Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

perous state, I conceive, consists in its outward peace, in the universal spread of the gospel, in the power of the Spirit accompanying it, subduing sinners to Christ, and thus bringing in the fulness both of the Jews and Gentiles; and there is nothing worldly or carnal in all this.

But it is said, that the millennial reign "is positively a reign of the saints with Christ over the nations." I admit that some prophecies taken literally, or in the Jewish sense, will favour this view; yet even the Jews, carnal as they were, did not suppose this to be in the resurrection state. But here it is affirmed, that after the saints are raised from the dead and glorified with Christ, they shall reign over the wicked nations of this world who are yet in their mortal bodies. Now this reign of the glorified saints must either be a spiritual or a worldly reign over the nations. But it cannot be a spiritual reign, because the wicked nations are not capable of such a reign; for a spiritual reign requires spiritual subjects. It must therefore be a worldly reign; and it belongs to the literal Millennarians to inform us, whether it will be a mild or a tyrannical reign. We may, in a perfect consistency with the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, admit, that civil magistracy will be lodged in the hands of the saints during the Millennium, which may partly account for the universal peace that shall then prevail; but to transfer their reign to their resurrection and glorified state, and that too over the reprobate nations, whose day of grace is past, and who for a thousand years are producing one generation after another to certain damnation, appears to me a wild, incongruous and shocking notion; and indeed inconsistent with the happiness of the glorified saints. It is affirmed,

3. "That this reign is connected with the personal coming of Christ-he shall stand on the earth, Job xix. 23.-The Lord himself shall descend, &c. 1 Thess. iv. 16.” Ans. Though these Scriptures speak of the personal coming of Christ, yet they do not connect it with the millennial reign on this earth, and consequently are not in point. It is said, "That the question put by his disciples after Christ's resurrection, Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts i. 6. will be answered when Christ's reign begins, and when the

kingdoms of this world shall become our Lord's and his Christ's. We read Acts iii. 19, 20, 21. of times of refreshing, and times of restitution: the heavens must receive Christ till then, when he shall be sent from heaven." Ans. The question of the disciples respected a worldly kingdom to the nation of Israel; and if this is to be answered or accomplished when Christ comes personally from heaven to begin the millennial reign, it follows, that a worldly kingdom shall then be restored to the nation of Israel. This was indeed the opinion of the carnal Jews and of the first Millennarians. The only difference lay in this, that the former expected this worldly kingdom before the resurrection of the just; the latter after it. But Christ's kingdom is not of this world either at present, or when it shall be so enlarged that the kingdoms of this world shall become his. When the Lord himself, or in person, shall descend from heaven, the thousand years reign will be over; for then the dead shall be raised, and the world judged, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. compared with Mat. xxv. 31. &c. And then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, 1Cor. xv. 23, 24. Again, it is asserted,

4." That this reign of Christ and his saints shall take place at the resurrection of the just, Dan. xii. 11. &c. Rev. v. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 22. &c. Rev. xi. 15. Rev. xx. 4-7." Ans. Some of these texts speak of the reign of the saints, and others of them of the resurrection; but none of them speak of his reign as tak ing place at the resurrection of the just, except Rev. xx. 4-7. the sense of which is the very point in question, and must not be taken for granted. It must first be proved that the resurrection men tioned there is a proper and literal resurrection, and not a figurative one, as is frequently mentioned in the prophets, and twice before in this figurative book see Isa. xxvi. 19. Hos. yi. 2. Ezek. xxxvii. 1-15. Rev. xiii. 15. chap. xi. 11. But we are told that,

"This xxth chapter ought all to be interpreted the same way, and not the one half metaphorically and the other literally." Ans. There are acknow ledged metaphors at the beginning of this chapter, and also at the end of it. And there is good reason for understand ing the first resurrection metaphorically, for it is no where else to be found but in this mystical book. But the general

resurrection and judgment, at the end of the chapter, cannot be understood metaphorically, because they are the same with what is plainly and literally set forth in the gospels and epistles. It is further asserted,

5. "That Christ's personal appearance finally destroys Antichrist, Dan. vii. 9. &c. The Ancient of days means Christ, as Rev. xix. 11. &c. The Son of man, ver. 13. is the emblem of the saints. Antichrist is said to be destroyed, ver. 11. -Destroyed with the brightness of his coming, 2 Thes. ii. 8. see also Mat. xxv. Luke xii. 35, 36. If we do not find Christ's second personal coming at the destruction of Antichrist, Rev. xix. it is not to be found in the Revelation of John. Besides, in no one place of the New Testament, (except when it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem) is the term Christ's coming applied to any event but his final appearing."

Ans. Some of the texts cited say nothing of the destruction of Antichrist, and it cannot be shewn that those of them that do mention this, fix it at Christ's personal and final appearing; yet the whole argument hinges upon the supposed connection of these two things.-Though we should not find Christ's personal coming in 2 Thes. ii. 8. or Rev. xix. yet we may find it after this in the Revelation of John, chap. xx. 11, 12. &c. And if any should still say that this is not termed his coming, let them turn to the parallel passage in Mat. xxv. 31, 32. &c. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations, &c." This is certainly Christ's personal and final coming, and not that which is to take place more than a thousand years before this, at the destruction of Antichrist. But it is said that there is no one place in the New Testament, (except when it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem) where Christ's coming is applied to any event but his final appearing. This is a mistake. As it is common in the Old Testament, to represent some notable dispensation either of judgment or mercy as affected by the Lord's coming; so the New Testament uses the same language. Christ promising to send the Spirit, says, "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you," John xiv. 18. The destruction of Jerusalem is said to be effected by Christ's coming, Mat. xxiv. 27, 28.

and is termed the great and bright day of the Lord, Act. ii. 20. and this event is a key to several references to it in the Epistles. Christ frequently threatens the Churches with his coming; coming quickly, and coming unawares as a thief, to chastise them, except they repent, Rev. ii. 5, 16. chap. iii. 3, 11. And in proportion to the greatness of the event and its consequences, is the majesty and and grandeur of his coming to accomplish it, set forth.

66

[To be concluded in our next.]

It

NOTE ON 1 COR. III. 9. For we are labourers together with God." THE meaning of the apostle in these words, seems to be very generally misapprehended in our day; and the mis take has given rise to a bold and daring assumption on the part of some young ministers, which is very censurable. is often made the ground of a kind of partnership between them and the Deity, in the work of evangelizing the worldan idea from which even the apostles The words of shrank with horror! the original, however, hold a far different language. The whole verse ruus thus: "WE are fellow labourers (not with, but) of God. YE are the husbandry of God; YE are the building of God." The plain meaning is, that those who planted the churches, were all alike, the joint servants of the Lord; engaged in a work which was not their own but his, and the fruit of which redounded in no respect to their praise, but brought a revenue of glory to God.

The same remarks are equally appli"We then as cable to 2 Cor. vi. 1. workers together with him, beseech you," &c. Here the meaning is, "We then, to whom the ministry of reconciliation hath been committed, or entrusted, being all of us engaged in the same labour, and uniting our earnest endeavours, go on to execute the office to which God has called us, and in which he has joined us together as ONE."

[blocks in formation]

112

Theological Review.

Review of Orme's Memoirs of the Life, Writings, &c. of John Owen, D.D. [Article concluded from page 83.] IN drawing our remarks on these interesting Memoirs to a close, we find it more necessary to study brevity than we had anticipated. The latter part of Dr. Owen's life, it is true, was much more of a retired nature than the former had been; but it was by far the most productive of those proofs which he has left behind him, of his abilities as a writer, and his piety as a Christian. The reader will find appended to Mr. Orme's work a chronological list of Owen's publications, the great length of which prevents our inserting it in this place; nor can we here attempt more than a bare glance at one or two of the Doctor's leading productions. We freely confess our inability to express ourselves respecting the writings of Owen in such lofty terms as those sometimes used by Mr. Orme; at the same time, it is but justice to say, that he appears perfectly aware of the numerous faults that run throughout his voluminous treatises, and that this has drawn from him some excellent remarks on the prolixity, verbosity, and diffusiveness of Owen's style.

These truly judicious observations of Mr. Orme's relate chiefly to Owen's "Practical Exposition of the 130th Psalm;" but we think they are equally applicable to all his other writings; particularly to the "Treatise on Communion," the "Discourse on the Holy Spirit," the work "On Indwelling Sin," but above all, to "The Exposition of the Epistle to the

Hebrews." If the 130th Psalm, which contains only eight short verses, the import of which is as obvious as the sun at noon-day, afforded the Doctor. scope for a quarto, it is not to be wondered at if the Epistle to the Hebrews required four closely printed folios. Owen's productions are certainly admirable specimens of the kind of writing that formed the order of his day. "The writers of that period seldom knew when to stop. They never supposed they could exhaust a subject. They were never satisfied till they had produced a folio or a quarto, and had said every thing that could be said on the point in hand." Indeed it was of small moment to them what the subject was on which they were to write: a complete system of divinity must be introduced at all events; and for this purpose a single verse would have answered quite as well as any one book in the whole Bible. In eulogizing Owen's principal performance The Exposi tion of the Epistle to the Hebrews," Mr. Ormè takes occasion to refer to other works of the same kind; in some of which, he says, there is a greater parade of learning, but neither of them, he adds, as a whole, admits of compa-, rison with Owen's. Now, although we really think there is no small parade of learning occasionally displayed in Owen's work, we do not feel at all inclined to dispute the point with him respecting Pierce and Hallet; but we must enter our decided protest against the propriety of his designating the Commentary on this same Epistle, by Mr. Archibald M'Lean of Edinburgh, a dry work.* It

66

*M'Lean's Commentary on the Hebrews, a dry work! We were so much surprised on first reading this remark, that for some time it quite put us to a stand; and the more we reflected on it, the more unaccountable it appeared to us. Different men, no doubt, will form different judgments respecting human productions; and we immediately began to recollect ourselves, whether we could not adduce some respectable authorities in opposition to this opinion of Mr. Orme. While thus musing, one of the first things that occurred to us, was the judgment passed upon Mr. M'Lean's book by a certain reviewer in the London Christian Instructor for July 1819-a publication in which we now and then observe the name of Mr. Orme introduced among the list of contributors. As the paragraph may possibly have escaped his recollection, we are quite sure he will not be displeased with us for again laying it before him. Speaking of the different Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews which have been written in our language, and estimating, their comparative merits, the reviewer thus proceeds:~

is true, there is in the latter no parade,
of learning whatever; not the smallest
attempt at display in any way; the
author was an utter stranger to such
things: his deep experimental acquaint-
ance with those doctrines which centre
in the Cross of Christ, led him, like
the author of the epistle which he so
ably illustrates, to throw himself into
obscurity, that he might the more
effectually employ those remarkable
talents with which the great Head of
the Church had furnished him, in ex-
hibiting the glory of His character who
is KING of kings, and LORD of lords.
But if Mr. M'Lean in his Commentary
studies conciseness, in opposition to the
excessive diffuseness and prolixity of
Owen, he gives his readers ideas with
his words: he was a profound and close
thinker; and to this we attribute that
most felicitous faculty which he pos-
sessed, and which we have never yet
seen equalled in the writings of any
commentator extant, of rendering sub-
jects apparently difficult and abstruse,
familiar and luminous by a few plain
remarks. When he wrote, his heart
was full of his subject; and this ren-
dered all his words expressive: and
while his style is free from those super-
fluities which enfeeble and obscure the
writings of most scripture commen-

tators, it is far from approaching to the harshness of the didactic. To Christians in general, and to students of divinity in particular, we hesitate not to say, that if a clear understanding of one of the most interesting and important parts of divine truth be their aim; if they do not object to perspicuity, strength, plainness, and neatness of expression; and if an immense saving of time be at all an object with them; as a help for the attainment of such an end, M'Lean's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews stands unrivalled. In fact his hand rendered luminous whatever subject he touched.

We have already seen that Owen's eminence drew forth a large share of the envy and bitterness of some of his contemporaries. This seems to have been his lot to his latest hour; and it is by no means to the credit of Richard Baxter, that he stands almost foremost in the list of the Doctor's opponents. Baxter was a non-descript in the religious world; a man of great acuteness, and fond of wrangling; and, from his evident dislike of Owen, always prepared to find him in the wrong. He' tormented him with his controversies while living; praised him when dead: but in a very short time after his head was laid in the grave, strenuously ex

"The work of Owen overwhelms us with its prolixity;-that of Pierce vexes us with its coldness, and occasionally ingenious misapplication;--and the clumsy Arminianism of Macknight is scarcely compensated by the aid which he sometimes affords us. A work on this Epistle, brief, judicious, and orthodox, was still wanted; but has now been most satisfactorily supplied by the volumes on our table.

"The late Mr. ARCHIBALD M'LEAN, of Edinburgh, brought to the examination of this apostolical letter no ordinary advantages. He possessed a mind uncommonly acute and penetrating; excellent general views of scripture doctrine, and most extensive knowledge of scripture language; he was patient and laborious in his researches, and capable of expressing himself with great precision and simplicity: to all these advantages he added a very competent portion of self-acquired learning, and the matured experience of more than half a century, during which he had been engaged in studying and preaching the word of God. These are qualifications which have fallen to the lot of few who have expounded the Scriptures; and their vast importance is sufficiently apparent in the present work, which was the favourite production of its author, and the chef d'œuvre of his pen.

"A work of this nature admits neither of analysis nor abridgment; and any extract we could give would afford but an imperfect specimen of its execution. We can only therefore express our opinion of its merits, which we trust all our ministerial readers especially will speedily verify, by procuring it for themselves. We are acquainted with no expository work in our language, which, within so small a compass, contains so much valuable matter, and truly scriptural illustration. It is not a work of imagination, but of judgment. It deals not in conjectures, or random interpretations: but in solid, judicious investigation. It discovers no fondness for novelty, nor any silly attachment to the suffrage of antiquity. It is uniformly calm, serious, and scriptural. The illustrations of the divinity, the sacrifice, the prieshood, and the covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ, are most excellent, though on some points he differs from expositors of established reputation. Some of the subjects on which he rather dissents from very generally received opinions, are taken up in an appendix to the second volume."

[blocks in formation]

erted himself to bring his writings into disrepute. Here it may be proper to notice, that the general complexion of Owen's writings is derived from the state of the times in which he lived. He speaks, when drawing near the close of life, of leaving the ship of the church in a storm: it had been tossed in this storm during his life. The Arminian, Socinian, Popish, Episcopalian, and Independent debates occupied his attention, and rendered the greater part of his writings controversial. But it is certainly the case, as Mr. Orme remarks, that "One thing appears prominent in all his productions of this class-his strong desire to give them a practical direction, and to render them as useful as possible to his opponents and readers." This indeed was his fort: it was as a practical, and especially as an experimental writer, that Owen excelled. He was far from being original: had he been so, he would have written less, and said more. The real state of religion during those troublous times has obtained from Mr. Orme a due share of attention. Nothing can be more obvious, than that religion flourished in a most remarkable manner during the Commonwealth: and it is no less evident that this was chiefly owing to the absence of a religious national establishment; which must, from the very nature of things, and under all possible circumstances, operate as a standing hindrance to the progress of divine truth. No one will deny that there was much enthusiasm, attended with many improprieties, in the conduct of many of the religious professors of that day; but, as Mr. Orme very properly observes, " Admitting that there was even a large portion of pure fanaticism, still, we apprehend, an immense nass of genuine religion will remain. There must have been a large quantity of sterling coin, when there was such a circulation of counterfeit." May we not add to this, that when the restoration of Charles II. took

place; when his ingratitude, illiberality, immorality, licentiousness, and irreligion were exerting their combined force over the land, and trying the sincerity of those who were called by the name of Jesus, there was found an immense number who had not bowed, and who could not be constrained to bow the knee to, Baal. If there were nearly two thousand five hundred minis

ters who remained proof against the Act of Conformity, what must have been the number of the flocks over which those pastors presided? And here we cannot help warmly applauding Mr. Orme for the view he has taken of the Bartholomew ejection. "The Bartholomew ejection was a strong measure, but naturally to be expected from the spirit of the court; and, except on account of the individual suffering which it occasioned, ought not to be deplored. The Church of England was unworthy of the men whom she cast out; while they were taught by their ejection better views of the Christian dispensation; and in the enjoyment of a pure conscience, and the liberty of Christ, possessed a happiness which the benefices of the church, without them, could not confer." Page 292. The only thing one feels inclined to regret, in reflecting on this subject, is, that those excellent men gave the Church of England the honour of casting them out. Had they, of their own accord, come out from the bosom of that worldly communion; and, as they departed, shaken off the very dust of their feet, as a testimony against it, they would have added much to that high veneration which is immor. tally connected with their names. Flesh and blood naturally shrink from the prospect of suffering; but to the man whose heart is right in the sight of God, suffering for conscience sake is surely much more to be desired than dreaded: and we verily believe it would be impossible to produce from the records of time, one single instance of the failure of the divine promise of peculiar enjoy ment under such circumstances. if, as has always been the case, severity of suffering be attended with proportionate joy in the Lord; if, like Stephen, thousands have tasted of the inexpressible felicity of the unseen world, amidst the most cruel tortures which the desperate wickedness of the human heart could devise-what opinion can we form of those teachers of religion who are incessantly pouring out their complaints, and making most moving appeals to the public, respecting the "HARD MEASURES" of their superiors in ecclesiastical power, while they crouch under them for employment? Surely we may at least ask, where is their faith?

And

The glorious principle of religious liberty which fired the breast of Owen,

« НазадПродовжити »