Reviews. No. I. ON PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRE- Statements such as these from the avowed rejecters of pre-millennialism, can scarcely fail to prove gratifying HAD evidence been wanting of the extent to which to those who discern in its spread and increase, nothing the millenarian question has taken hold of the minds but the progress and triumph of truth. Nor have we of thoughtful, intelligent christians, it is afforded by the least need to quail before the opposition it has evoked. Mr. Waldegrave's volume, and by the two laudatory It is true, as one of the reviewers of the Bampton lecture notices of it mentioned below,—all in direct antagonism almost admits, that a favourable change has taken place to pre-millennial views. The rev. lecturer, in the in the spirit and character of the controversy. "Those preface to his work, refers to "the prestige under which who contend for the pre-millennial advent and personal for many years past the tenets he has endeavoured to reign of Christ upon earth used," he says, "to complain, combat have been urged upon the attention of the that their works were read with a jaundiced eye, that church," while one of his reviewers remarks, that "it the views of extreme writers were ascribed to the entire is in the English church that this theory has met with party, and that the whole question was misunderstood most favour. Of the evangelical party probably, the and misrepresented by their opponents." No doubt such majority are on that side, while the tractarians are at complaints were made, and with good reason. Any one least favourably inclined to it." He complains that, familiar with the earlier stages of the controversy must "though the press has for years been teeming with certainly subscribe to the justice of the charge. Nor can productions of every kind, in defence and illustration we entirely accord with the British and Foreign Evanof this theory, hardly any clerical voice was raised gelical, that "such charges are not, and cannot be made against it," but congratulates himself that this "can no now." They certainly cannot be made with justice longer be said." The volume under review supplies against such writers as Dr. Brown and Mr. Waldegrave. the lack. "In the Bampton lecture now before us, we These authors have endeavoured, and generally with have a full treatment of the whole subject; the nume- success, to understand the positions maintained by their rous foot notes, and the large body of notes in the opponents; and any instances in which they have incorappendix, showing how well the author has digested rectly stated the views and arguments against which the literature of the subject down to the latest." Such they have employed their pens, may be accounted for is the testimony of the British and Foreign Evangelical; on other grounds than that of wilful prejudice or wilwhile the London Quarterly represents "the subject ful inattention. But what shall be said of the London discussed in these lectures" as "one of large and growing Quarterly? It represents Dr. Brown to be "as fair in interest and importance;" exciting "more attention stating the opinions he combats, as he is successful in and argued with greater spirit and energy in the present, overturning them;" and of Mr. Waldegrave it speaks than in any former period." "No mean place," we as furnishing "ample proof that he has thoroughly are told, "has it obtained in our current religious investigated the controversy; that every book of imliterature." portance on both sides he has carefully examined; and that his views have been formed honestly, and with a sincere desire to know the truth." Would that his reviewer had earned a similar character! In what premillenarian work did he find, as an argument for an eclectic and pre-millennial resurrection, the statement of the apostle, in 1 Thess. iv. 16, that "the dead in Christ shall rise first"? Do not all the writers of that class agree with what the London Quarterly so labours to prove, that the apostle in these words simply affirms, that the righteous dead will be raised prior to the change which is to pass on the living saints, and to the translation of both to meet the Lord in the air? We own * Contributed by the Author of "Plain Papers on Prophetic and other to some degree of familiarity with the writings of pre1. New Testament Millenarianism; or, The Kingdom and Coming of millennialists; but we know of none in which the arguChrist, as taught by himself and his apostles: set forth in eight sermons. ment is used, which the London Quarterly, with so founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, by the Hon. and Rev. Samuel much parade first exhibits and then destroys. Such Waldegrave, M.A., rector of Barford St. Martin, Wilts, and late fellow of All Son's College. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1855, 8vo., pp. 686. cheap and easy victories tend to damage rather than to 2. Notice of the above, in "The British and Foreign Evangelical Reaid the cause in support of which they are achieved. 3. Notice of the above, in "The London Quarterly Review," No. x., Pre-millenarian arguments may, doubtless, have been based on 1 Thess iv.: never, that we are aware of, on the assumption that the apostle asserts the doctrine of the first resurrection in the words "the dead in Christ shall rise first.' Believing, as we do, that in its grand leading features, pre-millennialism is the truth of God, we cannot but rejoice in such testimonies to the attention it has awakened, and the reception it has met with among christians of various denominations, and especially in the English church. As to the latter, the London Quarterly informs us, that "it is well known that the pre-millennialists' view is on the increase among the evangelical clergy in the established church of England; and it is this fact which led Mr. Waldegrave, as he says, 'not to hesitate to avail himself of the opening given Subjects," and being a review of the following works: preached before the University of Oxford in the year 1854, at the lecture view," No. xiv., October, 1855. January, 1856. 4. Millennial Studies: or, What saith the Scriptures concerning the Kingdom and Advent of Christ? By the Rev. W. R. Lyon, B.A. London: Ward and Co. [This volume has appeared since the present article was in type. We include it with the others, as completing the array of publications on that side of the question; and we hope to notice its arguments in succeeding papers, so far as they may differ from those of the Bampton Lecture. Nor is this the only instance in which the views of us. his opponents are misrepresented by this reviewer. others, one which Scripture alone can determine. We "Pre-millenarianism contravenes," he says, "the many may not appeal for its decision to tradition, whether Scripture statements that the saints, glorified with Rabbinical or patristic. The one only question is Christ at his coming, are so absolutely secure in the this, What saith the Scripture?" But then it is the possession of their perfected happiness, as to be beyond whole of Scripture, not one part of it exalted at the the power of attack from their adversaries. No conflicts expense of other parts, by which the question must can follow their enthronement in complete bliss." Assur- be determined. Above all, it must be by the diligent edly not: but where has this been called in question by and prayerful perusal and study of the prophetic portions pre-millennialists? On what foundation does the reviewer of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament, that rest this charge against them of contravening this prophetic questions are decided. We never think of self-evident truth? He does not condescend to inform referring chiefly to the preceptive parts of the sacred Had it been some rustic, who on first hearing of volume to decide doctrinal difficulties; and if it has the "thousand years and the "little season" which pleased God that a third part of the Old Testament, succeeds, had enquired in amazement, how such doctrine and one whole book in the New, should consist of procould comport with the perfect security of the glorified phecy, it seems strange to remove the investigation saints, identified, as these might be in his mind, with of prophetic questions from this vast field of prophetic "the camp of the saints" and "the beloved city," it instruction, to other parts of Scripture which confessedly would have been an easy task patiently to instruct him, consist in the main, not of prophecy, but of narrative, that it is not "the glorified saints" who are supposed doctrine, and precept. Such seems to us to be the drift to be the objects of Gog and Magog's attack, but the and tendency of Mr. Waldegrave's opening lecture. earthly saints of the millennial state, who will not at The principles of interpretation which it inculcates, that time have put on immortality, any more than seem to us to call for the gravest consideration, before we have now. But a writer in the London Review-a they are adopted as our guide in the discussion of the scholar, a critic, a commender of others for their fairness important subjects to which the seven remaining lectures and impartiality, as well as for their acquaintance with are devoted. the views they controvert-he ought not to need such The opening lecture is the subject of special commeninstruction. He ought to have been better informed of dation by both reviewers. "The best feature of the what pre-millenarians teach, than to be capable of charg-work before us," says the British and Foreign Evangelical, ing them with contravening what they hold, equally with this reviewer, as most certain and most dear. "is the high vantage ground on which he plants his foot at the very outset, and from which he puts forth Still, in the main, the tone and bearing of the contro- all his strength." "He wisely commences," says the versy on the post-millenarian side, has undoubtedly im- London Quarterly, "in his first lecture, by affirming proved. Much is now conceded that was disputed at in the most explicit manner, that the Scriptures are our the first. As to the serious questions which remain, it only authority in doctrine, and lays down two important is not now so much a contention as to what pre-millen-principles, or rules, by which we are to be guided in nialists mean, as an inquiry whether what they affirm our interpretation of those Scriptures. be taught by Holy Scripture. Their writings, as well These rules are introduced by our author himself in as the subjects to which these writings relate, have evidently been studied by the able men who have lately entered the lists against them. In this we heartily rejoice. Truth has nothing to fear from the most searching investigation. Should any thing in pre-millennialism be proved by these esteemed antagonists to be contrary to God's Word, or not taught therein, none would owe them heartier thanks than pre-millennialists themselves. Nor do we question that many writers who bear this name have presented vulnerable points, which skilful opponents have been quick to discern, and able to overthrow. Some parts of Dr. David Brown's book on the second advent, we deem unanswerable; but they are those in which he assails, with righteous indignation and complete success-such notions as that of the endless succession of human generations in the post-millennial state. But as to the great questions of the advent, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom, we confess that neither in his book, nor that of Mr. Waldegrave, now before us, have we met with anything to shake even for a moment our conviction, that the views which they oppose are true, and demonstrated to be so by the Word of God. In one thing we cordially agree with Mr. Waldegrave, namely, that "The controversy before us is, of all a passage, to the opening sentences of which we cannot but demur. "Before we begin our Scriptural researches, it is most important that the principles according to which they are to be conducted should be clearly defined. For there is no controversy in which fixed laws of biblical interpretation are more needed,-none in which they have been less observed." Now at the risk of differing from some of our pre-millenarian brethren, as well as from Mr. W., we cannot forbear inquiring, Whence does the need arise, the existence of which is here so confidently affirmed? Where does Scripture itself inform us of any such need? For our own part, we have a deep distrust of rules of interpretation previously laid down. Who thinks of adopting any rules or principles for interpreting Mr. W.'s language, before he commences the perusal of the Bampton lecture? There may be literal statements here, and figurative expressions there; but who would postpone the perusal of the book, until he had determined how the one class were to be distinguished from the other, and as to which class should have the precedence in fixing the meaning of the writer? It is not thus we read other books; we suffer them to make their own impressions on our minds, never doubting that the literal and the figurative will each commend itself to us in its own proper character, and the meaning of the writer be apparent in both. Prophet's words being therein contained, been first preAnd when the book is worth perusing, these expecta-sented to the reader's eye-above all, had it been declared tions are justified. Why should we adopt any other that "in the New Testament as a whole, and not merely plan in reading the Word of God? May we not safely in the gracious words which fell directly from his lips, trust ourselves with it, and with its divine author- the voice of Jesus is heard" (page 18); had the question that indwelling Spirit, whose illuminations are never been asked (page 21,) "Where are the Great Prophet's withheld from the humble, trustful, prayerful student words recorded?" and the answer given, "In the whole of God's Word? "We may not indeed appeal to tradi- New Testament Scriptures";-had this, we say, been tion," as our author says, "whether rabbinical or pa- the order of our author's discourse, the reader might tristic? no, we would add, nor to modern, human have been startled to be told, in the second place, that rules of interpretation, which, when once adopted, make one whole book of the New Testament-the prophetic Scripture speak a language that they force upon it, book-is, in the examination of prophetic subjects, to instead of leaving it, and every part of it, to speak in share the fate of the Old Testament, and yield the palm its own language to the understanding, the conscience, of supremacy to some portions only of the New, which and the heart. our author deems fittest to be the arbiters of the controversy. The contradiction would have been manifest and glaring, first to have exalted thus the New Testament as a whole," and then to have reduced its chief prophetic portion to a level with the Old. But by arranging these propositions as they actually stand, appearances are saved, the Apocalypse quietly disposed of in the first place, and then "the whole New Testament Scriptures" means, for the present controversy, at least, the whole, minus the Apocalypse, and any other portions which Mr. Waldegrave may deem "figurative, mysterious, and obscure"! The two rules on which Mr. Waldegrave builds so much, and which meet with such high commendation from his reviewers, are as follows: we give them in his own words. "Those rules are embodied in the two following axiomatic propositions. "First in the settling of controversy, those passages of God's word which are literal, dogmatic, and clear, take precedence of those which are figurative, mysterious, and obscure. 'Secondly-in all points upon which the New Testament gives us instruction, it is, as containing the full, the clear, and the final manifestation of the divine will, our rightful guide in the interpretation of the Old." But why, we ask, this marshalling of Scripture against Scripture? this exaltation of one part of God's Word over another? To us it appears a hazardous course; nor can we deem the cause a good one, which requires such a mode of defence. True, we have the author's repeated assurances, that he believes the whole volume to be inspired, and that he does not wish to depreciate those portions which he would place in the back ground, when prophetic questions are discussed. These assurances we are bound to receive; but we must not, on this account, shrink from examining other statements of his book, and considering their probable effect on those by whom his views may be adopted. That we may in this, do Mr. W. no injustice, we give his own words. These rules, be it observed, or, at least one of them, our author does not establish by proof, but assumes, as self-evident. We are told by the London Quarterly, that "Mr. W., with great force of argument, successfully establishes the two axiomatic propositions' which he lays down as essential to the correct interpretation of the word of God." Our author himself, however, so far from arguing in favour of both his rules, says of the first, (p. 9), "None will care to dispute it." And again, "this is the statement of a self-evident truth. Again, (p. 12), he speaks of "the postulate which thus removes the decision of the millenarian controversy out of the province of the Apocalypse." In favour of his second rule, Mr. W. does adduce some arguments; but he has the consistency not to speak of it as self-evident. It is Lord and his apostles, as they speak in the literal portions of "In the pursuit of his object, the author has appealed to the for the London Quarterly to commend him for establish the New Testament volume. For he is convinced that they ing, with great force of argument, a postulate, or self-constitute the one divinely appointed court of arbitration in all evident truth! such matters of exegetical controversy." Pref. page xii. We do not, however, admit, and we think that "Our present enquiries must be first directed to the strictly will hesitate to admit, either of these rules to be self-doctrinal portions of the sacred volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and allegory." Page 10. evident truths. Each contains certain elements of "In a matter controverted (if I may so speak) between the truth; but in the form given them by our author's pen, Apocalypse and other portions of the divine word, that book the order in which they stand in his opening lecture, cannot by itself determine the question; appeal must be had to and the use to which they are applied both in that and authority higher, not in point of inspiration, but in point of in his subsequent discourses, the object is but too mani-literality of doctrinal statement upon the subject under discussion:" pp. 11, 12. fest, of removing from the court the chief witnesses on whose depositions the settlement of the case fairly depends. many Our first remark is on the order in which these rules or propositions stand. We are far from imputing any unfair design to the rev. author; but had the order been inverted; had the first proposition been the one which asserts the supremacy of the New Testament; had the reasoning which establishes it, by the fact of the Great "The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things, or against the tenour of the immediate context, and yet may, at the same time, come into serious collision with the proportion of faith."-Page 14. "But this leads me to the real difficulty of the case. How does this rule apply when the words of Jesus Christ cease to be merely supplementary to, or explanatory of, those of Moses and the prophets? What shall be done when a seeming conflict arises between them?" Page 25. After treating of the acknowledged contrariety between the ritual law and those New Testament revelations by which it has been abolished, our author proceeds : "Nor is the case materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ. For there are, unquestionably, times in which the teaching of Christ appears, directly or by implication, to militate with the announcements of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those announcements are understood in their plain and literal sense. What shall be be done? Another meaning of the prophets' language must be sought for." Page 27. "He therefore shews the most true appreciation of their high dignity—yes, and he manifests the most true reverence to Scripture as a whole, who surrenders many a pleasant phantasy, rather than consent that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord. Page 28. Let these quotations be pondered by the christian reader, and let him judge whether we give an exaggerated account of our author's principle, when we say that it arrays Scripture against Scripture, and exalts one part of it at the expense of another. What can be the meaning of the last quotation? No doubt every phantasy, pleasant or unpleasant, ought to be surrendered, rather than that any theory should be adopted which would represent the prophets as contradicting their Lord. "Which would represent them" thus, we say; for we cannot conceive that any contradiction should really exist between writings which are all and equally inspired. For this reason we wonder what Mr. W. can intend, by urging the surrender of many a pleasant phantasy rather than that the prophets should even seem, where no imperative necessity exists, to contradict their Lord. It is the exceptional clause which exceeds our comprehension. What can constitute such a necessity as it contemplates? Sad must be the theory, whether pre-millennial or post-millennial, in which the existence of such a necessity is involved! of Jesus and of the prophets. Nor will the word seeming" suffice to justify the statement. Mr. W. illustrates his meaning by a reference to the ritual law. Now it is not a seeming but a real and most important difference which exists between the law and the gospel. The one appointed a place where Jehovah's name was to be put-a place to which certain acts of worship were to be rigidly restricted. The other records the blessed announcement by our Lord, that all such restrictions were to be abolished-that neither at Jerusalem nor at Gerizim, distinctively, or exclusively, should men worship the Father. What could be more real than the difference between the precept, love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy, on the one hand; and, on the other, the injunctions by which our Lord replaced them, love your enemies; bless them that curse you, etc.? True, they were not given to the same people and at the same time. True, the divine lawgiver had unquestionable authority to repeal any of his own institutions, which, for temporary uses he had established, replacing them by others of a widely different character. But that which we would have our readers to note, is, that in the cases to which Mr. W. has thus referred, it was a question of really repealing one precept or injunction, and issuing others directly opposite. The repeal was real, the contrariety was real; and the only key to the consistency of the proceeding, is the supremacy of the lawgiver, whose title to fix the duration of any of his laws can be questioned by none. But neither can any one question the contrariety between the laws which are repealed and those which are ordained in their place. When, therefore, our author says, that "the case is not materially altered when it is the prophets who are seemingly at variance with Christ," the word "seemingly" is out of place. So far as Christ's relation to the prophets is illustrated by his relation to the law, it is not a seeming but a real variance which is indicated. Human interpretations of God's word may, doubtless, be at variance with each other, and with God's Word itself. But what our author sometimes states and at other times implies, is the possibility of Scripture state- Nor do the next words by Mr. W. tend to weaken ments themselves being apparently opposed to each this impression. "For there are, unquestionably," says other. He speaks of the literal portions of the New he, "times in which the teaching of Christ appears, Testament, as the one divinely appointed court of directly or by implication, to militate with the announcearbitration. Arbitration, and in a court, supposes ments of Old Testament prophecy, when at least those litigation. Who are the parties in the case? In a announcements are understood in their plain and literal matter controverted, (if he may so speak) is his reply, between the Apocalypse and other portions of the Divine Word, that book cannot by itself determine the question, but appeal must be had to higher authority. We do not insist here on the absurdity of making the literal portions of the New Testament parties to the suit as well as arbiters of the question; we only furnish proof that the point of which our author treats, is the supposed existence of questions, or differences, between one part of Scripture and another. He sometimes maintains that such differences are possible, while at others he seems to say that they exist. "The literal sense of a passage may not militate either against the nature of things or against the tenour of the immediate context, and yet may, at the same time, come into serious collision with the proportion of faith."" The real difficulty of the case, he affirms to be, "when a seeming conflict arises between them," i.e., between the words sense." This is a most serious statement, and cannot be too strictly weighed. We are not left to appearances as regards the law. Distinctly and avowedly does our Lord again and again place his sayings in contrast with what had been said of old time. As distinctly does the Holy Ghost reveal with regard to the whole Levitical economy, that it terminated at the cross. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross (Col. ii. 14). But where have we such announcements as to the prophets, or as to one single prediction which they were inspired to place on record? Our whole question is as to their predictions. We do not forget, that as belonging to the dispensation which commenced at Sinai, and expressing those relations with God which bore the impress of the Sinai covenant, the prophets are, by the Saviour, connected with the law, in such passages as "The law and the prophets prophesied until John." But it were a mere play upon it furnished, who can assure us of its accuracy? A words to confound such a use of the expression "the judge, or an arbiter, requires credentials which are above prophets," with the question at issue between Mr. W. dispute. Who then shall certify us of the number and and those whose views he assails. We repeat, that identity of the passages which are said by Mr. W. to our whole question is as to the predictions of the future "constitute the one divinely appointed court of arbirecorded by the prophets; and where, we ask, is the tration" in the millenarian controversy? Is there no ground for Mr. W.'s assertion, "That the teaching of such thing as a question, with regard to which passages Christ," either " directly or by implication." appears are literal and which figurative? Do not many which to contradict these predictions? How can we suppose seem clear to some, appear obscure to others? Is it not the existence of good ground for such an assertion? one prominent feature of the millenarian controversy, To revoke an edict, is one thing; to recall a prediction, that passages which, on the one side are affirmed to be is another. The former, when at least the edict is literal, are on the other side maintained to be figurative? divine, only indicates that it had been temporary in its Are all these to be excluded from "the court?" And purpose. and having done its work, is laid aside: the is it to consist of none but such as are admitted on both latter would imply some want of accuracy in the pre-sides to be "literal, dogmatic, and clear"? If not—if diction, which subverts the idea of its being divine. we are first to be agreed upon the passages which claim For a typical observance to cease when the antitypical a place as arbiters, and then to receive their judgment event has transpired, is a matter of course; but for a of the points under discussion, we shall find that we prediction to need to be explained away, when events have been multiplying instead of reducing the number prove that the fulfilment does not exactly correspond of controverted points, entangling and prolonging inwith the terms in which it had been foretold, would be stead of clearing and shortening the debate. such a reflection on the prophet, as our author would On one item in the first proposition we have hesitated be the last person in the world, willingly or knowingly, to remark. It contrasts "literal, dogmatic, and clear," to make. No, we are ready, by the grace of God to with "figurative, mysterious, and obscure." Literal and surrender all phantasies, however pleasant, as soon as figurative, clear and obscure, are contrasts sufficiently they are proved to us by the Word of God to be such. obvious and distinct: but is mysterious the opposite of But we are not prepared to surrender a jot or tittle of dogmatic? Does not the latter word denote "pertaining that Word, or to accept a principle which represents one to a dogma"? Is it not synonymous, or nearly so, with part of it to be contradictory to another, however "doctrinal"? And is mystery the opposite of doctrine? figurative, mysterious, or obscure" either part may But it is not to remark critically on this point, that we be judged to be. refer to it. The fear of seeming to lay any stress on That an element of truth is contained in both the this view of it, made us hesitate to notice it at all. propositions laid down by our author, has been already But in one passage already quoted from our author, he admitted. Every one admits, that the plainer portions seems avowedly to maintain that doctrinal passages are of any book are of service in elucidating those parts to decide prophetic questions, and places all prophetic which are more obscure. But when the book in question scriptures in contrast with doctrine. The statement is is an inspired book, and admitted to be so in all its parts, the more remarkable for being introduced by the followit amounts to self-contradiction to represent one part as ing emphatic words. Having styled his first proposition of higher authority than another. However we may be a self-evident truth, he proceeds-"But mark its necesassisted by the plainer passages, in learning the import sary consequence! Our present enquiries must be first of such as are more difficult, all are equal in authority, directed to the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred and equally demand the submission of the whole man to volume. For all the prophecies abound in metaphor and the voice of God, speaking to us as really in the most allegory." This would be indeed a compendious mode figurative and mysterious texts, as in those which are of studying prophecy! Leave all the prophecies aside, most literal and clear. We have Scripture for the fact, and study the strictly doctrinal portions of the sacred that there are in some parts of the sacred volume "things volume! But here again, does that volume contain no hard to be understood." God forbid that we should re-doctrines as to the future? And what are doctrines as fuse the light shed thereon by the simpler statements of to the future, but prophecies? Of two things one; inspiration. If humbly to avail ourselves of aid and the strictly doctrinal portions" to which Mr. W. instruction thus graciously provided, had been all to refers, bear on the future, or they do not. If they do, which our author exhorts us, we could only have bid they are prophecies, and "all the prophecies" are not him God speed in such a service. But all Scripture is so figurative as he represents. If they do not, of what given by inspiration of God, and is profitable"; and avail can it be to study them, in order to understand we need to beware of principles which would supersede prophecy aright? the necessity of patiently, prayerfully, humbly examining all that Scripture says. 66 The fact of the matter is this: there is no such contrariety between one part of Scripture and another, as Nor must we forget, that, easy as it may seem to be, might be supposed from our author's representations. to give precedence to such passages as are "literal, dog-Only in appearance are its statements ever in conflict matic and clear" over those which are "figurative, mysterious, and obscure," it will not be found as easy in practice as it appears in theory. Who can furnish us with a list of each class of passages? Or, supposing with each other; and this appearance arises, not from |