Will All Believers Obtain Part in the Millennial Glory

WILL ALL BELIEVERS ENTER THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM?
by Robert Govett
Used by permission and published by Schoettle Publishing Co., Inc. Fourth Edition, 1989 Mr. Purdon and myself agree in so many points, that it seems a pity we should fall out by the way. It is only because the subject on which we are engaged is so momentous, that I care to defend myself. In so doing, I shall have to discuss the great question, which is now attracting much attention, and which will attract still moreWILL
ALL BELIEVERS OBTAIN PART IN THE MILLENNIAL GLORY?
Mr. Purdon, in his LAST VIALS, April, 1865, states principles of the utmost importance: principles in which I cordially accord with him. 1. We agree, that all believers are assured of salvation: they have eternal life. 2. We both believe, that when Christ speaks to disciples, He means believers. 3. That there will be a judgment of the saved; not an inquiry whether they are foes, or friends, but an investigation concerning their recompense. 4. We own that the pardon of a believers sins after Isis conversion is no barrier to his being thus judged. 5. That there will be a reward of each according to his works, both for quantity and quality 6. That we may obtain our recompense for good works, either here or hereafter. 7. That while the standard of Christian conduct is exceeding lofty, the actual state of many believers is very low. Every one, says Mr. Purdon, must have met with professors of Christianity whose shameless worldliness has been the ridicule of the neighborhood; and shall THEY receive a FULL reward? Some believers are over-delicate, over-sensitive, impatient, self-indulgent: Tract IV, pp. 11 15. 8. We both agree too, that death does not in a moment perfect the character. The crooked stein retains its crookedness after it is removed from earths soil. And such persons are not fitted for the millennial glory. I. Our grand point of difference is thisMr. Purdon thinks that every believer, in spite of every imperfection or sinfulness of temper or practice, will still enter into the millennial kingdom. I believe that Scripture teaches the exclusion of some believers; as the result, either of no good works at all, or of the commission of sinful ones. Here are the lines of battle; now for its shock! It is in his tract for June 1865 that this question is argued by him. He has contrived to make me look very foolish by two points of tactics, which I cannot recommend to others.
REWARD ACCORDING TO WORKS by Robert Govett Page 2 Chapter 3: Will All Believers Enter The Millennial Kingdom? InTheBeginning.org _____________________________________________________________________
(I). He has stated in many cases my views; but has omitted the proofs from Scripture by which I substantiate them. No one, I feel persuaded, after reading his tract would imagine, that my writings on these points, especially on the Parable of the Virgins, are argument from Scripture throughout. To those who would see for themselves the evidence, I will just notice the places in which that Parable is treated of. The Prophecy on Olivet"; and the Saints Rapture to the Presence of the Lord Jesus, pp. 124152. Almost every new view seems strange when divested of its proofs. How wild and absurd seemed Columbuss notion of the New World! How foolish appeared the theory of the circulation of the blood ~ And Galileos imagination too, that he, in looking at those heavens which innumerable eyes for ages had been perusing, could see some new stars! Come and look through my telescope, said he to the professor of philosophy. But no! He would not. (2). Mr. Purdon has in some cases added to my views what I do not hold and out of these additions spring the absurdities for which he makes me responsible. Of this by and bye. I now proceed to discuss his theory. He saysAn effort is being made by a few persons to do away almost entirely with free grace, and to introduce into Protestantism some of the worst and most dreary fictions of the Church of Rome: (Purgatory) Tract VI, 1. How can Mr. Purdon say, that there is an attempt to do away with grace? Has not grace its appropriate sphere in Gods electing, renewing, and preserving His people unto eternal life? Is not the question on which we differ, one between millenarians alone? Can he show that the entrance into the kingdom is a thing decided by grace? Has he not himself taught that it is according to works? which is a principle opposite to grace. (Rom. xi, 5, 6.) How can he accuse those with whom he agrees in principle, as desirous of destroying free grace? He allows that offending believers will suffer loss. I think, that the loss will be severer than he is willing to admit. That is the amount of the disagreement. We can see, (he continues) no necessity for this Romancing tendency, for it appears to us, that the difference of REWARDS, and the difference in glory, will be sufficient punishment for the saintsif such a word as punishment can be admitted; and that along with these distinctions in eternity there are also worldly trials proportioned to the transgressions of the saints living on earth. If they do wrong, they suffer for it here, in actual and positive trialand also suffer for it hereafternot in positive evil, but in positive diminution of reward and of glory. Is not all this enough, without adding seclusion from the millennial kingdom, and something like the fire of purgatory?
Now the ideas that (1) trials here, and (2) diminution of glory hereafter, are all that is needed, form a compact little theory, which has recommended itself to several. But we have not to decide whether we would have it so, or not; but whether this is Gods plan? Is it Scripture? That is the great question. But Mr. Purdon does not adduce passages in proof of it, as he was bound to do. Are our religious views to be wreaths of gossamer, floating on the air; or are they to be solid structures, based on the oracles of God? I add, that Mr. Purdon sentenced this his progeny to death from its very birth. For he holdsthat in spite of trials here, and the diminution of glory hereafter, there are Christians whose tempers are unfit for the kingdom. He says well: -The mind that has become warped and crooked by some unhappiness of temper will not be as well fitted for the grand occupations of eternity as the mind that has grown up through this life straight and symmetrical. The saint, impetuous almost to fury--fond of power--overbearing in temper--unyielding in self-opinionwill not surely be fitted for the same heavenly occupations as the meek, the peaceable, and the compliant: IV, p. 7. Such believers do not suffer under an outward crookedness, but an inwardly bitter sap. Mr. Purdon does indeed suppose that after the resurrection, there will be no more evil fruit. How that should be, with evil internal tempers, I cannot tell. Of this I am sure, that if Jesus is to judge such according to their words and works (and words come into notice too, Matt. xii, 36; Luke xii, 13), he must exclude them from the kingdom; first, for their unchristian speeches and deeds; and secondly, for the sake of the mild and gentle ones who enter the glory. Or else, wherever the two come into contact, the burs and prickles of these rose-trees will wound and pain the gracious ones of tender spirit. And strife cannot be allowed there. But that Jesus will exclude such we know from His words, which will be given presently. It is granted by me, that God uses trial as an educational means in this life to fit His people for glory to come. But there are cases not a few, where these evil tempers are not overcome. Shall not then the Lord, in such cases, continue correction beyond this life? If there be any texts which prove that no chastisement will be applied in the age to come, they should be brought forward by all means. What mean such passages as Matt. v, 2132; xviii, 19, 2335, &c. They are addressed to disciples; and are meant for
believers.
Let us now glance at his second false principle. II. He holds, that every believer, as a member of Christ, has a fund of blessing, which may be diminished by his sins to an unlimited extent, and still suffice to admit him to the thousand years reward, and to eternal blessedness besides. Tract IV, p. 9. His proof is founded on Luke xvi, 13.
Our Lord is addressing disciples those safe for eternity. v. 1.
Those who were sure of mere salvation are warned, that it they were not faithful, God might withhold from them that which was their ownthat which is called, in another verse the true riches. Does not this decide the whole question? Worldliness or unfaithfulness in this life may strike out of our hands half the honors of the life to come! Who shall give you that which is your own? What is meant by our own? That which was designed for us in eternity, in virtue of our union with Christ. Every believer, as a member of Christ, has a special rank, station, or office assigned to him in eternity. These privileges are what is called OUR OWN. They are the proper results and consequences of our membershipthe ABSTRACT right of every member of the Bride. Yet, it appears from our Lords words, these privileges may be forfeited. That, which by abstract right, was altogether his own, will for his unfaithfulness be partially kept back: IV, pp. 9, 10. Now is it not strange, that there is not, in the entire parable, one word about that which is supposed to be the foundation of the whole matter, membership with Christ, or a portion in the Bride? (In all Lukes Gospel, the Bride is not once mentioned.) But believers are spoken of in quite another relation; as stewards. The rich man, to whom the steward of the parable belongs, is God. v. 13. The lessons derived from the parable by our Lord7 are chiefly two (I). That we are responsible to God for our use of money, and moneys worth; and that according to our faithfulness or unfaithfulness we shall receive or forfeit possessions in the time to come. (2). That we are set as prudent men to act for our best interests; and that our interests are best consulted by using the false riches of this world to raise us up friends in the coming eternity. So far then we pretty well agree. But the argument turns on what is to be supplied before the words your own. Our translators have inserted is. And on that Mr. Purdon builds his view. But there is no necessity that the ellipse should be thus filled up.
The argument of our Lord would lead us to a different supply of the ellipsis. If you have been unfaithful in the false wealth of this world, who will bestow on you the true riches of eternity? Not God: for He is displeased with your unfaithfulness. If in that which is anothers you are faithless, who shall you give possessions which shall be your own? For the wealth of the world to come is a real possession, not given in trust, but bestowed in full sovereignty. It seems clear then, from the scope of the parable, that the Savior is speaking of a future possession, which may or may not be ours, just as we are faithful or faithless in the use of our possessions now, and is not speaking of a possession, which is ours in virtue of a relationship neither named nor hinted at. The idea of a station, dignity, or possession, which is ours by abstract right, is something which needs clear Scripture proof. It is of future riches, I believe, (not honors,) that our Lord is speaking; and these may be utterly forfeited, as the argument of our Lord supposes. In Mr. Purdons words, which follow, I entirely agree. They grant the principle for which I am contending. Perhaps all glory denied to himperhaps, nothing may be left but simple salvation. But this will be a non-natural state. Just what I believe. He will have no reward: and therefore no place in the day of reward. He loses everything but that which grace retains for him, against his deserts; and that is eternal life, after the millennium is past. John iii 15, 16. I now proceed to inquire into the Scripture evidence on the subject of entrance into,
or exclusion from, the millennial glory.
Mr. Purdon grants that Christ will judge believers according to their works. Hie grants too that the works and tempers of some believers are evil. On what grounds then will any enter the kingdom? I. CERTAIN POSITIVE EXCELLENCIES ARE REQUIRED. 1. Good works are demanded. (1) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven: Matt. vii, 21. Are all believers observing Christs precepts in the Sermon on the Mount? Are there no believers who are soldiers, judges, takers of oaths, prosecutors? Matt. v, 3848; vii, 15; v, 3337.
(2) The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment: (Greek) John v, 29. (3) When thou makest a feast call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just: Luke xiv, 13, 14. Jesus declares that those who do not exceed, both in principles and practice, the unconverted, shall have no reward. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Matt. v, 46, 47. Take heed that ye do not your righteousness (margin) before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven: VI, 1. See also Matt. xxv, 3440; 2 Cor. v, 3. 2. THERE MUST BE SIMPLE FAITH IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE MILLENNIUM. "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein. Luke xviii, 17; Mark x, 14, 15. That by the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, the millennial kingdom is meant, seems to me proved by such texts as Dan. ii, 44; iv, 26; vii, 21, 22; Matt. xix, 23, 24, 27, 28; xx, 2023; viii, II, 12, &c. Those who would see the proofs of this traced out, will find them in my worksEntrance into the KingdomFirst and Second Series. But if so, this will exclude many believers. Do all admit the doctrine of the Saviors reign as Son of Man? Do not many deny some even ridicule it? Can these enter it when it comes? If Moses had said by Gods decree, Whosoever shall not believe in the land flowing with milk and honey shall not enter it, should we not have understood the words clearly enough? Then those of the spirit of Dathan (Num. xvi, 14) would not enter it. If any had said'This land of promise and its milk and honey are all a mythwe are to dwell in the wilderness always'would these not have been justly excluded from the land? But the Holy Ghost tells us, that Israels position and conduct are a mirror of ours, and that their history teaches us what Gods judgment of us will be in the day to come. 1 Cor. x; Heb. iii, IV. 3. POVERTY OF SPIRIT, MEEKNESS, PURITY ARE REQUIRED, WITH OTHER GRACES. (I). Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven: Matt. v, 3. (2). Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth: 5.
(3). " Blessed arc the pure in heart; for they shall see God: 8, &c. Do all believers possess these graces? Mr. Purdon admits that they are not. Then those who have them not will be excluded. The beatitudes are exclusive: that is, while those who are merciful will enter the kingdom, those unmerciful will be shut out. James ii, 13. This is drawn out distinctly for us in Luke vi. He lifted up His eyes on His disciples and said,
(I.) Blessed are ye POOR (disciples) for yours is the kingdom of God: 20. But woe unto you RICH (disciples) for ye are receiving (Greek) your consolation: 21. And, we may add, Your woe is, that yours is NOT the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God: Mutt. xix, 24. (2.) Blessed are ye (disciples) when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of Mans sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy; for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets: 22, 23. Woe unto you (disciples) when all men shall speak well of you; for so did their fathers to the false prophets: 26.
Now in this, I have Mr. Pardon going along with me to a considerable extent. It seems clear, that when a Christian takes up too much with the present world, he must expect that God (as some one has said) will keep him to his bargain; and will strike on a proportionate quantity from the glories of the next world:" Tract IV, p. 10 Jesus says, that the part struck off will be the kingdom of God altogether. Again Mr. Purdon says: Even to the heirs of salvation this choice is given. Will you have so much of the present world) and so much less of the next? Will you have part of your reward here, or wait for your FULL reward wholly in the life to come? IV, p. 10. Jesus says, that those who have their consolation here, and nowas rich disciples have, will obtain no consolation in the kingdom; for they will have no part in it. Have you had, or have you not had, some part of your reward upon earth?
That is a deep question, and requires a deep answer. Or again, Have you not been an actual loser by your good works while upon earth: and gained by them less than nothing ii the present life? Many have lost all for Christs sake, especially in times of persecution. Many have lost something for His name. Some have lost next to nothing; and some have even gained by their religion. In the present times, Christianity walks on silver, and breaths ambrosial air. People make their livelihood of Christianity. Others get on in the world by it. Others get into good society by their religion. p. 13. Quite true; and Jesus says, that there is a woe upon the gainers by their religion now. How can that be? This doctrine tells us. Paul was found on one occasion Confirming the souls of disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God: Acts xiv, 22. What then will there be for those who have received either much gain instead? -Or no trouble from this source? Surely, no entrance into the kingdom at all! It is a time of consolation for the troubled; but these have not been troubled. 2 Thess. i, 57. I. Inquire next: WHAT SAYS SCRIPTURE ABOUT EXCLUSION FROM THE KINGDOM? 1. The entrance into it is to be according to works. But there are some believers who have no good works. They put off repenting all their life till the close, and God had mercy on them at the last. They just believed, were saved, and died. If reward were according to works, can these enter who have none? It is the Coronation day of her Majesty, Queen Victoria. All are pressing to enter Westminster Abbey. Admission is according to tickets; some tickets admit to the body of the place; some to the reserved places near the throne: some admit to one of the doors, some to another. A person comes without a ticket. Can he enter? Of course not! If tickets admit, no ticket excludes. The doers of the Fathers will alone are to enter. Matt. vii, 21. He has only just believed: has done no good works. 2. But there are besides, believers guilty of evil works. On this point I am very happy in having Mr. Purdon for my antagonist; for on this road he sees much further than most. Opponents of the doctrine in general affirm, that every believer is what he ought to be; in spite of ten thousand facts around proving the contrary. But Mr. Purdon owns the mighty perturbations effected in the orbit of the Christian by those disturbing spheres the world, the flesh, and the devil. He acknowledges, (what any eye may see, and what the world is keen to notice,) that most Christians are either ahead of their calculated place, or lag behind it.
I shall therefore have only to apply to Mr. Purdons true representations of the character and actions of many believers, what the Scripture says about the destiny of such; and we shall see that their exclusion is certain. (1.) Mr. Purdon has a good deal to say on the worldliness of Christians. Is a believer who has courted the world far more than many a heathen, fitted to stand at the head in the great arrangements of that kingdom which is to RULE the world? Is the worlds humble SERVANT fitted to be the worlds MASTER? Be assured at least, that no true believer will ever be permitted to grasp worldly gain with an avidity that shocks all who see him, and that scandalizes even the world, and yet I e allowed hereafter the FULL REWARD, and glory of eternity. We have seen such persons; and we have seen them dare to take the lead in the religious world; while the ungodly looked on with scorn. We think they will find themselves losers a hundred-fold in the day of reward: IV, pp. 1115. What varieties of separation from the worldfrom the world crucified to them and they unto the worlddown to the lowest level of spirituality, on which a believer so often dwells, and where he can reach out his hand and embrace the world! Tract IV, p. 3.
What says James of these? Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be (wishes to be) a friend of the world is the enemy of God: James iv, 4.
Is the kingdom for the enemies of God? No: for His friends alone. These then must stand outside. (2.) How many TRIMMERS [are there) who will sacrifice their conscience rather than their worldly interest? .... Do you think that such varieties will not be found among the saints? Or that trimming and worldly-wisdom are confined to the ungodly? You are much mistaken: ibid. What then does Scripture say shall be the lot of the trimmer? Of the man who dares not confess Christ? Of him who lives in a sinful position, because of his worldly interest? Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will 11 also deny before my Father which is in heaven: Matt. X, 32, 33. These do not confess Christ now: they will not therefore be owned as His in the day when each reaps the fruit of his works. And if not owned as Christs, they cannot enter the kingdom.
Look again! Lest there be any fornicator, or profane-person as Esau, who for one morsel of meat [a single meal] sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterwards, when he would have inherited [he wished to obtain] the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears: Heb. xii, 16, 17. Esau made his bargain, selling away the spiritual and future blessing for a present material good. He hoped when the day of the blessing came, to enjoy it; but though he was a son, aye, and the favored son, he was excluded. God and his father firmly rejected him, in. spite of his cry and tears. This example, does it not loudly speak exclusion ~ The day of glory is not for those who make so profane a choice. (3.) The saint, impetuous almost to furyfond of power-overbearing in temperunyielding in self-opinionwill not surely be fitted for the same heavenly occupations as the meek, the peaceable, and the compliant: p. 7. What will become of such in that day? Scripture utters no doubtful sentence concerning them. The apostles of our Lord had been at strife among themselves, which should be the greatest in the kingdom? Ambition spurred them on, and no doubt some unadvised words were spoken, and evil tempers manifested. Mark ix, 33, 34; Luke ix, 46. They at length refer their dispute to Jesus. They inquire Which of them, in Messiahs coming kingdom, should be the greatest? Jesus repliedthat he who was the most lowly and childlike here would be greatest in that day of glory. But He adds too, Verily, I say unto you. Except ye turn (Greek) * and become as little children, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matt. xviii, 14. What a startling reply! To you, apostles and converted men though you be, who are questioning which shall have the highest place in my millennial kingdom, I sayyou shalt not enter at all, unless you become very unlike what you are now, and lose your angry, ambitious, proud, obstinate tempers. Is not that proviso very necessary to the peace of our Lords kingdom? Shall the millennium be a time of strife and jostling, as the day of His church has been? No: Christ will prevent that, by keeping out the men of hot spirits. Such Christians are harsh and unripe: they need keeping, ere they will be mellow enough for the city of God and the company of the meek and gentle. Observe the following words of Mr. Pardon, (4.) Some one has wall remarked, that St. Paul writing to the Ephesians, who were most eminent believers, found it necessary to warn them not only against inward tempers, but even against outward crimes. Not only does he say, Be ye angry and. sin
notbut he adds Lie not one to another. Let him that stole STEAL no more. Now, if a true believer requires to be warned against lying and stealing, it would be absurd to imagine that a true believer must of necessity be free from faults of temper, even of an external kind; or from inward harshness of disposition: p. 7. It is possible then that a Christian may lie and steal. Now we find Ananias and Sapphira both cut off out of the church and out of life, with their sins unrepented of. Can they enter the kingdom? What shall be done to him who steals? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not those unrighteous (persons) (Greek) shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God: 1 Cor. vi, 810. Here it is put as simple exclusion: but Jesus says something much stronger; on which a word by and bye. (6.) Hear Mr. Pardon again, Some believers are over-delicate, over-sensitive, impatient, self-indulgent. What says scripture about these? The impatient generally show their impatience by murmuring, and bitter words. Of the murmurers Paul says, that what happened to Israel in the wilderness is a lesson to us. God brought them out of Egypt led them, fed them. But with most (Greek) of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the Destroyer: 1 Cor. x, 110.
(7.) For the self-indulgent Paul has also a word,
And every man that striveth for the mastery is of temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air. But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have acted the herald to others, I myself should become rejected: (Greek) I Cor. ix, 2527.
Here is exclusion again. Mr. Purdon admits, (pp. 4, 5,) that it is possible to lose the proffered crown. Rev. iii, 11. But he thinks it will be replaced by one of inferior brightness. I can find nothing about that. Or they will be left uncrowned altogether, like the Roman citizens, who were all equally free of Rome, but not all equally eligible for civil honors.... The case of the Roman citizen indeed exactly represents the position of the church, both as to salvation and as to reward. An idle, careless Roman would not be degraded and reduced to slavery, but he would be excluded from civil honors, because not fit to sustain them, as well as not deserving of reward. But this supposition does not go far enough. Might not a Roman be more than idle? Would not a Roman citizen who had run into debt, or committed an assault, be imprisoned? If he committed theft, would he not be punished as well? And this leads me to the question which stumb1e~ Mr. P. and which he seeks to get rid of by his theory of a diminished reward. I can quite sympathize with him in such a desire. I shudder at the thought of positive infliction. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Let us consult it! 1. And that servant which knew his lords will, and prepared not himse1f, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes: Luke xii, 47, 48. Stripes are positive infliction of personal evil, are they not? Not deduction from a book of credit, but strokes laid on the back. 2. What says Jesus to the unforgiving disciple? His lord was wrath, and delivered him to the tormentor till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses: Matt. xviiii, 21, 31, 35. 3. What says Jesus to the openly criminalas for instance to the thief? If thy right eye cause thee to stumble (Greek) pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand cause thee to stumble (Greek) cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. This is a word to disciples that is, believers. Matt. v, 1, 2, 29, 30.
4. What says our Lord about the bitter word of anger? I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother [without a cause] shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire: Matt. v, 22. 5. What says our Lord concerning those who in days of persecution deny the truth to save life? I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them which kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear 1dm, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell: yea I say unto you, Fear him: Luke xii, 4, 5. 6. What is told us of those who do not abide in Christ? If a man abide not in me, he is cast firth as a branch and is withered; and (men) gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned: John xv, 6. 7. What is taught us concerning believers, doers of evil works? For land which has drunk in the rain frequently coming on it, and brings forth plants fit for those on whose account also it is tilled, partakes of blessing from God: but if it bear thorns and thistle (it) is accounted worthless, and nigh unto cursing, of which the end is unto burning: Heb. vi, 7, 8. This is Alfords rendering, with which I almost entirely coincide. See also Matt. xviii, 69; Luke xvii, 1, 2.
(8.) What is the threat against false teaching by a believer, who yet is sound on the great question of justification?
The fire shall try every ones work of what sort it is. If any ones work shall be burned (up) he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved: yet so as through fire: (Greek) 1 Cor. iii, 13, 15. There are not a few other cases that might be adduced; but these will suffice. I will now consider the special objection, which Mr. Pardon has urged against what I consider to be the true view of the PARABLES of Matt. xxiv, xxv. And first I observe, that since writing the Rapture of the Saints, my belief has been confirmed by extended examination of the scripture; and to those who wish to see my views on the subject, I beg to suggest that they look into Entrance into the Kingdom, first and second series; as containing a variety of proofs derived from many passages of the New Testament.
I confess myself as liable to errors as my brethren in Christ; and I desire for my own sake and for Christs, to confess, and abandon every erroneous doctrine. Better be humbled here for our false teaching, than before our Lord in the day of fire. I proceed to notice Mr. Pardons words. He is here contending with passages drawn from the Saints Rapture. One of the most triumphant arguments on the question is that drawn from the case of the servant who hid the talent in a napkin. From this Mr. Govett has drawn the astonishing conclusion, that anything short of eternal condemnation may befall a true believer, if he should prove to be negligent: vi, 2. I beg Mr. Purdons pardon. I have not said, I have not thought, that for simple negligence the extremist penalties may descend on a believer. Mr. Purdon proceeds His words are these: If the principle of reward according to works be true, then every degree of disgrace and punishment short of eternal woe, may take effect in the kingdom. I do say so. But how does the passage run on? For it is matter of sad observation, that every species and degree of crime is committed, and has been committed by believers after their conversion. So that there may be positive and entire forfeiture of the kingdom; and only the lowest position in eternal life after it. Sovereignty guarantees indeed, that the elect shall not be lost forever. But the sin of man enables us to suppose anything short of this. Look at Aaron, Lot, and Solomon. The land of promise must be given to the sons of Abraham. Sovereign mercy had pledged it. But anything short of that might take place. All but Moses might have been cut off, and he might have been made a great nation. In point of fact, all that generation which came out of Egypt, save Caleb and Joshua, were so cut off. The Saints Rapture, p. 177. It is evident then that I am speaking not of sins of omission, but of sins of commission. But, surely this is not reward according to works, but punishment according to works. This objection is merely verbal, and is set aside at once by observing, that the old English word reward, like our word recompense takes in the award made to evil conduct, as well as to good. Take an instance, 0 daughter of Babylon who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee, as thou hast served us: Psalm cxxxvii, 188.
Thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil: 1 Sam. xxiv, 17; also Deut. xxxii, 41. The Greek words employed by the Savior and His apostles on this point have the same neutral signification. And our translators use the word reward in reference to the double adjudication of good and evil. The Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward every man (each) according to his works: Matt. xvi, 27. Mr. Purdon seems to see the weakness of this objection; for he adds, However that may be, this opinion is built on the case of the servant with the one talent, and of course it all turns upon the point, whether the servant be a true believer or not. I beg his pardon again. The case of the one-talent servant is not the whole foundation of my views, but only one stone of it. If Mr. Purdon has read my two series of comments in Entrance into the Kingdom, he must know it is not so. If he have not, he is a very unprepared antagonist. He has not surveyed yet the fortress he is to attack; and mistakes a single bastion for the whole circuit of the walls. The Saints Rapture does not discuss this great question as being at all its main subject. Mr. Purdon adds, Mr. Govett asserts that he [the one-talent servant] is a believer. We assert that it is almost certain that it is not. He is a false professor, a man who bears the name of Christian, and who has been brought up like millions to make a profession of Christianity, but who has never had true saving faith. What is the proof of this assertion? Nothing!
His being called a servant is no proof whatever that he is a true believer. Every one who calls himself a Christian professes to be a servant of God; lie takes the name of servant when he takes the name of Christian; and he takes even a higher name, and he is judged out of his own mouth, as the Lord indeed says. In answer to this I observe,
1. That he ever so calls himself. Will the reader look through the parable and see? Six times does the word servant occur in the parable of the Talents, and never once does the slothful one apply it to himself.
2. Is it not a good proof, aye, the best of proofs, that a man is a servant, if his master calls him so? Jesus four times in the parable calls him servant; and Jesus is his lord: 18, 19. Twice he acknowledges the slothful one in company with the other two; twice, in passing sentence, he so calls him: 26, 30. May not the infallible Master be trusted to know
his own servants? The Holy Spirit foreseeing this objection has presented especial evidence to destroy it. The Master calls HIS OWN SERVANTS v. 14. Three are singled out for especial notice. The Master returns. The lord of those (three) servants cometh: 19. Then the servants are called before him in order, according to the number of talents entrusted. Here is another proof. When a master commits his goods to the keeping of an inferior, lets him know what he is to do with them, and gives him to understand he shall requite him according to his obedience, does not that prove the person so trusted to be a servant? John, bring me the casket I gave you to keep, and the key. The words would prove, (would they not?)Not the false profession of service by a man that never was owned as servant by the master, but a real recognition, by the master, of the mans post as servant? But the proof is far stronger here. For the goods entrusted to the servants, in this case, are bestowed only after they are owned as servants. As a man travelling into a far country he called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. The delivery of goods comes after their recognition as servants. And this proves, that the goods entrusted are not the mere natural gifts of memory, strength, health, and great abilities, &c., which all possess in different degrees, whether converted or not. And therefore these talents answer to the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost, communicated after faith. That this point is so to be regarded is proved by v. 27, where the slothful one is blamed, because he did not transfer to others the gift he would not use himself.
Now this, in the case of natural gifts, could not be done: but in the case of supernatural gifts, it may: Rom. i, 11. Acts viii.
All three are servants in the same sense. The Lord draws no distinction between them, but that between a good and a bad article of the same kind. The lord of those servants cometh. To the two first he says, Well done, good and faithful servant. Then came he also who had received the one talent, (Greek). Thou wicked and slothful servant. Cast ye the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. He calls himself, (says Mr. Purdon,) a Christian, and then a servant of God, and he shall be taken at his word, and judged as if he were a servant indeed. But on trial he is found to be a pretender, he is found never to have been a servant at all, and therefore he is cast out. God calls him a servant; he never calls himself so. His title to the name of servant is never called in question, though Jesus generally exposes the false pretender.
(1.) Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found
them liars:": Rev. ii, 2.
(2.) I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, bat are the synagogue of Satan: 9, and iii, 9. (3.) That woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess: 20. (4.) Thou sayest, I am rich' . . .and knowest not that thou art . . . poor: iii, 17. See also I Tim. vi, 20. Especially would this be the case in the day of Lord tells us, all deceits will be justice, when, as our Lord tells us, all deceits will be exposed. Of this we have an instance given, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? I never knew you, depart from Me, ye that work iniquity: Matt. vii, 23. Where is it said, that this servant is a pretender? Where, that he is cast out because not a servant at all? This is as contrary to the text as well can be. Even when sentence is passed, the name of servant is twice applied to him. He is dealt with, not as one of the foes, whom the nobleman slays before him, because refuse to have him reign over them; but as a servant, one of his own servants,that has been slothful and useless; and that, to shield himself, accuses falsely his master. His offence is not that being a toe, he falsely professed to be a servant; but that being a servant, he never did his work. We can judge then with what truth Mr. Purdon adds, We have not the slightest evidence to prove that the unprofitable servant is a believer. Compare with this the parable of the Wedding-garment. There the false professor is presented to us. He comes in his own righteousness, having refused the righteousness provided by God: (Matt. xxii.) That parable was spoken to the disciples and the multitude; this to the disciples alone. The ill-clothed guest is cast out by the king, before the kings son comes in to the feast. He is guilty against warning, and is speechless. The king addresses
the offender not as a servant, but as a man, by the lowest title he could well use. He had entered the banquet hall, but was not a guest. When the king came into see the guests, he
saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment, and he said unto him, Comrade * how camest thou in hither? But some one may say Does not his offence manifest him to be no servant? I answer, Yes, if you may exclude from any class whatever is not a good specimen of that class. But it would be justly accounted a proof of want of common sense, if you were to refuse to call a leaky ship a ship; or a sick soldier a soldier. It is granted that the man is idle. But is every converted man working for Christ? Or is every one, who is not working, unconverted? May we say those are no servants who are not good servants?
Take an actual case, recorded by a well-known man, Wolff hired two Persian servants both of them tremendous rogues; for Wolff never had the good fortune to meet with a good servant, except on his second journey to Bokhara, in the year 1843, when he took a Russian with him from Constantinople to Tabreez, who actually behaved very well the whole journey. But when they arrived at Tabreez, he became so drunk that he thrashed his master and would have most seriously injured him, if Mr. Bonham had not knocked him down. Wolff, however, would still have taken him on to Bokhara after he became sober, if he would have promised not to get drink again. But he said, he would never promise such a thing, as he was determined to get drunk whenever the feast of the Holy Virgin Mary was celebrated. So Wolff dismissed him: Dr. Woffs Travels vol. i, p. 465. Here are two tremendous rogues, yet they are owned to be servants. And in the third case, there is a far greater offence against the master; and yet that master calls the man a servant still. I put this objection, not that Mr. Purdon could make it with any good grace; but because others might, and doubtless would, insist upon it. For Mr. Purdon has already granted principles which, rightly weighed, will decide this case. He admits, nay, himself teaches, that Jesus at His coming will judge believers according to their works. That where any of our Lords sayings are addressed to disciples they apply to believers. And the whole of the Prophecy on Olivet was spoken to disciples: Matt. Xxiv, 1, 3. None but disciples were present on the occasion. Mark xiii, 3. Mr. Purdon owns too, that there are great varieties of open failure and sins on the part of believers; sins far greater than appear in the one-talent servant. Some are selfindulgent, and that was the characteristic of this servant; lie was slothful. Mr. P. teaches too, that death does not destroy the evil temper, which has long abode in the believer. And accordingly, he who was slothful while his master was away, is slothful still at his return. And we have seen that Jesus owns the man a servant, even when his sentence is passed. The effect of that sentence then is loss, not of salvation, but of reward, during a definite timethe thousand years day of justice, as long as men are destined to eat the fruit of their own doings. We proceed. A believer who has mismanaged these [Gods gifts] while upon earth will hereafter be called to a reckoning; the waste which h has made, the neglect of which he has been guiltythe loss of opportunitiesthe postponement of the Lords interests, while he was courting the worlds favorall this will be charged against him, and a full deduction will be made according to the assessment of his unfaithfulness: iv, 9.
Perhaps all glory will be denied to himperhaps nothing: may: be left but simple salvation: 10. Just so. Here is a case in point. Others, the diligent, enter their Lords joy, and the lighted banquet room: he is to be kept in the darkness outside, not (as Mr. P. would kindly provide) to take the lowest station in the hall of the feast. 2. We come next to the case of the Unfaithful Steward. Matt. xxiv. On which Mr. Purdon observes: The same thing applies to the Unfaithful Steward in the 2fth of Matthew. Mr. Govett asserts that he is a true believer, cut in sunder, and sent to a long probation among the hypocrites in some place of future misery. Is not this purgatory and downright Romanism? It is really nothing else, arid a most unjustifiable assertion, when we consider the lightness of the foundation. Mr. Govett not only asserts that he is a believer, but he gives proof of it. The sentence of our Lord is unlike Romish purgatory, in most of its features. That begins only after death, lasting till the Day of Judgment, helped by the money and prayers of the laity and priests. This begins at Christs coming, lasting during the Day of Judgment, and admits of no priestcraft. But if any scripture truth leads us into obloquy, we must not be ashamed of it, but boldly testify, and bear the reproach. Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when. He shall come in His own glory: Luke ix, 6. Saul and Judas Iscariot settle the whole question. They were sent, appointed, and anointed from above. The Lord gave His COMMISSION to both. They were both commissioned officers of the Lord, and yet neither of them had saving grace, neither of them was a real servant of God. Saul was set over Gods fleshly people. In order to rule them, it was enough to be of Abrahams fleshly seed. Judas Iscariot was sent out with some messages of Christ to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:" Matt. x. 5. 6. But neither of them occupied a place in the Church of Christ, which began by the Holy Ghosts descent at Pentecost. Of neither could it be said, that he was the faithful and wise servant whom his lord made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season: Matt. xxiv, 45. Christs household now is a spiritual household, a building of living stones; and Jesus could not set an unspiritual man over such a household, nor a dead stone as subordinate corner stone over living ones. Much less could one dead in soul be either faithful or wise. Such a one would be a stranger, whom the sheep should flee from. John x, 5, 8, 10. Mr. Purdon asserts that the steward here is no better than those two unconverted persons are. But he gives no proof. He supposes that I must establish the faith of the steward here beyond question, or it is nothing. I only desire to give evidence
satisfactory to my own mind: to ask me to adduce evidence which none will question, is in a high degree unreasonable. Even mathematical evidence would be gainsaid in a subject so unpleasing as this. Even the being of a God is not established to this day beyond question of some. The Lord gave the disciples sufficient evidence of His resurrection; He did not establish it even to their minds beyond question; for they ridiculed the proofs as idle tales. But He rebuked them for hardness of heart and unbelief; because they spurned good and sufficient evidence. Mark xvi, 9, 14. Both Judas and Saul (Mr. Purdon says) were employed as Gods stewards. I deny that either was a steward over his household the Church. Nor is either, I believer ever called, as the steward here is, a servant at all. Mr. Purdon must give some passage in which each of his champions is called a servant, ere the cases are parallel. Even then to be a servant in the dispensation of the flesh, and a servant in the dispensation of the spirit, would suppose very different standings. Mr. Pardon thinks I must assert that both Saul and Judas were believers and saved men. I do not: neither I believe is called a servant; and even if s~, a man might be a servant in the days of the fleshly people without being saved. But he could not be a servant in the church-dispensation; in which, service is that of the spirit. Romans i, 9. Let us look at the evidence, which proves that the faulty steward is a believer. 1. This is one of the parables addressed to disciples, and spoken to believers only, by our Lord. 2. It stands in intimate connection with our Lords call to watch, v. 42; a call which supposes spiritual life, and which cannot be properly addressed to unbelievers. The call to them is to repent and believe. 3. Therefore be ye also ready; for at such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh. Who then is the faithful and wise servant whom his lord made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Be ye ready is a word to believersis it not? Among the believers then to whom this is addressed, there would be found one, the chief, and the ruler appointed by Christ to watch over his household. Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all his goods. Can this be supposed of any but a believer? Most will admit that this part supposes faith.
But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, but shall eat and drinking with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall arrive (Greek) in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and I appoint his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now if the first part supposes a believer (and who but he could be placed in millennial glory over all the Lords goods?) then I cannot see by what legitimate process it can be denied, that the steward found unfaithful and dealt with as such, is anything but a believer. Jesus seems to me carefully to connect the two pictures. He calls the steward when faithful that servant: 46. He calls the steward found unfaithful that servant too. 48. He adds evil to show the justice of His sentence. He supposes the believers of the church over which ho presides to be his fellow-servants. He is called a servant even when his sentence is passed. 50. He is not an unbeliever; for we are taken to his most secret thought, and it is only a deferring of his lords coming. Can no converted person be guilty of unfaithfulness up to the point supposed? Mr. Purdon has admitted that worse sins are actually or possibly found among believers. If we think, that no true Christian is furious in spirit, overbearing in temper, or unyielding in self-opinion, we know little of the perversity of mans heart. And he goes on to note that Christians are, not without reason, warned, against both lying and stealing. iv, 7. At page 11 of the same tract, my opponent observes: Mr. Govett has said a good deal upon one textthe appointing the unfaithful steward his portion among hypocrites. This says Mr. Govett, proves that he was no hypocrite, but a true believer for otherwise he would have been among the hypocrites without the necessity of an appointment. But can we build as momentous a doctrine upon so slight a foundation? I should prefer greatly, if when Mr. Pardon criticizes my views he would quote my own words, and give the page, as I do with his. Lot me observe too, that of the six arguments which I use on this point, Mr. Pardon notices but one. If persons then trust to such representations without examination, they will go away with wholly inadequate and mistaken ideas. There are about a hundred and fifty passages of Scripture upon which I build my momentous sentiments on this topic. Mr. Pardon proceeds
The meaning of our Lord is this You call yourself a true believer but I know you to be a hypocrite, (m i.) and to prove that I will appoint you a portion with the hypocrites, while you expected a portion among the saints. Now in opposition hereto, I deny that the steward calls himself a believer; and I ask, where does the Lord say? I know you to be a hypocrite. Passages addressed to disciples, Mr. Purdon, apply to believers; as you confess. Then this parable of the Steward is a word to believers. Twice it is given, and in both cases it is spoken to disciples. I have given the first reference: the second is Luke xii, 4 146. In. this second case it takes up the case of apostles, in consequence of Peters question about the previous parable of the servants left waiting. Lord, is this parable meant for Christians in general, or specially for the twelve? The Lords reply is to this effect If you wish a parable which shall refer specially to you apostles, Who then is the faithful and wise steward? The steward, from internal evidence, is certainly a believer; he expects his masters return; although his heart says, he is slow about it. And as found acting like an unbeliever, the lord will appoint his portion with the unbelievers. Cutting in sunder is a punishment which implies and which causes the total destruction of a man as to the present life; He therefore cutting in sunder when applied to a man in a future state implies total destruction, and not a temporary loss. It implies something final, total, and perpetual in the next life, as it certainly does as to this life. I answer, the cutting asunder means Jesus depriving the unfaithful one of bodily life. The man is living in the flesh at the time when the Saviour comes; and finding him guilty in the way named, Jesus takes away his life by the stroke of judicial vengeance. As I said in the Saints Rapture, His- natural life is violently taken away, p. 166. After that begins his appointed portion with unbelievers and hypocrites. Mr. Purdon goes on to saythat if the steward and servants in the talents are caught up to meet Christ, my case is proved. But he denies that it is so. The parable of the Talents is supposed by Mr. Govett to be so confined to a single moment, to the time when the church shall stand before the Lord in the air, and before the Lord has come sown upon the earth. There is not the least authority for believing such a thing. Mr. Purdon is not cautious in his language: his scythe sweeps the full circuit without a check. If the sentiment does not please him, there is not the least evidence in its favor; or it is the greatest error ever known. I will endeavor to remind him of some of the evidence given in the book whence he derives these subjects of criticism.
The taking and leaving (Matt. xxiv, 40. 41.) is the result of Christs descent from heaven into air, as foretold 1 Thess. iv. The taken and the left are both believers of the church of Christ; as is proved in the Saints Rapture. The taking and the leaving are the sign to the Jews of the Saviors presence in secret. The apostates asked for a sign of it, (v. 3) and here it is given. But after our Lord has given to the Jew the outside view of His secret presence, He proceeds to apply to His people of the church the full meaning of it. He shows first the effect of His presence, in regard of those unready for it, and therefore left behind, in the parables of the Householder and the Steward. He then utters the two parables of the Virgins and Talents, which exhibit the results of that presence to those caught up to meet the Lord Jesus. His giving a sign of his Presence proves that it in secret: and therefore it is for His church. When He is seen openly, it is in fulfillment of His promise to Israel that His presence shall be like the lightning. That is to be their security against being deceived by the false Christs. All the four parables after the taking and leaving are Presence-parables. And then comes the parable of the Sheep and Goats, when the Son of man is seen by the living nations of earth sitting on His visible throne of glory. With the presence -parables are connected the commands to the church that it be watchful and ready for the Lords advent. 42, 44. The same command of watchfulness given to the church of Christ in the epistles relates to the time of our Lords presence. l Thess. iv, v. 6; Rev. iii, 2; 3; xvi, 15. That too is the time when Christs house is to give account. And we are that household. 1 Tim. iii, 15. There is evidence then that the parable of the Steward belongs to the time when the Lord has left the heaven, and before he has come visibly to earth. The parable of the Talents relates to the Lords dealings with the PROFESSING CHURCH, as the parable of the Goats relates to His dealing with the world at large. The professing church is called a servant, because it pretends to be a servant. vii, 4. There are loud calls for proofs from me, but Mr. Pardon thinks it quite unnecessary to give them himself. How does it appear that the Talents refer to the professing church? Do I admit of it? No. Nowhere, that I know of, is the idea of the professing church found in the New Testament. I need not say that the expression is not to be found there. But, stranger still, the professing church is called a servant! The one-talent servant is a symbol of the whole multitude of mere professors. Will Mr. Purdon prove that? While then my antagonist admits, that the first part of the Talents relating to the two first servants occurs in the air after the Lords descent, his theory is, that the judgment of the one-talent servant takes place, years (it may be) after that day, when our Lord has come down to earth. Is there not in some prophecies a long break, where
at first none appears?' Yes: but the break must be proved, not assumed. Mr. Purdon admits that the first part of the Talents is transacted, ere the Lord appears to earth. The whole of it therefore occurs then, unless he can show proof to the contrary. It is on him then, not on me, that the obligation lies to show proof. Mr. Govett has asserted that the children of God (m.i.) may be cut in sundercast into outer darknessshut up in prison for an unknown time (In i.) and other things both terrible and NEW. Mr. Govett builds his strange and formidable opinion on one single point alone (m.i.) namely, that the unfaithful steward and the idle servant, are all of them true believers. If they are not true believers, Mr. Govetts structure falls, like a building in the air. 1. Will Mr. Pardon be more accurate when he represents my belief? Mr. Govett has asserted that the children of God may be cut in sunder. Do I assert this of the people of God in general? No, but of certain special offenders among them in particular. Would not he be thought greatly to misrepresent Englands position who should say Dont go live in that country! Why the English are always liable to imprisonment, the treadmill, and the gallows! 2. Believers are not liable to imprisonment for an unknown time, but during the kingdom; and the duration of that is for a thousand years. 3. The view is not founded on a single point: it rests far less on the parables than on express passages of our Lords discourses, and on the epistles. If Mr. Purdon has not received papers containing some of the unfigurative texts on which the belief is based, he can obtain them on application to me. But at any rate, if he have read, (as I suppose he has, by Tract iv, p. 10). Entrance into the Kingdom, he must know, that I rest on clear and express assertions of the Holy Ghost. To say you may be cut asunder and cast into outer darkness, though all the while you are a member of Jesus Christ, of His flesh and of His bones! This is an awful assertion, a dismemberment of the body of Christ I an awful subject! Yet Mr. Govett has ventured on it, and finished the dismemberment on no better proof, than that a man who is punished so and so MAY be a child of God, when there is not the least evidence (mi.) that he is any such thing. Here again Mr. Pardons scythe is in full swing. The proofs, which have been given of the faith of the steward, will show that there is evidence that he is a child of God, while there is no evidence adduced against it. Only (Mr. Pardon holds) that the punishment is so terrible, that it must overbear all proof of his being a believer.
Can such a blow be dealt on a member of Christ? Can one who is part of His flesh be severed from Him? Yes! During the time when each eats of the fruits of his own doings. Yes! If we will trust what our Lord says. I am the true vine, and my Father is the Husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit, He taketh away. If a man (any) abide not in Me, he is cast out as a branch, and is withered, and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned:" John xv, 2, 6. (Greek). Does not Mr. Pardon observe that there is no future judgment of the Church as a corporate body? We are told simply, that each believer is to be judged. Here lies the fallacy which is continually being put forward by opponents. They would make the privileges of the body corporate a proof, that there shall be no judgment or penalty on each individual. But the Holy Ghost testifies to the individuality of the judgment, and of the penalty; and we must not make one part of truth to clash with another. But perhaps some will say But you have given no proofs that believers will be dealt with singly. Here they are then. Matt. xvi, 27; Rom. ii, 6, xiv, 12; 1 Cor. iii, 8, 10, 13, &c. What we are now considering is not the general question, but Mr. Govetts assertion, That every degree of disgrace and punishment short of eternal woe, may take effect in the kingdom. These are Mr. Govetts precise words; and it is against this that we are at present contending. Mr. Purdon has quoted only a part of the sentence, and has left out that on which its evidence depends. If the principle of reward according to works be true, then every degree, &c." Those words suggest that is the truth (admitted in great degree by Mr. Purdon), that sins of a deep dye may be committed by believers; and therefore, if recompense is to be in proportion to the evil of the work, the penalty will be severe indeed. Mr. Purdon proceeds to use an argument derived from Rom. viii, 30, 32. Whom He JUSTIFIED them He also GLORIFIFD, says St. Paul: and again Who shall lay ANYTHING to the charge of Gods elect? Rom. viii. We ask attention to these two passages, Whom He justified them He also glorified. Observe, here there is no interval whatever between grace and glory: there is no chasm or interruption in the process; (m.i.) justification ends in glory, without any proviso whatever being alluded to. But could this be said, if it were possible that any degree of punishment short of eternal woe, may take place in the kingdom?
In a previous passage Mr. Purdon asserted, that there was a long interval between two points of a description, where no evidence of such chasm was to be found. Here he asserts, that there is no interval, where the work spoken of requires manifestly the interval of ages between some of the links. Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. Between these two events there is necessarily a gap of ages untold. Some of Gods elect come not into being till centuries after the earths foundation; and Gods predestination took place ages unnumbered before earths creation. Whom He called, them He also justified.
Between the first call to a soul and its faith, there is generally some interval. Here is
a second gap. That there should be a third interval between justification and glorification would be only in harmony with the previous two cases. But there must be such an interval here. Is each glorified now? No: but many are justified. Many of the dead are justified, but there is a gap of ages ere they will be glorified. But no condition is stated here, all is spoken of as certain. Most true: the Holy Ghost keeps apart and distinct truths, which are of different characters. He is here speaking of the effect, which follow on. Gods sovereign purpose, and therefore glory shall infallibly follow on grace. But how does the silence here about the kingdom and reward according to works, contradict what is said on those topics elsewhere? Why this very chapter, to which the opponents of reward according to works naturally betake themselves this chapter, which speaks so beautifully of Gods electing, persevering love, tells us too of the issues our conduct in that day of justice. For if ye live after the flesh, ye are about to die, (Greek) but if ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live:" 13. Compare Gal. vi, 7, 8; v, I 9-21. Still less could it be said, Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? This would be impossible to assertit would be a downright untruth, if whole ages of disgrace and punishment might be the lot of Gods elect in a future life. -Would this be laying NOTHING to their charges? On the contrary it would be laying EVERYTHING to their charge, except only what was necessary for eternal condemnation. Here Mr. Pardon himself steps in to rescue me from his own artillery. Is the roar of his guns very terrible? But at this point his cannons fire into the muzzles of a former battery of his, and silence them.
We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body. But if God were extreme to mark what is done amiss, who could abide it? All would be condemned, none could be saved. The ordinary preaching of the day gets over this immense difficulty in the very rudest manner. It tells you, that your sins are forgiven, and there is an end of them. But this explanation is unscriptural and impossible. St. Paul tells us the very reverse, he tells us that we must give an account, and to give an account of a sin already pardoned is an absurdity. You might as well speak of having to pay a debt that has been already paid. Here is a difficulty that is absolutely insurmountable except on the principle of rewards, allowances, and compensations. You are to give an account, in order to measure out your REWARD. Your sin, as a sin, has been pardoned through the blood of Christ; but your sin, as detracting so much less or more from your REWARD, is still to be accounted for. Here Mr. Pardons two battalions are firing on each other; and himself; like Stonewall Jackson, is struck down from behind by a shot from his own ranks. He confesses that the pardon of sin does not prevent our having that sin afterwards laid to our charge, nor its taking effect on us in Christs presence. For myself I should explain the difficulty more simply and correctly, I think, by sayingthat faith in. Christs blood puts away all a believers sins, considered as offences against the Great Governor of all. You are thenceforward no longer an enemy of God, but a servant. Luke xix, 1127. Then, when the Matter comes, you have to give account before Him of how you have behaved yourself since you believed. Give an account of thy stewardship. Now in this matter of service many are guilty, not only of .not doing Christ service, but of damaging His cause in a way that no unconverted man could do; and of stumbling both the world, and the young of the flock to a fearful extent. But what does our Lord say of such? Does lie tell usthat such shall enter the kingdom indeed, but that they shall be set in its lowest place? Naylie launches a woe against them, and assures us, that the man had better have died by a violent death, such as that which the Romans inflicted on the parricide, than be guilty in such sort. But whoso shall offend (cause to stumble) one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes t. be cast into hell fire: Matt. xviii, 6-9.
We come next to consider the Parable of the TEN VIRGINS. Mr. Govett has fallen into some great errors which render it impossible for us to give implicit credit to his judgment. In the first place he makes the Ten Virgins represent the BRIDESMAIDS, and then asserts that the Ten Virgins with two more added to them, represent the WHOLE CHURCH. But this is absolutely impossible. The Ten Virgins are all applying for admission to the marriage-supper, and at that marriage-supper surely the bride herself must be present. It is impossible, that the Bride can be sitting at the feast and applying at the door for admission at the same moment. And it is just as much impossible, that PART or the Bride can be in this twofold predicament. The whole idea is inconceivable. Now what will the reader say, when he finds that the whole absurdity is of Air? Purdons conjuring up, contrary to the express words of the commentary, which he is criticizing? I have endeavored in the book in question to prove, that the Ten Virgins who are all asleep, answer to the dead in Christ: and that the two men who are on the earth represent the case of those who are alive and remain unto the Presence of the Lord. The ten and the two make up the perfect number twelve, which includes the whole church, as it is the number also of the tribes of Israel. But do I suppose the bridesmaids to be the Bride? Or a part of the Bride? I expressly guard against any such idea: I say Thus an objection frequently made to the present view is easily answered. This cannot be true; for you make a part of the Bride to be absent from the supper, by supposing that the five foolish virgins constitute a portion of the church, and yet are shut out. The reply is obvious; the parable does not exhibit the whole church; it takes up only the case of those departed in the faith. And the Bride here is not the church, but the city of God. Rev. xx, 2, 9, 10. Where brides represent a part of the church-maids, the whole church cannot be represented by the Bride. Again, if the bridesmaids be only the sleepers in Christ, (and we shall not all sleep, while all the virgins did) then the virgins cannot be the church, nor can Jerusalem be the Bride, as one has suggested: The Saints Rapture, p. 129. Mr. Purdon then gives, without any proof his own. Views of the case, which I am sure, are wrong. He proceeds. Mr. Govett actually asserts, that the oil in the LAMPS (torches) is the ordinary saving grace of God; but that the oil in the VESSELS is the extraordinary gift of miraculous works. This is the most singular mistake of which we have ever heard.
Mr. Pardon is not intended for a controversialist; for he uses language in a very loose and inaccurate manner. An anecdote will exhibit this. One of the band of ringers at Staines was an uneducated man, who had high ideas of his own information, lie was once walking in the churchyard, showing a stranger the church, when, looking up at the old tower, he said, . There, sir, that tower was built by Inigo Jones; the same man, by all accounts, as built the pyramids of Egypt! That was a mistake, if you please. It was an error in regard of matter of fact. But an erroneous interpretation of Scripture is a matter of opinion, and improperly called a mistake, however unsuitable it may be. Besides, it must be proved erroneous, which Mr. Purdon forgets to do. But I am charged with another absurdity; woe is me! Mr. Govett admits, as he must, that the oil in the vessels is used for pouring into the lamps, in order to keep the lamps from going out; so that according to Mr. Govett, the oil of miracles, as soon as it is poured out into the lamps, is transformed into a new kind of oil, and becomes the oil of saving grace. (m. i.) Who aver heard of such a thing before? Who ever heard of a man carrying one kind of oil burning in his lamp, and oil of quite a different kind in a vessel, for the purpose of keeping that lamp from going out? Or how is it possible that the oil of miracles in the vessels should be changed into the oil of saving grace the moment it is poured into the lamps? This absurdity is not of my making. I neither say, nor imply, that the second supply of oil, when used in the torch, becomes saving grace. The whole scheme is impossible and incredible, and yet Mr. Govett is so confident of its correctness, that he declares it to be quite unanswerable. Will Mr. Purdon, when he states any of my views is good enough to give the place whence the quotation is taken? The passage to which I suppose my opponent alludes, refers to the interpretation of the whole parable, and is as follows: -To the views of the parable expressed in my former work, (The Prophecy on Olivet) I still adhere with increasing assurance. Conviction has deepened with increasing light, with the perception that no new Theory has been brought forward which can explain the text, and from the power to answer the objections brought against the former interpretation: p. 126. Ought not ones confidence in the strength of the fortification to rise with every attack on it that is repulsed? We see therefore, that Mr. Govett is not infallible, and we also perceive that he is too much wedded to any opinion which he has once adopted, however
untenable it may be. To make the ten bridesmaids a part of the Bride is no small mistake; but to make the oil of miraculous gifts change into the oil of saving grace is a far greater one. Far be it from me to clutch tenaciously what is false, because I have once held it! My belief that we shall give account of our doctrines makes me fearful of retaining what is untrue. I had rather endure the humiliation of confessing myself wrong now, than be convinced of it by and by, by the burning up of my work. Whose the two mistakes are, on which my want of judgment stands demonstrated, the reader now knows as well as I. Believing as I do, that the second supply of oil is the gift of the Spirit, I of course maintain that the foolish Virgins, as not procuring the supply in time, are excludednot from the millennial kingdom, but from the marriage supper, which precedes itwhich precedes too our Lords coming forth from the sky to take His kingdom. Rev. xix, 7-11. This assertion is made on his own authority; it is founded on the supposition that the oil in the lamps and the oil in the vessels are of two distinct kinds, which is impossible. And as it is founded on an impossibility, it falls to the ground altogether, and is not even deserving of any further consideration. It is impossible that the two supplies of oil should be of different kinds. Is there any proof? Not a hint at it! Reader, is it impossible? The mistake as to the two kinds of oil is the greatest we have ever met with upon any question whatever. Here is the former inaccuracy about mistake. If Mr. Purdon would but have the goodness to prove it a mistake, and apply his two-foot rule to it, to show how much greater it is in length, breadth, and thickness than any other he ever met with, I shall feel obliged. I, who have been in the habit of believing that there are various kinds of oil; indeed that they can be procured from the mineral, animal, and vegetable kingdoms, am slow to discover how two kinds could not be used in. The same torch at different times, or even together. I give several proofs in support of my belief, that the second supply of oil (I do not call it, two kinds) is the supernatural gift of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Pardon gives none in support of his denial. That I do not suppose the second supply to turn into converting grace, the following paragraphs will show: -The foolish, now discovering their waning lights, petition for oil. They are prudently requested to procure some for themselves, and accordingly set out in quest of it. Now, neither the hypocrite nor the true believer could fall into error so gross as
is supposed, if we make the oil to signify the converting grace of God. Who knows not, that his fellow cannot grant it? Who of the lost will not awake to the full conviction that his opportunity is gone forever, when once he arises from the dead? And that it is no mere rising from sloth is clear, because there is no possibility of recovering the ground lost before the sleep.
Again, if one of the virgins had possessed oil enough for herself and a friend, and had been willing to share it, what would have been the result? Must not both have entered the feast? Assuredly. But has any one of the saved power to impart to another what shall suffice to attain eternal life? It is supposed possible here, that one or all might have had more than sufficient oil for their own purposes: Saints Rapture, 144.
Mr. Pardon proceeds But more than this. What becomes (under Mr. Govetts teaching,) of the glorious liberty of the children of God? What become of those words As FREE, yet not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness? Those two texts must be at once blotted out. Let the reader judge! What either of the texts has to do with the case, it would be hard to say. 1. The first, taken from Rom. viii, is speaking about the redemption of the animal creation, no less than of saved man, from death and the corruption of the grave. Creation is waiting till the sons of God are manifested in their risen bodies. For the creature was made subject to vanity, pain, and death, not willingly, [not by its own fault, but Adams] but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of glory (belonging to) the sons of God: 19-21. (Greek.) As the animal creation has felt pain and death through the fault of another race, so shall it partake of the effects of Christs redemption; and when the sons of God are delivered in resurrection from the slavery of death and of putrefaction, into the freedom of endless life and into the glory of the risen body [for our bodies shall shine like the sun, Matt. xiii, 43] they too shall partake of such liberty and glory. 2. What says the context of the second text? Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is
the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a duke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king:" 1 Peter ii, 12-17. It appears then, that Peter is directing believers how to conduct themselves in reference to civil government. They were Christs freemen, yet were to be obedient to the commands of kings and subordinate governors. What has this to do with the question? Blot out the texts! Nay, let them stand! They do not touch the doctrine I am defending. Besides, let me observe once againwhat is so important on this question, and others of like kind, and yet so often is forgottenTHAT EVERY DOCTRINE MUST STAND OR FALL BY ITS OWN SPECIAL TEXTS; and that if those affirm any sentiment, it cannot be put down by saying. But how do you reconcile it with such and such a passage? I may reply at once, I dont know how to do it; but God does; He has given me BOTH doctrines, and I mean to hold them BOTH. That is answer sufficient. The argument runs on as follows If Mr. Govett were told that his life was secured to him, but that he was liable at a moments notice to be sent to prison for ten years, would he say that he was a free man, would he feel himself a free man? Certainly not. It would be nothing whatever to say, that he deserved imprisonment, or to say, that he did not deserve it; in BOTH cases alike a man would no longer call himself free if he were liable to ten years imprisonment. His soul would be depressed at the thought. A state of mind incompatible with every sensation of freedom. A constant weight upon the heart. A sword for ever suspended over the head. The thought that some neglect, some powerful temptation, may bring us under a sentence of all but eternal condemnation! A horrible thought, a perpetual specterby day and night haunting us in our paths-- and throwing its shadow over our minds. This is not FREEDOM, but abject bondage. You and I, Mr. Purdon, as Englishmen and subjects of Queen Victoria, have been in the habit of thinking that we were enjoying perfect freedom. But have not we been laboring all along under a fearful delusion? Let us look at it by the light of your description of freedom! In your account of what constitutes abject bondage, you suppose that lift, at all events, is safe. But we, as Englishmen have no security even for life itself! We may be seized at a moments notice, and not only imprisoned and transported (or sent to hard labour) for life, but actually be hung by the neck till we are dead. Think of that!
Do you say Ah, but that is only in case we are guilty of some enormous crime. We cannot suffer such punishment unless we deserve it? But you will remember that you put this objection, only to cast it aside as worthless. It would be nothing whatever to say, that he deserved imprisonment, or that he did not deserve it, in BOTH cases alike a man would no longer call himself FREE if he were liable to ten years imprisonment. It is no answer whatever, to say that that they will not be punished except they really deserve punishment. Will you say But I have not been guilty of arson, or burglary, or murder? But consider, sir, you MAY! Does not this dark cloud shut out all light? Does it not introduce a stifling sense of abject bondage? Does it not produce a choking about your throat? Is it not a sword above your head, suspended by a single hair? You MAY COMMIT MURDER AND BE HUNG! You see, this is not freedom, but abject bondage! Fly, fly to some distant shore, where, whether you rob, or burn, or murder, you never will be punished! There, there alone you will be truly free! There is indeed one little drawback to such happiness, that you may in that free land be yourself robbed or murdered, and no notice be taken of it. But to secure freedom to get free from abject bondagewho would regard it? See that group of beautiful children, full of laughter and play, sporting on yon sunny lawn! Poor little things! How dismal is your lot! Know you not, that your father keeps a rod, and that he may lay it on severely at a moments notice, if you are disobedient? Can children be happycan they count themselves free under such abject bondage? Yes! Look at them! Your philosophy is at fault. They are actually punished too sometimes: and yet they are more joyous, than many who never feel the rod. What son is he whom the father chasteneth not? What is your idea of freedom? Is it, that let a believer act as he may, he is secured against ever being chastised? That is not Gods teaching. Heb. xii, 511. Our security is that if we offend, God will, by chastening, however severe it may be, finally recover us to holiness and happiness. An unbeliever has a dread of endless misery: a true believer has only the dread of one, two, or three millions of years. How can Mr. Purdon deduce such an idea from my words? If the principle of reward according to works be true, then every degree of disgrace and punishment short of eternal woe, may take effect in the kingdom. How long is the kingdom? One, two, or three millions of years? Nay, but a thousand only. I hope the
reader is by this time persuaded that Mr. Purdon is a rash antagonist, and that many of his assertions cannot be sustained. The fear of God is as much a principle needing to be impressed upon the believers mind as the love of God. This is one of the truths, which the Christians of our day are endeavoring to shake off. But the New Testament teaches it most clearly. 1. I say unto you my friends . . . I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear Him which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him: Luke xii, 4, 5. 2. Fear God. Honor the King: 1 Peter ii, 17. 3. Let us hold fast (marg.) grace whereby we may serve God with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire: Heb. xii, 28, 29. I come next to the question concerning BAPTISM. Mr. Govett has lately asserted in a printed letter, that those who have not received baptism by complete IMMERSION in water, shall be shut out from the millennial reign, and from the kingdom. I suppose that the word baptism in Greek signifies immersion. Will Mr. Purdon be good enough, when he comments on any passage of mine, to give chapter and verse? I suppose that he is now referring to the Rainbow, Dec. 1864. But in that number I say (p. 562) I gather that some will see the kingdom who have regeneration alone, and not baptism. But they will not enter the kingdom. Moral Excellency without baptism would not wholly exclude from all part in the kingdom. Why does Mr. Purdon say, the millennial reign, and from the kingdom? Is not the kingdom the millennial reign? So at least I view it. As a proof of this Mr. Govett produces that well-known passage Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This verse Mr. Govett translates as follows, Except a man be born out of water and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. From hence he draws the conclusion, that if a man do not literally come up out 'ek' the water, he cannot enter the kingdom. That is to say, a man must be dipped in order to enter the millennial kingdom, for to come up out of the water implies a complete immersion.
I beg the reader to observe that the conclusion given is not stated in my words. What I do say in that letter is Some believers will be exuded. From entrance into the kingdomthe unbaptized. John iii, 5. Mr. Purdon alone is responsible for the words in which he states the inference. On these he fastens the absurdity. I do say A man cannot be born out of the water who never was in it. This is indeed straining a text to the utmost to prove a favorite point. I am wholly unconscious of straining the text in the least. I do not seek to urge immersion upon the disciples of Christ, as far as I know, beyond its due place; but I would affectionately press all Christs commands on His disciples. (1) And I ask, is baptism signified in the verse quoted? (John iii, 5.) I do not know of any one who would absolutely deny it. I think Mr. Purdon would not. I will give a citation or two from authors well known. It is needful that you absolutely believe, and submit yourself to the heavenly ordinance, even baptism: Bengel. The reference of the expression to baptism (especially according to Titus iii, 5.)
is certainly clear; the only question is How is this to be taken? Olehausen.
In Pooles Synopsis it is observed All the ancients understand this of the baptism of water. By water here is evidently signified baptism: Barnes. In this place the name of the Spirit added to water is the declaration of the exterior sacramental baptism. Beza. (2) If then the reference be to baptism, if immersion be, as Mr. Pardon admits, the more correct method, (3) And if in immersion from the water there be the lively image of a birth, where is the straining? As one of the first of critics of our day has said, To be born of watermost evidently implies that water is the womb out of which the person who is born proceeds. That this is the reference of the figure, whatever may be supposed to be its meaning, cannot for a moment by doubted by any reflecting mind.
Mr. Purdon continues, For observe, there is in the Greek only one preposition, and that one is connected equally with the two words water and spirit; so that if the Greek preposition means out of in the present case, the translation will be this A man must come up out of the water and must come up out of the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom. According to Mr. Govett, such a meaning is inevitable. But who can conceive such a phrase as to come up out of the Spirit? It is absurd! Are people dipped in the Spirit? The second half of the verse is made nonsensical, in order to give a peculiar favorite sense to the former half. That the Greek preposition means out of, no scholar, I suppose, will deny. But that the translation must therefore be what Mr. Purdon gives it, I deny entirely. A man must come up out of the water and must come up out of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom. This is no translation, but a paraphrase. Does gennethe signify come up? Why does Mr. Purdon urge on me the words come up out of the Spirit? Where have I used them in relation to the verse before us? Why does he put them in inverted commas, as if I had used them? On them the absurdity turns; but I have I not used them. For how much then am I responsible? I say, A man must be born out of water and of the Spirit. But in so doing (my opponent would reply) yon give two senses to the same Greek preposition in the same sentence. I do. And here comes the point really raised by Mr. Purdons argument. He affirms that the one preposition must have the same meaning in relation to the two substantives with which it is connected. And I readily admit, that that is the natural anticipation we should form. Let us see then, whether he is able to make good his case in this instance. Now it would be better to make sense of both halves. Except a man be born through the agency of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom. This would make sense of both. In the 1st John chapter 3rd we have the same construction born of God. Ek tou Theou. Now what is the meaning of being born of God, born ek tou theou? Surely it does not mean coming up out of the deity, as a man comes up out of the water. This would be absurd. It means born through the operation of God the Holy Spirit. To this I reply, 1. I am not responsible for the absurdity. The word8 coming up out of the spirit, or out of the deity are not mine. 2. I deny the sense he gives to the preposition. It does not mean through the agency of. And of the unsoundness of this statement Mr. Purdon seems to be aware;
for he says, a little farther on, (p. 15.) It may perhaps be objected, that the preposition ek has not the signification of agency, or operation; and that it must be translated out of. Yet the 18th verse of Matthew, chapter 1, proves that ek has the force of operating, or agency. In that verse the preposition ek, can have no other meaning than by the operation of. I will give the true statement of the meaning of the Greek preposition in the words of a chief authority recognized among scholars. The original signification of ek is issuing from within (the compass, sphere of) something. It is antithetical to eis (into) Winers Greek Grammar, p. 383. The German writer quotes then Matt. i, 16, in Greek. Out of whom (Mary) was born Jesus. He goes on to say, Hence this preposition is employed to express.... the progenitor from whom one is descended. A Hebrew out of Hebrews, p. 384; [he gives the Greek.] And further Figuratively this preposition denotes every SOURCE and CAUSE out of which something flows, issues, and is applied either to things or persons. Under this head is cited Matt. i, 18, the very text in question! p. 385. The Latin uses the equivalent preposition. Non ex sanguinibus ...... sed ex deo: John i, 12. Ex aqua, et Spiritu : iii, 5. Ex came, ex spiritu: 6. Out of. And Olshausen adds his testimony by implication, when he says Hence the expression, Spirit out of Spirit [he gives the Greek words] plainly means, that which is imperishable can only have its origin from the fountain itself of imperishable life. The preposition then means out of, and not by the operation of. 3. I observe next, that even if his rendering of the preposition were allowable, it stands differently related to the two substantives water and spirit. Except a man (says Mr. Purdon) be born through the agency of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom. Now the Holy Ghost is a spiritual and moral agent, by whom we are born to God. Is the water a spiritual and moral agent likewise? Is not the water an element simply passive in baptism? We are not born to God through any agency in the water. Here then his case fails. 4. What then is the true view of the passage? A child springs out of both his parents: but in an especial and peculiar sense does this apply to the mother. Now our Lord was speaking of the birth of men to God. Nicodemus objected, and referred to the mothers part in human birth. How was it possible that there should be anything like that? I suppose then, that the Savior in verses 3 and 6, gives the analogies which connect
the spiritual birth of man with the natural. In verse 3, he speaks of the secret operation of the Holy Ghost on the mans soul, by which he was begotten to God. But the Most High designs, that there should be a visible birth, as well as a secret communication of spiritual life; and hence He has appointed water visibly, to take the mothers place. Oat of the womb of water the child of God is to be born. But water is not the mother in the active sense, as if it communicated life. And therefore the Savior says not, That which is born of the water is water. in short the child of God is differently related to water and spirit: the Holy Ghost is really his spiritual father; the water of baptism isfiguratively and emblematically onlyhis mother, out of whom he is born. Out of will translate the preposition in relation to both substantives. But out of, as referred to the real spiritual Father takes one meaning; and out of, as referred to the passive element, and representative mother takes another meaning. There it refers to the immersion from the water. It is a serious thing to exclude a man from the kingdom of heaven by a new and fanciful interpretation of a text. Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. What do these words mean? They imply exclusion from something. Does the kingdom of heaven mean simply salvation, or eternal life? Then, on the supposition that the birth out of water refers to baptism, our Lord solemnly declares that without immersion a man cannot be saved at all. For there is no birth out of water, nor the shadow of it, in water sprinkled or poured on the face. I view the kingdom of God as something different from eternal life; as a kingdom, which is to come to an end. (1 Cor. xv, 24,) and hence I can give our Lords words their strict meaning, and yet admit that multitudes of those never baptized will be saved. The only new point is the interpretation of the kingdom of God. In no aspect can it truly be said to be fanciful. I have the assertion of almost all commentators-- (1) that the verse speaks of baptism. (2.) I have the confession of Mr. Purdons own Prayer Book, that Immersion is the correct mode of performing the rite. His catechism says, Water WHEREIN the person is baptized. (3.) It tells us that baptism figuresA death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness. And with that I cordially agree; the immersion, or burial under water bespeaking the death; the immersion, the birth. It is not I then that exclude from entrance into the millennial kingdom those that lack baptism, but Christ.
Mr. Purdon resumes: -The meaning of the preposition ek or ex in the 3rd of 1st John, decides the meaning of the same preposition eis in the 3rd of Johns Gospel, or at the least leaves it so extremely doubtful, that no argument can be built upon it. The preposition has the same sense out of in both cases. It seems clear, that the form or method of baptism has been left in Scripture as what is called an open question. Nothing is decided about it. Baptism by immersion may be the more correct method, but it is never said to be essential to an entrance into the kingdom. Nor is it ever mentioned in express words at all. I deny that the mode of performing the New Testament rite of initiation is left open. Does not the Greek word baptizo mean to immerse? Does it ever signify sprinkle or pour? Take a passage or two from a classic author. The child was sent by night to Jericho, and was there dipped by the Galls, at Herods command in a pond, till he was drowned:" Josephus' Wars, i, 22, 2. Again: -Upon all this, Herod resolved to complete what he had intended against the young man. When therefore the festival was over, and he was feasting at Jericho with Alexandra, who entertained him there, he was then very pleasant with the young man, and drew him into a lonely place, and at the same time played with him in a. juvenile and ludicrous manner. Now the nature of that place was hotter than ordinary; so they went out in a body, and of a sudden, and in a vein of madness; and as they stood by the fish ponds, of which there were large ones about the house, they went to cool themselves (by bathing) because it was in the midst of a hot day. At first they were only spectators of Herods servants and acquaintances as they were swimming; but after a while, the young man at the instigation of Herod, went into the water among them, while such of Herods acquaintance as he had appointed to do it, dipped him as he was swimming, and plunged him under water, in the dark of the evening, as if it had been done in sport only; nor did they desist till he was entirely suffocated:" Idem, Ant. xv, iii, 3. But the Holy Ghost foresaw how strongly the meaning of this word would be contested; and he has therefore given. Other proofs which are sufficient for the unlearned. Such are the prepositions with which the verb is constructed. They were baptized of him in Jordan. As many as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death. Such too are the going down into the water of parties baptized, and their coming up out of it, the much water required, and like points.
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and the body bathed in pure water: Heb. x, 22, 23. (Greek.) This closes the question effectually. So do the figures used. In. nothing but immersion and emersion have we an emblematic burial and resurrection, and an. emblematic death and birth. Rom. vi, 3-5; Col. ii, 12. The Holy Ghost speaks of baptism too as the bath of regeneration: Tit. iii, 5. In the types afforded by the Ark and the Red Sea, we have the immersion of the world and of the Egyptians, and the family of Noah, and the nation of Moses coming forth from the waters. Was the history of Naamans cure typical? Then in his dipping himself in the Jordan, we have a figure of baptism. But the solemn part of it is, the loss to be endured by those who refuse to obey. And here the words of John iii, 5, are supported by other passages. Know ye not, that as many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him by the immersion into the death; in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For IF we became fellow-plants in the likeness of His death, [as is done in baptism,] why, we shall also be of the resurrection: [partakers of the first resurrection:] (Greek) Rom. vi, 3-5. All the people that heard him and the publicans justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him: Luke vii, 2930. Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots are going into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not:" Matt. xxi, 3 132. (Greek.) Finally, take the analogy of circumcision. Every child that was not circumcised on the eight day should be cut off from his people, as a breaker of Gods covenant. Gen. xvii, 14. Now while baptism is not needful to salvation, yet obedience is necessary to reward. And solemn is the threatening against disobedience, which has been quoted before. Luke xii, 474 8.
But Mr. Purdon presents it in another point of view
It is like receiving in the Lords Supper. There can be no doubt that the most correct method of receiving the Lords Supper would be lying down, or sitting, for at the institution of the ordinance John was lying on Jesus bosom. He was not even sitting, but lying down as the ancients did at supper. Yet no one will say it is a sin to kneel down at the Lords Supper, or that the man who kneels
down will be shut out from the kingdom. To every rite some things are essential, some things are not essential. To the rite of baptism (immersion) immersion is an essential. The character or color of the clothes worn is a nonessential. The whole edification of the rite turns on its being an emblematic burial and resurrection, an emblematic death and birth; and these are found in immersion only. The posture in eating and drinking is not a thing essential to a supper, but eating and drinking are; and to the Lords supper it is essential, that there be eating of bread, and drinking of wine. To substitute cheese for bread, and water for wine, would be unlawful. And Jesus has not said, that those who do not partake of the Lords supper shall not enter the kingdom. He saw that all the stress of difficulty lay in observing that rite in which a man must stand forth individually, not in that in which many are joined together, and in which the singularity of baptism is lost. To say that a man will be excluded from the kingdom for the sake of an outward form, seems like going back to the times of the ancient Pharisees, who made washing the hands an essential duty, while our Lord treated it as a worthless superstition. What made the washing of hands a superstition? And why was it accounted worthless by our Lord? Because it was a command of men, and not of God. But is baptism a tradition of men? Must there not be obedience, and obedience to forms, if God calls for it? Shall the disobedient receive reward? Shall their plea be heard that it was only a form? What said God to those redeemed out of Egypt by the blood of the lamb? Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel: Ex. xii, 19. Indeed we may remark, that the noise that is now made about baptism by IMMERSION bears a most suspicious resemblance to the Pharisees washing of hands, for in both cases the element of water is converted into an essential of salvation, or at least something very nearly as momentous. We say, there can be no fulfillment of our Lords command of immersion save by immersion. The Lord did not command the Pharisaic washing of hands. It is certain by our Lords words, that none unborn of water shall enter the kingdom. What is the birth out of water if it were not baptism? We do not say, that the want of such a birth out of water shall exclude from salvation.
I have now gone through what seemed to me to call for refutation in Mr. Purdons Tracts No. IV and VI. And now a few words in conclusion. Mr. Purdon agrees with me in the main. He holds that believers will suffer loss for evil works. But we differ as to the degree of such loss. I think the candid will see, that Mr. Purdon must either advance or go back. The state of controversy is this. I. I bring passages which state, that the penalty for such and such an offence of a believer is exclusion from the kingdom. None guilty of reviling shall partake the kingdom, says Paul. I Cor. vi, 10. The reply to this, by most Christians, is That is an offence, which cannot be committed by a believer: and he who commits such an offence is no believer. Then the battle takes a new direction. II. But Mr. Purdon admits that believers may be, or are actually, guilty of the sins against which the threatening is directed. Some believers do use abusive language. III. How then can he get quit of the conclusion, that some believers will suffer the penalty, and therefore be excluded? On this point he falters. (1.) In his tract No. 7, he admits, even more distinctly than in the passage from No. 6 which has been quoted, that some may be excluded. (2.) But his general theory is that all believers will enter. How then does he manage this? He alters the penalty. The Holy Ghost saysthat believers guilty of reviling shall not enter the kingdom at all. Mr. Purdon says, they shall enter the kingdom, but receive only its lowest degree of glory. Let no believer trust this commutation of the sentence! It will break down in the judgment. It stands opposed to the word of God. Suppose that in the Crimean war it had been notified to the troops, that medals of gold and silver would be given to those deserving of them, but that drunkenness or insubordination would exclude from any such reward. Would it be wise in such case to trust one who said, that if no gold or silver medal were dealt out to such, at least they might and would receive a copper one? I have shown in a previous page that Christians are guilty of offences, the penalty of which is exclusion from the kingdom. Mr. Pardon admits, that some believers are guilty of those offences. Then they shall not enter the millennial glory. The Parables of the Steward, the Ten Virgins, and Talents are not only, or even chiefly, the turning points of the fight. Those parables (Mr. Pardon contends) do not refer to believers. Let them alone then! There are plenty of passages which, as he admits, do
refer to them. If any wishes to try one of the strongest, let him take in hand 1 Cor. vi, 1 11. I think I have proved, that simply saving faith is nowhere stated as the ground of entrance into the kingdom; although faith is necessary, and the want of faith will of course exclude. Matt. viii, 1112. I think I have proved too, that for the heavier offences of believers, there will be not only exclusion, but also infliction of chastisement, more or less severe. Take a fresh instance If any defile the temple of God, him shall God defile. (Greek): 1 Cor. iii, 17. This is not less glory, but positive disgrace. If the entrance to the millennial kingdom were according to works, then no works or evil works must exclude. Fellow Christians! Let us pray for the spirit of the believers of Berea! This great question cannot be settled by prejudice or clamor. Many texts are adduced on the point: what do they say? Many more are not quoted. Will you search and see what God says? The messenger who is employed to bring these things before you may be little learned or of feeble wit, or a bad logician, or have over-stepped his message; search, and look! Mr. Purdon, you see, grants all that is necessary to prove me correct in my main proposition. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? And now a word or two on Mr. Purdons tract for August. (No. viii.) He asserts, that the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of God both mean the eternal state. I deny that the kingdom of the heavens ever means the eternal state. It is the kingdom promised in Daniel when the heavens shall rule this present earth; and the promise has received its fulfillment when our globe is destroyed. It is not true, that in the next dispensation God alone will be king. On the contrary, the Son of Man and His chosen ones will reign for God. The period when God shall be all in all is by the Holy Ghost affixed to the day when the millennial kingdom is given up by Christ. 1 Cor. xv, 242 8. I am glad that we agree so nearly in our views of the 144,000 of Rev. xiv. They are unmarried believers of this dispensation, destined for a peculiar glory. I understand however the women spoken of in v, 4, to be women literally, and not mystically, taken. Nor are they living saints only. But Mr. Govett, among other singular notions has taken up the idea, that marriage will exclude from the kingdom in some way or other, because marriage certainly
excludes men from the 144,000. I beg Mr. Purdons pardon. I have never said, or thought such a thing. How could I say so, when most of the apostles were married? I have said, that it will affect mens place in the kingdom, which Mr. Purdon also allows. Should we not be careful in our accusations of our brethren? I suppose Mr. Purdon will admit, that my idea of the meaning of 1 Tim. iii, 2 is one commonly entertained. To me it seems certainly proved, by a comparison with chap. v, 9.
This study is an excerpt from Reward According to Works by Robert Govett. Published by Schoettle Publishing Company, Inc., P.O. Box 1246, Hayesville, NC 28904. Fourth Edition, 1989.
Original document was scanned with an Epson 636 Expression scanner using TextBridge Pro98 software as the interface to WORD97.

Will All Believers Obtain Part in the Millennial Glory

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Will All Believers Obtain Part in the Millennial Glory

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WILL ALL BELIEVERS ENTER THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM?

them liars:": Rev. ii, 2.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai