invariably represented as a kingdom-the Son of David reigning upon David's throne. "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David." Luke i, 32. See, also, the whole of the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, and the almost innumerable parallel passages.

4. Then our Lord is careful to fix the time of the introduction of the kingdom, showing that it is not to be expected until the period of the advent: "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the KINGDOM OF GOD is nigh at hand." Luke xxi, 31. Is not this the period when "the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him?" Dan. vii, 27. Is not this indeed the fulfillment of that petition which the Lord has put into the heart and mouth of the Church, "thy kingdom come ; * thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven?"

5. So here we find the saints associated with the Lord, after his advent, possessing the kingdom, which comes in connection with the advent. Here is the consummation of the millennial

* Eltheto, from erkomai₇ to COME; never to extend, or to increase.

prophecies, relating both to the King and the happy subjects of his dominion. They do not go to find the kingdom; it comes to them, in fulfillment of prophecy, and in answer to the petition in the Lord's prayer. The kingdom is "under the whole heaven." When the kingdom comes, the will of God is done "on earth, as it is in heaven." Now the saints "reign with him." Now "the saints shall judge the world." Is not this the Bible millennium?

6. But where do we find this millennium? What is its chronological relation to the advent? Is it before? No. Is it after? Yes. Who teaches this? Christ. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Let us continue sitting at the feet of the divine Teacher. With reverential docility let on'. ears be attentive to the words of his lips. Lord, we would know unto what the kingdom of heaven is like. Not the' kingdom of heaven in heaven, but the kingdom of heaven upon earth; the kingdom in that stage or dispensation when thy will is done on earth as it is in heaven. We would understand the relations of the kingdom to the present dispensation; the origin of the present admixture of good and evil in the kingdom; whether this state of things will continue until the end of the present economy, [aion,] or whether, previous to the end, all the wicked, shall become obedient to thy commands, and all wickedness be cleansed away. Speak, Lord, for thy servants are waiting to hear.

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up.? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up tie tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and iii the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

We now notice several items of special interest in this parable of the kingdom. 1. It illustrates the kingdom from the first to the last, and through the whole extent of the present dispensation. 2. It is the kingdom of Christ: "The Son of man shall ...gather out of his kingdom," etc., v.41. 3. It is the kingdom (1) under Christ as Mediator, reigning as such in heaven, and cotitinuing as such until the "end of the world." [Aion.] (2.) Then, at the end of the age or dispensation, it is the kingdom, as it is to be administered under a new economy, where destruction to the wicked, (v.42,) and not salvation, and complete deliverance and glorification for the "children of the kingdom," wil1 be secured, v.43. 4. It is the kingdom, then, in two dissimilar dispensations, the one, mediatorial and preparative; the other, regal and judicial, v. 41. 5. It is the kingdom upon the earth, where the enemy sowed the tares, (38,) and where the judicial executions will be administered, v.41. 6. This parable of our Lord is by himself interpreted item by item, showing (1) the Divine method of interpreting parables of this class; and (2) giving distinctly the literal meaning of each figurative statement. We need not copy the particulars of our Lord's interpretation of this remarkable illustration of the kingdom. If it is not familiar to the reader, let him carefully read verses 36-43.

Now is there, or is there not, this side of the "end of the world," [aion,] any indication of such a millennium as we find portrayed in the prophecies, and such as 'we are accustomed to embrace in the prayers and faith of the Church? There certainly is not. Is there, or is there not, subsequent to the "end of the world," [aion,] indication, or proof even, of the complete manifestation and establishment of the kingdom, including the entire cleansing of the kingdom from "all things that offend, and them that do iniquity," (v.41,) and the gathering into it (v. 30) of the "children of the kingdom," and their glorious happiness? v.43. There certainly is. What, then, is the relative order of the millennium and the advent? The Lord himself being the teacher, is the millennium before or after the advent? Or, changing the phrase, is it during or after the aion that was introduced by the Son of man sowing the Gospel seed?

How forcibly this and other similar parables of our Lord remind us of the eschatology of the prophecies of the book of Daniel! Take, as a specimen, the eleventh chapter, considered in its relations to the twelfth.

1. Here is a prophetic representation of the doings of certain rulers, especially of one whose ambitious and wicked proceedings continue until the close of the prophetic periods. The angel upon the waters declared that it should be for "a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."

2. "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."

Then follows the account of the resurrection: "Some to ever-lasting. life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.* And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever."

3. The prophecy associates chronologically just the same great events which our Lord's parables and many other portions of the Scriptures do in descriptive eschatology. (1.)" The time of the end." The finishing of the prophetic periods; the "time, times, and a half;" the 1260, the 1290, and the 1335 days. (2.) The continued wickedness of the wicked until "that time " the persecution of the "holy people;" the season of unparalleled tribulation; the final deliverance "of every one that shall be found written in the book;" the resurrection of "them that sleep in the dust of the earth." (3.) And this associates it with the coming of Christ; for the dead will not be raised until he comes to judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. (4.) Then follows the reward and glorification of the faithful, who "shine as the brightness of the firmament," and "as the stars for ever and ever." (5.) And this corresponds with our Lord's declaration, as it respects the period and the associated events. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their' Father." (6.) Now the prophet, with every one whose name is written in the book, after his "rest," shall "stand in his lot

* We do not detain the argument to explain how completely this may be harmonized with the doctrine of a twofold resurrection, with an interval between.

at the end' of the days." Now, bringing the prophetic narrative to the question at issue, when do the "holy people" experience deliverance from the oppressor? When do they attain the glory and blessedness of shining as the, firmament in the kingdom? Is it a millennium before the advent? or is it in connection with, or immediately subsequent to, the advent? The answer cannot be otherwise than confirmative of pre-millennialism.

We select for examination another of our Lord's parables of the kingdom. The parable of the pounds, in the nineteenth chapter of Luke, is strikingly pertinent to the discussion now before us. Our Lord undoubtedly had reference, as an illustration, to the method by which Herod the Great obtained the kingdom of Judea. He went to Rome for the purpose of obtaining the title and kingly authority from the emperor. He received the kingdom at Rome, not to exercise his kingly office there, but to return to the country from which he departed when he went to Rome, that he might reign as king over the provinces chiefly inhabited by the Jews. "And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." The parable, it seems, was intended to correct their erroneous impression. "He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive f0r himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come." Now here we have, 1. The purpose of our Lord [assuming that he refers to himself] in going to the "far country," that is, to heaven. It was to "receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." He did not expect to find the kingdom located in the "far country," or to exercise his regal authority there. He was to "return" to the locality from which he went, to exercise his kingly office where his provinces and his subjects were. 2. How long before he might be expected to return for the purpose of reigning in his kingdom? The answer is as follows: First, lie wished to correct. the misapprehension of the Jews, "that the kingdom of God should imme4iately appear." Second. He "went into a far country," and the natural inference is that it would be a considerable space of time before he would return. Third. In the similar parable of the talents, (Matt. xxv,) where the man traveled "into a far country," it is said, "After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them." Fourth. It was in reference to this very coming, or return of the absent Master, that the evil servant said in his heart, "My Lord delayeth his coming."

We may safely assume, then, that this parable of the pounds, as well as the parable of the talents, was intended to illustrate the condition of things during the entire continuance of the economy of Divine government from the departure of our Lord to his return again. Still claiming the natural inference, we perceive that his receiving the kingdom in the far country, whither he went to obtain it, as Herod received the kingdom of Judea at Rome, whither he went to obtain it, does not imply that the kingdom is located there, or that he exercises his kingly prerogatives there. We learn from the parable that "when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then lie commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money," and to whom he had said, "Occupy till I come;" and then he began to exercise his regal prerogative by judging, rewarding, and punishing. And this is precisely in accordance with our Lord's unfigurative representation of the case, in the description of his second advent, application to himself of his own parable of the talents Matt. xxv, 31-46.

Now, taking our Lord's representation of things during the entire period of his absence, following it down to the very day of his return, observing that the evil and the good continue until the end, and that toil, trial, and the stern duties of self-denial and watchfulness are still imposed upon the faithful until the Master returns, and that it is not until then that the faithful "enter into the joy of their Lord," and are called to share the government with him, (Luke xix, 17, etc.,) we ask, with all sincerity, Where is there any indication of millennial rest, exaltation, or glory, previous to the return of the Lord? We certainly do find unmistakable indications of the long-expected rest and blessedness after the advent, but nothing of the kind before. Receiving, with childlike docility, the impression which our Lord's parables, explanations, and personal applications naturally produce upon the unbiased mind, what is the relative order of the millennium and' the advent? Is the millennium first? No. Is the advent first? Yes, most distinctly.

Here the direct Scripture argument must be closed; but we do it with great reluctance. It is, indeed, an act of severe self-denial. There are passages in the Psalms, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Zechariah, the Gospels, Acts, Romans, First and Second Corinthians, First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Hebrews, Second Peter, Second John, Jude, and Revelation, in which the relation of the advent and the millennium, as it respects the question under discussion, is very clearly indicated, and the analysis of many of these passages, contemplated in the light of their immediate connections and manifest parallels, would still further exhibit the scriptural strength of pre-millennialism.

It will be understood, of course, that this discussion has but a single point in view: the relative order of two associated events. It is not an argument to establish the fact of either; both are assumed. With anti-adventists, if there be such readers of the Methodist Quarterly Review, and with anti-millenarians, if there be such, we have nothing to say. To those who perceive and recognize, as revelations of the sacred word, both the advent and the millennium, as more or less related events, our argument is addressed. There has been so much confusion of thought in reference to these two great Scripture revelations that many, doubtless, if they do not reject them entirely, are, nevertheless, but little impressed with the reality and importance of them. And there has been so much of mal-exegesis of these Bible teachings that it would not be surprising if many should be found entirely destitute of confidence in any theory of interpretation. And it must be unmistakable to all that the thrilling interest which the primitive Christians seem to have felt in these two momentous anticipated events, as considerations of immediate practical value, has, to a large extent, been eliminated from the convictions and sensibilities of the now existing Church.

May it not be worthy of the most serious consideration of the Church, whether we have not in this very evident fact the true rationale of the often-predicted representation of the ultimate unbelief and unpreparedness of the world, and of the Church, even, for the advent when it shall occur? Is there any other way to explain what the Scriptures have so often and so distinctly stated in respect to the state of the world when the Lord shall come?

Will more than five of the ten slumbering virgins be found with their lamps trimmed and burning when the Bridegroom shall finally appear? Will there not be "scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming," at the time when he shall actually come? "When the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?" Shall he find the faith of his coming to vindicate his elect as he has promised? Will he find the faith of the importunate widow, as exhibited in the parable?

The commentators who formerly understood the coming here referred to as in some way applying to the destruction of Jerusalem, were quite confident that it indicated that very little faith would be found in the earth, or in the land, as they chose to restrict it, when, as they interpreted it, Christ should come to inflict judgments upon the Jewish nation. But as this utterly-unsupported theory of explaining this coming of the Son of man may be regarded as being now almost universally abandoned by the chief commentators, and as our Lord must be understood as referring to his own personal coming to vindicate his elect, why should we not interpret his language in the same way in respect to the question of faith?

It is remarkable that some who understand our Lord to refer to his literal coming, and that this coming will be post-millennial, are compelled to apply the declension of the faith to a falling away at the close of the millennium. And consistency would require that the innumerable other passages which indicate the wickedness, the unbelief, and the unpreparedness of the Church and the world for the second coming of the Lord should be applied in the same manner, thereby showing that the millennial state will terminate iii the most fearfully disastrous manner to the Church.* The little Horn, (Dan. vii, 21, 22,)

[*To this representation of the condition of the world at the coming of Christ it may be retorted, that the millennium of the twentieth chapter of Revelation terminates very disastrously, and that if the unpreparedness of the world be an objection to the post-millenarian theory, it may prove just as objectionable to the pre-millenarian. Our reply is this: The unpreparedness for the coming, according to the theory that the advent is at the close of the millennium, and not at the]

according to this, immediately succeeding the fourth beast-empire, and continuing the cruel persecutions of the saints during the entire ante-advent dispensation, must then indicate that at no period previous to the advent will this world be brought into the foreshadowed millennial blessedness. The prophet affirms, "I beheld, and the same Horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of Days came; and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." The prophet plainly shows that this coming and this inheriting of the kingdom by the saints are not to be expected before "the time of the end," which he carries forward to the termination of all the prophetic periods until the resurrection, (chap. xii, 1-3, 13,) when Daniel shall "stand in his lot at the end of the days."

[beginning, results, 1. From declension and apostasy from the true faith, and must be predicated, therefore, mainly of the Church itself. 2. It is the ultimate of infidelity and wickedness that continue throughout the whole period of the millennial dispensation, and culminate only. at the close of it. 3. And according to this, there is, in fact, no millennium at all, such as the Scriptures warrant us to expect, and such as the Church has for many ages been praying and looking for.

Whereas, on the other side, the wickedness at the close of the millennium, according to the twentieth chapter of Revelation, does riot relate to tire redeemed and glorified Church at all, and is not of the nature of an apostasy from the true faith. The Church is "the camp of the saints," and the "beloved city," and has no part in the declension and rebellion. Revelation xx, as other portions of the Bible, represent that there will be two distinct classes of inhabitants in the world during and at the close of the millennium. First. The glorified saints living in the resurrection, or the translated state. Second. The nations of the earth living in the natural-perhaps Edenic-state, prosperous and populous during the whole period of the millennial dispensation. But as Satan is bound at the beginning of that period, so that he may not go out to deceive the nations, and, consequently, they will not be subjected to the probational temptations and tests that seem to be, for some good purpose, God's order in the government of responsible beings, both human and angelic; at the close of that dispensation, for reasons satisfactory to Infinite Wisdom, Satan will be released for a little season, and suffered to go out and deceive the nations, that they may be subjected to the probational tests of character, as were angels in their first estate, and as was man in Eden.

This statement of the case is much less objectionable than the other for the following reasons: 1. The governmental principle involved in the case is in accord with the analogy of God's dealings with men and with angels at other times. 2. it does not involve the safety and felicity of the fully redeemed, who are defended and delivered by the direct interposition of God. 3. It allows for a real millennium, according to the plain teachings of the word of God, and the hope of the believing Church.]

Now where is the millennium during this whole period? Must all this prophetically symbolized wickedness and persecution be, a post-millennial development? What a sad ending to a glorious millennial promise and beginnings, if indeed it, be post-millennial.

And in the same manner must we understand the Apostle Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, if the Horn of Daniel's prophecy and the Man of Sin of Paul's epistle be post-millennial. For it is manifest that the apostle was then speaking of the coming of the Lord, which the Thessalonians mistakenly supposed was near. It is undeniable that he was speaking of the coming of the Lord that will be associated with the resurrection of the dead, the transformation of the living, and the gathering together of the saints unto him. And the whole purpose and structure of his argument prove that it was this identical parousia of which he had spoken in the first epistle, which the excited Church mistakenly anticipated as at hand,' and which 'he undertook to show was not at hand; we say, it was this very coining of which he continued to speak, using the identical word when he affirmed that the day of Christ should not come, "except there come a falling away first, and that Man of Sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" and then he goes on to show what will prevent his being manifested immediately, "even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders," etc.; and he distinctly announces that this Wicked One, with all his "deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish," will continue until this very parousia' of which he was speaking, and will then be consumed.

This word parousia is used just twenty-four times in the New Testament, and in every place, without a single exception, it means a personal coming, or a personal presence. It was the personal coming of which the apostle had written in the first epistle; it was the personal coming which the Thessalonians apprehended as being at hand; it was the personal coming which he undertook to show was not then at hand; and it was the same coming that he affirmed would not occur until the Wicked One' should be revealed; it was the same coming-using the same word-which will certainly take place while the Wicked One is still practicing his deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, and at which advent the 'Wicked One shall be destroyed.

Now the point is this: 1. We have the parousia-the personal coming of the Lord. 2. When this glorious c6ming occurs, the Wicked One, with all his malign deceivableness, is at work among the people and prospering. 3. This "falling away," and this, revealing of the Wicked One, were given as proofs to the Thessalonians that the day of Christ was not at hand, but would be delayed until this predicted state of wickedness should be witnessed; and the whole structure of the argument shows that this consummation of wickedness would be developed from causes and tendencies which were actually working at the time the epistle was written, (chap. ii, 6, 7.)

4. The inevitable conclusion must be this: If the wickedness that originated in apostolic times shall continue until the advent, and the advent is post-millennial, then the Man of Sin, the lawless one, the wicked deceiver, with all his lying power and wonders, will continue during the whole period of the millennium! But what sort of millennium is this? Is this all that the Church has been encouraged to expect? Is this all that the prophecies, types, and symbols indicate of the millennial state of the world?

The same line of argument, with the same result, could be pursued with reference to the Antichrist of St. John's epistles, and with respect to the Harlot of Babylon, in the Book of Revelation. Indeed, the Scriptures abound with passages of the same import; and the general tenor of the Word of God is to the same effect. Now, if this be so, does it not indicate very distinctly, from the nature of the case, the pre-millennial advent of the Lord, to prepare the world for the millennium?

There is another line of thought that has manifest pertinency to the question under review. The Scriptures, especially the New Testament, abound with admonitions and comforting assurances to true believers, in view of a coming deliverance from the persecutions and afflictions of the present state, and of relief and rest from the, burdens of the common Christian life. The persecuted, the afflicted, and the weary are encouraged to look for a change that shall insure to them the blessedness that the present dispensation does not afford. To the persecuted Thessalonians there was a promise of "rest;" not when the millennium shall be brought in, but "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day."

Now it is certain that such rest and blessedness are promised to the people of God in the millennium state. And it is also certain that we naturally look to the deliverance that is nearest to us, and first in order of time, when we indulge our anticipations of relief and blissfulness. If the millennium is before the advent, why should it be entirely overlooked in the anticipations, and the hoped-for relief be expected in an event that will not occur-if it be post-millennial-until after a thousand blissful years shall have passed away? If the advent be pre-millennial, we can easily understand why the advent should be looked for as the period of rest and blessedness; but not otherwise. To comfort the Thessalonians, the apostle did not point them to the expected subjection of the world to Christ, but went on to describe the parousia of the Lord, the attending resurrection and transformation of the saints, and says, "Wherefore comfort one another with these words." And again, speaking of the same general theme, lie adds, "Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do." In this light we can see a reason for the "patient waiting for Christ." We may also discover the propriety of directing the mind of the Church, not to the millennium, but to the advent, as the period to be greatly desired. "Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord." "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh."

In the same line of thought we can discover the propriety of warning the unbelieving and the undutiful, by an appeal to their fears, in view of the consequences which result at the coining of the Lord. It was held up to their startled apprehensions as an event that might occur most unexpectedly, overtaking them in the midst of slumber, revelry, or the stupor of unbelief. Not to cite the many instances of this style of warning and appeal, we have only to recur to some of our Lord's parables, and to his most solemn utterances of this nature in the Mount Olivet prophecy. If our Lord under-stood that at least a millennium of time must elapse, after this world is converted to himself, before his second advent would occur, we are not able to understand how he could have represented it as imminent, so as to become a warning to all generations of wicked men.

Indeed, assuming that the advent is post-millennial, unto whom do these warning appeals apply? Do they intend to excite apprehensions without the slightest reason to expect what is apprehended? Certainly, if the advent is post-millennial, no one who lives before the beginning of the millennium, and no one who lives during the first nine tenths of it, can have the slightest reason to apprehend the coming of the Lord. And all these warnings and exhortations to be found in readiness for that event, as something that might overtake us now, in the midst of the present relations and duties of life, cannot in the least appertain to the present dispensation, but belong exclusively to that remote and last generation that shall people the world at the close of the thousand years. With what consistency, then, can these appeals be made to the ante-millennial generations? Must not men be entirely reconstructed, mentally and morally, before rational results from such appeals can be rationally expected? Can a post-millennialist, with any show of sincerity, or any appearance of propriety, pray, preach, and exhort as our Lord d~, with reference to the uncertainty, imminency, or the immediate practical use of the advent of the Lord?

Is not this glaring inconsistency of teaching that the real advent is post-millennial and yet that the advent is to be prepared for, and constantly watched for, as an event that might occur at any moment, the real source of the malexegesis that interprets the coining of the Lord as being in some way associated with the destruction of Jerusalem, or with the coining of death, or some unusual occurrence, that may not in the slightest degree be a manifestation of Christ? This irresponsible method of harmonizing post-millenarian doctrines with pre-millennial Scripture teachings has done immense disservice to Scripture exegesis. it is encouraging to know that some of the latest and best expositions of the Bible are distinctly pre- millennial in sentiment. The former unfortunate method of "Jerusalemizing" every reference to the coming of Christ that seemed to be in conflict with post-millennial theories, has, we are impressed, about had its day. And, as for the "double-sense" method of exegesis, by which the doubtful application is shuffled from one thing to another, so as to find something that might be assigned as the thing in-tended, that, too, likewise, we opine, is less influential now than it was a generation since. Literal language interpreted literally, figurative language interpreted by the literal, and symbols explained by familiar laws, so as to be as definite as the symbols of sound, relation, or quantity, this, we apprehend, will more and more characterize the future expositions of the Word of God.

In other words, the Bible will be allowed to speak for and interpret itself. It will be assumed that inspiration has adapted Divine revelation to our common human nature; that it is not to be wrested from the natural impression which its language is cal3ulated to make upon the common mind. During the first two centuries, while the Scriptures were expounded with literal simplicity, more than in subsequent times, pre-millennialism was the general belief of the Church, and the coining of the Lord was deemed a not distant event. This statement will not be denied, probably, by any who have acquainted themselves with the history of Christian doctrines from the beginning.

In the third century the learned and very ingenious Origen introduced an entirely new method of expounding the Scriptures, which more and more prevailed, until a new faith, founded in new theories of exegesis, became generally prevalent, and the primitive doctrine concerning the coming of Christ and the millennium was brought into disrepute, and became the exception, and not, as at first, the general belief. Not learning, but imagination; not common sense, but platonic speculation, robbed the Church of her primitive simplicity and her original pre-millenarian faith.

Among the very' eminent authors who have fully indorsed the true millenarian doctrine, we are pleased to add the illustrious name of Bishop Butler, whose profound and unanswerable "Analogy " is a sufficient testituon₄ial 'to his erudition and mental superiority. Speaking of the peculiar character of the Bible, as being "a kind of abridgment of the history of the world, in the view just now mentioned, that is, a general account of the condition of religion and its professors during the continuance of that apostasy from God, and the state of wickedness which it every-where supposes the world to lie in ,"he remarks:-

But it seems to contain some very general account of the chief governments of the would, as the general state of religion has been, is, or shall be, affected by them, from the first transgression, and during the whole interval of the world's continuing in its present state to a certain future period, spoken of in both the Old and New Testaments, very distinctly, and in great variety of expression: "The times of the restitution of all things;" "when the mystery of God shall be finished, as he bath declared to his servants the prophets;" "when the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;" "and the kingdom shall hot be left to other people, as it is represented to be, during this apostasy, but judgment shall be given to the saints, and they shall reign;" "and the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High." *

After giving a full expression of his conviction, that the promised restoration of the Jews will yet be literally fulfilled, under the power and government of Jesus their Messiah, he adds:-

Things of this kind naturally turn the thoughts of serious men toward the full completion of the prophetic history, concerning the establishment of the everlasting kingdom among them-the kingdom of the Messiah and the future state of the world under this sacred government." †

Butler was a literalist, and he looked for the kingdom of God, under the kingship of Jesus the Messiah, to be established upon the earth, according to the literal import of the millennial prophecies. This was "the faith once delivered to the saints," which we are exhorted earnestly to contend for.

We may be indulged with an illustration, strictly scriptural, and more or less analogical. Light is a common illustration of the coming blessedness which shall gladden the heart of Zion. And it may illuminate the question of the relative order of the advent and the millennium. If Christ be the

* "Analogy," Carter's edition, p.262. † Ibid., p. 27l.

FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXVII.-26

light that glorifies his Church with meridian splendor, shall that long-anticipated day precede and introduce the Sun at the evening? Or shall there be heard in the morning of that day, as the night-shadows flee before the dawn, the animating voice that rouses the benighted, slumbering Church, saying, "Arise, and shine; for thy light is come; and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee! For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people. But the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee." Isa. lx, 1, 2.

This is the vital question at issue. This is the first thing to be decided. Christ is indeed himself the Sun. All light beams forth from him. But our Sun is at so great a distance now that he' is only "the bright and the morning star." As the morning star, he heralds and hastens the dawn. But it is yet. comparative night. Darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people. How is the long-promised day to be brought in? Must not this bright morning Star come so near as to be our Sun? Will not the Sun of righteousness arise, with healing in his wings? Is not the truly converted soul the millennium in miniature? And is not this miniature millennium brought about in the soul, by taking heed to the glimmering rays, "as unto a light that shineth in a dark place; until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in the heart?" This is, indeed, the great question: Shall the day introduce the Sun, or shall the Sun introduce the day? Shall the Sun rise and appear in the evening, or in the morning? It is a question of relative order. Let it be decided by the teachings of the literal, the figurative, and the symbolic prophecies. Let the parables of our Lord and the admonitions of the apostles be deemed decisive. Let the primitive faith of. the Church, and the natural order of things, be fully considered. Then, after candid, deliberate investigation, what is the answer? Perhaps we cannot better close this article than by giving an extract from the writings of the learned and very eminent Dr. Alford, the Dean of Canterbury:-

One thought may, perhaps, have been in some minds as they have been reading these lines, and it is this : Will not the Lord's coming, to most of u~, in all probability be the day of our own death? And would it not be more profitable to be preparing us for that, than to speak to us of an event which may be far distant, and probably will not come on the earth in our time at all?

To this question there are two answers-answers which ought to be ever impressed on a Christian's mind. First. The view of things proposed by the inquirer is not that taken in Holy Scripture, which is the rule and pattern of our teaching. There we do not bear any thing of preparation for death. I doubt whether one text can bc found in which we are exhorted to make such preparation, as such. But the constant note, the continually recurring exhortation, is, to be prepared for the Lord's coming. So that if we would teach as God's word teaches, as our blessed Lord and his apostles taught, we cannot do as the inquirer would have us.

Our second answer goes to the reason of the thing, and in fact gives the account and lays open the foundation of the former. He who is prepared for the Lord's coming is necessarily also prepared for his own death. The greater includes the less. lie who so lives, so thinks, so speaks, so works, in his daily life, as to be ready for the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, will not be found unready when the summons is heard in a softer tone, and comes with more previous warning. If he can meet the Lord amid the flaming heavens and the gathering dead, he will not be loath to obey his call when its dread reality is tempered with all gentle and kindly alleviation-with the gradual approaches of sickness and infirmity and the tender solaces of loving friends and watchful attendants. But, on the other hand, he who has forgotten his Lord's coming, and has simply been careful about his own dismissal, will ever be too liable in the lesser thing to have neglected care for the greater; and he will also be well-nigh certain to have lowered his standard of attainment, and narrowed his sympathies unworthily; in taking thought for himself, to have forgotten the great Body of which he is a member; in minding his own safety, to have forgotten the glory of his Lord-nay, his very Lord himself. For-and with this thought we will draw to a close-there is nothing that so much takes a man out of himself; nothing that so much raises and widens his thoughts and sympathies; nothing that so much purifies and elevates his hopes, as this preparation for the coming of the Lord.- Good Words, Jan., 1863.

Proofreading, HTML conversion, and other modifications by Brandon Boyd.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.