Imágenes de páginas

and to the overthrow of Antichrist. In fact, the converted fugitives from the armies of Antichrist are described as being greatly instrumental in bringing about the restoration of the ten tribes. Hence their restoration is plainly future; and hence we cannot with any degree of consistency apply the predictions which foretell it, to the return of a few individuals from Babylon with Judah. Of the Jews who were carried away captive to Babylon, only a very small part, according to Houbigan, not more than a hundredth part, returned to their own country. Those who are left behind, will, doubtless, at the time of the second advent, be brought back along with their brethren of the ten tribes ; just as those individuals of the ten tribes, who returned with Judah from Babylon, and (adhering to him notwithstanding the Samaritan schism) were afterwards scattered with him by the Romans, will be brought back with their brethren the Jews. So far, but no farther, the otherwise distinct restoration of Judah and of Joseph will in some measure be mingled together. This circumstance is very accurately noted by Ezekiel, even when predicting the two-fold restoration of Judah and Joseph, and their subsequent union under one king. He speaks neither of Judah nor Joseph simply; but styles the one division Judah, and the children of Israel his companions; and the other division Joseph, and all the house of Israel his companions; thus plainly intimating that some of the children of Israel shall return with Judah; but that numbers of all the tribes, not of the kingdom of ten tribes only, but of all the tribes, shall return with Joseph.”

“It is the opinion of many who advocate the literal restoration of the whole house of Israel,' that the remnant of the ten tribes have become incorporated with dispersed Judah ;" but Mr. Begg justly remarks :-“ The situations of the two kingdoms, previous to their restoration, are represented differently, Judah, when particularized, being generally spoken of as dispersed' and

scattered ;' Israel, never. Judah is frequently said to be 'gathered, while Israel in contrast, is said to be saved,' and 'assembled' and brought again.' Israel are outcasts,' and only 'a remnant;' Judah, though 'cast far off,' is still “a strong nation. Their restoration appears to take place while these are the peculiarities of their situations, and their union to be effected only at that time. In the very act of returning to their own land they appear to meet, and although they come 'together' from the north country, their being together seems something new. . . The time of their being gathered together, appears to be when they shall appoint over them one head.—THEN,' and not before.

No. XII. - Page 247.

REV. J. W. BROOKS. “ The doctrine of Christ coming to reign on earth is taught in King Edward's Catechism ; the majority of those divines who formed the Westminster Assembly held it; and it is plainly and honestly avowed in the Confession of Faith, published by the Baptists, in 1660, which is signed by forty-one names, and said to be approved by more than 20,000. Amidst a host of others, the following men of God have embraced it :-Joseph Mede, Dr. Twisse, Dr. Holmes, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Bishop Horsley, Joseph Hussey, Dr. Goodwin, Joseph Caryl, Fletcher of Madeley, Mr. Thorp, and Robert Hall, with many others, both dead and living, who, for sobriety of mind, research into Scripture, holiness of character, and zeal for God, yield to none.

“Considerable light has been recently thrown upon the sentiments of the majority of the famous assembly of divines, held at Westminster, in 1643, by the publication in Scotland of the Journal and Letters, written at that time by Principal Baillie, himself a determined ante-millennarian, and therefore not likely to be disposed to exaggerate the numbers or respectability of the parties who maintained” these views. “In his letter, No. 117, he says : “Send me the rest of Forbes; I like the book very well, and the man much better for the book's sake. I marvel I can find nothing in it against the Millennaries. I cannot think the author a Millennary. I cannot dream why he should have omitted an error so famous in antiquity, and so troublesome among us; for the most of the chief divines here,' (meaning the assembly,) 'not only Independents, but others, such as Twisse, Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts.' In this extract two things are evident: First, that the Independents of that day were generally Millennaries or Chiliasts ; which may plainly be inferred from the expression, 'not only Independents,'-as if the person to whom he wrote would take for granted that they were so. And, secondly, it is evident, that the majority of eminent divines there, besides the Independents, were also Millennarian ; as is clear from his saying, 'most of the chief divines here, such as Twisse,' (the prolocutor,) · Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express Chiliasts. Besides the three above mentioned, the following members of that assembly are known likewise, by their published writings or sentiments, to have been Millennarian: viz., Simeon, Ash, of St. Bride's; W. Bridge, A. M. ; Jeremiah Burroughs, A. M.; J. Caryl, A. M.; T. Goodwin, D. D.; W. Gouge, D. D.; J. Langley, Prebendary of Gloucester; and Peter Sterry, of London ; which is a considerable number, when it is remembered, how few divines commit themselves in print, compared with the number of those who never publish their sentiments; and of how many the works are no longer extant.

“As regards the Baptists, (not the Anabaptists, from whom the Baptists have been properly distinguished, *) we have, in addition to the sentiments of the eminent John Bunyan, and some other individual Baptists of piety and talent, the explicit testimony of the Baptist Confession of Faith, which is preserved in Crosby's history of that sect. We believe that there will be an order in the resurrection; Christ is the first fruits, and then next, or after, they that are Christ's at his coming; then, or afterwards, cometh the end. Concerning the kingdom or reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we do believe that he is now in heaven at his Father's right hand : so we do believe, that, at the time appointed of the Father, he shall come again in power and great glory; and that at, or after, his coming the second time, he will not only raise the dead, and judge and restore the world, but will also take to himself his kingdom, and will, according to the Scriptures, reign on the throne of his father David, on Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, for ever.' •

* "Bishop Burnet, speaking of the Anabaptists, says: 'Some of them set up a fantastical unintelligible way of talking of religion, which they twined all into allegories: these being joined in the common name of Anabaptists with the other, (the Baptists,) brought them also under an ill character.'” Vol. 11., book 1.

" It must not be concluded by the reader, that all Episcopalians were antemillennarians: on the contrary, they numbered in their ranks some able theologians and interpreters, who took, what I will venture to call, the orthodox view of prophecy. Nevertheless, to hold Millennarian views exposed a man to reproach; which was at one period carried to so great an extent, that Bishop Newton states, “it was esteemed a mark that a man was a Puritan, and a certain obstacle to his preferment, to preach that the pope was antichrist.'

“ Others, who are known by their sentiments, published within this period, (the 17th century,) to have been Millennarian, are: Doctors W. Alabaster, W. Allen, T. Burnet, D. Cressener, W. Hakewell, G. Hicks, N. Homes, J. Mather, W. Potter; and the following divines and laymen, abroad and of this country : T. Adams, W. Alleine, J. Archer, E. Bagshaw, T. Beverley, W. Burton, M. Cary, J. Cocceius, W. Deusbury, J. Durant, W. Erbery, G. Foster, T. Gale, G. Hammon, s. Hartlib, E. Huet, J. Hussey, P. De Launay, R. Maton, J. Mede, W. Medley, R. Mercer, C. S. Nuncius, A. Peganius, S. Petto, J. Ranew, W. Sherwin, and J. Tillinghast. This list is necessarily very defective; nor is it to be understood at all, who are therein enumerated, are equally Millennarian in degree ; for some of them contend only for a premillennial resurrection; whilst a few, still conceiving the Millennium to be past, look for the appearing and kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be established upon a renewed earth.

“In the English Encyclopedia, under the article. Cocceius,' we are told that he was the founder of a sect called Cocceians; who held, among other singular opinions, that of a visible reign of Christ, in this world, after a general conversion of the Jews, and all other people, to the true Christian faith, as laid down in the voluminous works of Cocceius. This was no other than the eminent John Cocceius, professor of theology at Bremen,-a man continually quoted and applauded by Vitringa for his piety, learning, and ability, as an expositor of prophecy. The Rev. H. Horne, speaking in his ‘Introduction,' &c., of his commentaries, says, that they abound with valuable illustrations, and will amply repay the trouble of perusal;' and Robinson says of him, that it passed into a proverb, that 'Grotius finds Christ no where in the Old Testament, Cocceius every where.'

“ The Pietists of Germany were also, in general, Millennarians. The Methodists of this present century were also, in general, Millennarians. John Wesley himself, and Fletcher of Madeley, held Millennarian views, and doubtless, therefore, they were responded to in this matter by their followers in general.

* Farther extracts of an interesting character to the student of prophecy, will be found in the Dialogues on Prophecy, vol. II., p. 267, and in a small work by Mr. Cox, a Baptist minister at Woolwich, entitled, A Millennarian's Answer of the Hope that is in Him

* «That I may not seem to judge the condition of the Dissenting congregations through a prejudiced medium, I would refer to the fact, that an annual sermon was, about the middle of the 18th century, appointed to be preached at Great Eastcheap, exclusively on prophecy, for the purpose of preventing the subject from sinking altogether into oblivion. Various sermóns preached on this occasion by the eminent Dr. John Gill, a decided Millennarian, are in existence; in which he deplores not only the neglect of prophecy, but the decay of genuine piety. In his discourse, for example, on Isai. XXI. 11, 12, he observes:- A sleepy frame of spirit has seized us; both ministers and churches are asleep; and being so, the enemy is busy in sowing the tares of errors and heresies, and which will grow up and spread yet more and more.

. “The following additional writers to those mentioned, are among the number of those whose sentiments were Millennarian to a greater or less extent, both in the Establishment and out of it, both at home and abroad; and whose works, therefore, tend farther to evince what the voice of the church was in this century. Bishops Clayton, Horseley, Newton, and Newcome; Doctors P. Allix, P. Frank, S. Glass, J. E. Grabe, S. Hopkins, (of Rhode Island, N. A.,) J. Knight, F. Lee, S. Rudd, and E. Wells; among the divines of lesser degree--T. Adams, (of Winteringham,) R. Beere, J. A. Bengelius, C. Daubuz, R. Heming, J. Hallet, R. Hort, R. Ingram, P. Jurien, J. B. Koppins, C. G. Koch, P. Lancaster, A. Pirie, R. Roach, J. D. Scheffer, A. Toplady, E. Winchester; and among the laity—Sir I. Newton, and H. Dodwell, and E. King, Esqrs.

“ With the exception of Mr. Faber, there is scarcely to be found a writer on prophecy of any eminence in the present century, who is not looking for the premillennial advent of Christ; and all the periodicals which have arisen, that have been exclusively or chiefly devoted to prophetical subjects, (as the Jewish Expositor, the Morning Watch, the Christian Herald, the Investigator, 'the Christian Witness, the Christian Record, the Watchman, the Expositor of Prophecy,) advocate primitive Millennarianism. And it is farther remarkable, that in alınost all the instances of works issuing from the press in this century, directly pointed against Millennarian doctrine, the writers themselves have honestly avowed that they have not made prophecy their study, and are so far incompetent to treat the subject in a satisfactory manner.

“ The Dissenters who were formerly the conservatives of the doctrine, are 'now almost universally either opposed, or entirely indifferent about it. Some few eminent exceptions may be mentioned; for example, Robert Hall, formerly of Leicester, who, towards the latter end of his life, was brought decidedly to subscribe to the Millennarian interpretation of prophecy; Mr. Cox and Mr. Tyso, both Baptist ministers; Mr. Hughes, minister of an Independent church at Hackney; William Thorpe, author of an acute and very seasonable work entitled, “The Destinies of the British Empire, and the Duties of British Christians at the Present Crisis ;' and Mr. Anderson of Glasgow, already mentioned. Mr. Cunninghame, an able and distinguished writer, who has advocated these views now for a lengthened period, and Mr. Begg, are likewise to be numbered among the Dissenters who have powerfully pleaded this cause.

“ It must not be omitted to be stated that numerous writers have appeared to support and still continue its advocates, some of whose writings are distinguished for Christian meekness, sound judgment, and great talent.” “ Among the clergy” of the Establishment, “ we have only to mention the names of Bickersteth, Burgh, Fry, Girdlestone, Hales, Hoare, Hooper, Hawtrey, Marsh, the Maitlands of Brighton and Gloucester, Madden, M`Neil, Noel, Pym, Sirr, Sabin and Stewart ;-and among the laity, Frere, Habershon, Viscount Mandeville, T. P. Platt, Granville Penn, and Lieut. Wood,” in order to satisfy the unprejudiced reader.”

No. XIII.–Page 255.

PREACHING CHRIST CRUCIFIED. We cannot perceive that the exhibition of fundamental doctrines should supersede the preaching of what is reared upon their bases. Indeed, the idea of a fundamental doctrine seems to preclude the notion of its exclusive regard, as being but a part of the whole. That the atonement of Christ is the principal fundamental doctrine of the New Testament,--that he is our only “hope," - is undoubtedly the joy of his people,–because it resolves the motives of love and obedience into a simple act of faith; the most glorious and delightful consideration of the believer. He is no longer distracted with various and incongruous motives to obedience; but builds his hope on one sure and exclusive foundation; “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, &c.” But how are the converted to be brought to the practical knowledge of the will of God, if the numerous practical duties which result from faith in the atonement, be not clearly and circumstantially exhibited, as they are in the Gospel? How is the Christian conduct to be regulated, if the moral precepts of Christ and his Apostles be not opened and applied to the understanding? Do we not find them adapted to all diversities of individual obligation? We do. And why should the ministers of Christ take a different course from that which the Apostles practised? What caused Felix to tremble before Paul ? Was it not that the latter “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,” and this was when Felix “heard him concerning the faith in Christ.Here, then, it is evident that Paul did not confine his preaching to the fundamental doctrine of faith in Christ, but described the nature and characteristics of righteousness and temperance; and represented the consequences of their rejection. To preach a crucified Saviour, effectually to the converted, is to exhibit also the peculiar excellency of his injunctions, to display them in all their lustre, and to insist on the necessity of obedience to them. But this can never be faithfully performed by merely general expressions ; but by explaining the details of conduct. As faith in the Redeemer is the only effectual spur to practice, an exposition of the various obligations to righteousness, and the abandonment of whatever is commanded by this faith, are necessarily comprised in the doctrine. Paul's desire was, not to restrict his preaching to any one doctrine or principle in particular, but leaving the prin

« AnteriorContinuar »