HERALD
OF THE
KINGDOM AND AGE TO COME.
“Earnestly contend for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints.”—Jude
Volume 1—Number 4 (April 1851)
From Elpis Israel.
THE “THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS.”
But the mighty earthquake having commenced in 1848, and the democracy which caused it having been repressed to a considerable extent, what agency remains, as revealed in the scriptures of truth, by which is to be brought about the wonderful consummation we have been considering? The answer to this question is contained in the following words:
“I saw,” says the apostle, “three unclean spirits like Frogs out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of demons (daimonon) bringing to pass remarkable events (poiounta semeia) and they go forth to the kings of the earth, and of the whole habitable (oikoumenes holes) to assemble them to the war (eis polemon) of that great day of God the Almighty. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon.”—Revelation 16: 13-16.
In this passage we have to consider the “three unclean spirits like frogs,” the three mouths out of which they proceed, the parties to whom they go forth, and the fruit of their mission There are three spirits, and three mouths, that is, one spirit proceeding out of each mouth; but as they are all three like frogs and unclean, though proceeding from three different mouths, they are in nature, origin, and tendency, the same. They are called “the spirits of demons,” not because of their uncleanness, or wickedness; but because the mouths from which they issue are the demons, or chiefs, of the dominions represented by the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. Now the throne of the dragon is Constantinople; that of the two-horned beast, Vienna; and that of the image of the beast, Rome. The thrones being in these cities, it follows that the demon of the dragon is the Sultan; the demon of the two-horned beast the emperor of Austria; and the demon of the image, the false prophet himself. It is worthy of observation here, that the text says, “out of the mouth of the false prophet,” and not “out of the mouth of the image of the beast.” In the beginning of the chapter, whilst the first vial is supposed to be pouring out, the papal Jupiter is styled the beast’s image; but in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, while the spirits are at work, he is termed the false prophet; and in verse twenty of chapter nineteen also, where it speaks of his perdition. This change of style is by no means accidental. If the reader take a view of the papal dominion at the close of the last century; then view it as it is now, and compare the views together; he will doubtless come to the conclusion, that the pope is no longer the image of the imperial head of the beast. He has no dominion really, for it is so far consumed, that what remains is of little, or no account. He has good will enough to make terrible examples of the democrats who caused his flight from Rome; but he cannot carry it into effect, because the French will not permit him. He is a fugitive in exile, and though pressed to return to Rome, he is afraid to go. He is then no longer imperial, and consequently, has fallen from his Iconism, and become a simple prophet.
Protestant and papal scribes are in the habit of applying the epithet “false prophet” to Mohammed, and therefore do not perceive its applicability to the Roman bishop. But neither Mohammed, nor his successors, are termed the “false prophet” in the apocalypse. The Arabian was false enough doubtless; but he was a far more respectable character than any pope that has ever reigned; and were I to choose between the two superstitions, I would rather be a Moslem than a papist. It was the glory of Mohammed to destroy idolatry; it is the infamy of the popes to be the high priests of the “queen of heaven.” The Saracens were God’s locusts to torment, and the Ottomans, God’s cavalry to slay with political death, the catholic image-worshippers of the Asiatic third part of the Roman dragon. Mohammed was the star; and his successors, the “commanders of the faithful,” the “angels of the bottomless pit: whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.”—Revelation 9: 1, 11. These names in English signify destroyer, which is indicative of the mission of those who marshalled themselves under the standard of the Arabian. The epithet “false prophet” is singularly applicable to the Roman bishop. It is a part of his function to preach or prophesy; that is, to “speak unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.”—1 Corinthians 14: 3. From him these blessings are supposed to flow to all “his children.” Aaron was given to Moses to be his prophet because he could speak well. As Aaron, then, was speaker, mouth, or prophet, to Moses; so the pope is now mouth, or prophet, or speaker, of the papacy, and no more. He is virtually stripped of his dominions; he can prophesy, but his rule is a thing of name and not a fact. A false prophet is he; truthless as Satan; sporting himself with his own deceivings, and thereby provoking a speedy fate, which is “capture and destruction.”
But, before he and the two-horned beast before whom he is now working, perish in the fiery European lake they are blowing into a flame, they must fulfil the mission to which they are appointed under the sixth and seventh vials. The Sultan, the Pope, and the Emperor, are the demons of the crisis, and the mouths, or speakers of the systems to which they belong. Forth from them are to proceed such measures of policy as will produce a general war. These political measures are symbolised as “unclean spirits.” They are “spirits,” or influences, exerted through the policy of the three governments; and “unclean,” because nothing clean can proceed out of such mouths. Rome, Vienna, and Constantinople, are so many centres of intrigue, whence proceeds the evil that is to ruin the beast. I say Rome, which, however, is not strictly correct. It should be, wherever the false prophet is for the time being, whether at Gaeta, or at Portici. Then from Vienna, Constantinople, and the locality of the false prophet are to go forth to “the kings of the earth,” and to “the kings of the whole habitable,” the results of these intrigues, which will stir up all their propensities to war. The “kings of the earth” are here distinguished from the “kings of the habitable.” The former are the kings of Germany and Russia, &c.; while the latter are the kings of Roman Europe, such as of Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, and Greece. They are all to be involved in war by the “unclean spirits” of the three demons, whose policy will bring about results that will ruin themselves, and astonish the world.
But why are these three political influences likened to frogs? “I saw,” says the apostle, “three unclean spirits like frogs come out of these mouths.” The interpretation, I conceive, is this. The frogs are the heraldic symbol of a power, which at the prophetic crisis is to be the proximate cause of the several policies which characterise the demon-mouths. That is to say, if this frog-power had not struck out a new course of operation which deranged every thing, there would have been no ground for the Sultan, the Emperor, and the Pope, to change their policy, and all things would have gone on as usual. The frogs, therefore, and “the spirits,” stand related to each other as cause and effect, the demons being only the media through which the frog-power brings about the destruction of the two-horned beast and the false prophet; and at the same time brings upon the arena a power which is to unjewel the horns, repress the frog-power itself, and build up the image of Nebuchadnezzar, preparatory to its being shivered to pieces on the mountains of Israel. In other words, the scenery of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses of this chapter is a symbolical representation of the working of things, when “the judgment sits, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it to the end.”—Daniel 7: 26. “Who “they” are to whom the work of destruction is committed is obvious from the twenty-second verse, where it is written, “judgment was given to the saints,” that is, of the Median class, who do their work previously to “the people of the saints,” or saints of the holy city, assuming the ruling-judgment “under the whole heaven.”
Now, from the evidence I am about to adduce, I think, I shall be able to convince the reader, that “the Frogs” are the symbol of the French democracy, the old enemy of the Beasts and their Image. The testimony to establish this is as follows:
1. Montfaucon, in his Monumens de la Monarchie Francaise, p. 4, plate 6, gives a Frog as one of the monuments of the French king, Childeric; thus writing respecting it, "3. Another medal representing a frog, which was also an Egyptian symbol." This was found A.D. 1623, at St. Brice, near Tournay, with other things belonging to Childeric. He reigned A.D. 456. That is, before the Franks acknowledged the Roman Bishop.
.
|
|
|
|
2. In the "Monde Primitif, compare avec le Monde Moderne," par M. Court de Gebelin, Paris, 1781, the author thus writes, p. 181, "Nous venons de voir que les Armoiries de la Guyenne sont un leopard, celles des Celtes (surtout les Belgiques) etoient un lion, et celles des Francs un crapaud. Le crapaud designe les marais dont sortirent les Francs." And again, on p. 195, " La Cosmographie de Munster (I. ii.) nous a transmit un fait tres remarquable dans ce genre. Marcomir, Roi des Francs, ayant penetre de la Westphalie dans le Tongre, vit en songe une figure a trois tetes, 1' une de lion, Pautre d'aigle, la troisieme de crapaud. I1 consulta Ia dessus, ajoute on, un celebre Druide de la contree, appele Al Runus; et celuici 1'assura que cette figure designoit les trois puissances qui auroient regne successivemens sur les Gaules; les Celts dont le symbole etoit le lion, les Romains designes par 1'aigle, et les Francs par le crapaud, a cause de leur marais."*
* The following translation will serve for those who do not understand French. -- In M. Court de Gebelin's work, styled "The Primitive World compared with the Modern World," he says, "The armorial hearings of Guyenne are a leopard; those of the Celts (especially of the Belgians) are a lion; and of the French a frog. The Frog represents the marshes whence the French originated." And again, " The Cosmography of Munster has transmitted to us a very remarkable fact of this kind. Marcomir, king of the French, having penetrated from Westphalia into Tongres, saw in a dream a figure with three heads, the one of a lion, the other of an eagle, and the third of a frog. He consulted thereon, it is added, a celebrated druid of the country, named Al Runus; who assured him that this figure represented the three powers which had reigned successively over the Gauls; the Celts whose symbol was the lion; the Romans designated by the eagle, and the Francs by the frog because of their marshes."
3. In the sixth century, xlvi of the prophecies of Nostra Damus (p. 251) translated my Garencieres of London, 1672, occur the following lines:
Unjuste sera
un exil envoye
Par pestilence aux confins de non seigle;
Response au rouge le fera desvoye
Roi retirant a la Rane et a I' aigle.
On which, Garencieres observes: "by the eagle he meaneth the emperor; and by the frog, the king of France; for, before he took the fleur de luce, the French bore three frogs."
4. In Pynson's edition of Fabyan's Chronicle, at the beginning of the account of Pharamond (the first king of the Franks who reigned at Treves about A. D. 420) there is a shield of arms bearing three frogs, (p. 37, Ellis' edit.); with the words beneath,
The banner underneath, having upon it the three frogs, is from ancient tapestry in the cathedral of Rheims, representing battle scenes of Clovis, who is said to have been baptised there upon his conversion to Romanism.
The next engraving is from the Franciscan church at Innspruck; where is a row of tall bronze figures, twenty-three in number; representing principally the most distinguished personages of the House of Austria; the armour and costumes being those chiefly of the 16th century, and the workmanship excellent. Among them is Clovis, king of France, and on his shield three fleur de lis and three frogs, with the words underneath, "Clodovaeus der i Christenlich kunig von Frankreich; that is, Clovis, first christian king of France.
1. Uptonus de Militari Officio, p. 155, states that three frogs were the old arms of France, without specifying what race of kings.
2. Professor Schott supposes the three frogs to have been distinctly the original arms of the Bourbons; bourbe signifying mud. This may have been the case. When their family became the dynasty of France, they probably assumed the frogs as their arms, being kings of the Franks, whose symbol it had been so long. The Bourbons arose out of the mud which is natural to frogs, and by the revolution of 1848 are deep in the mud again!
3. Typoticus, p. 75, gives as the device on a coin of Louis VI., the last French king before Hugh Capet, the first of the Bourbons, a frog with the inscription Mihi terra lacusque, land and water are mine, i.e. I am amphibious.
4. In the "Encyclopaedia Metropolitana," on Heraldry, it is stated that "Paulus Emilius blazons the arms of France, argent three diadems gules;" others say, they bear three toads, sable in a field vert (ap. Gwillim, c. I.) which, if ever they did, it must have been before the existence of the present rules."
Such is the testimony I have to offer in the case before us. The conviction produced on my mind is, that the Frogs in the prophecy are the symbol of the French democratic power. It will be seen from the armorial shield of Clovis, that the frogs and the lilies were both used as symbols. They are both indigenous to wet, or marshy lands, and therefore very fit emblems of the French, who came originally from the marshes of Westphalia. But on the shield of Pharamond, so far back as A.D. 420, the frogs without the lilies appear in the armorial bearings of the Franks; and in the medal of Childeric I. there is no lily, but the frog only. It would therefore seem from this, that the lilies were not in the original arms, but superadded many years after; and at length adopted by the Bourbons as the symbol of their race in its dominion over the frogs. These, then, represent the nation, and the lilies, or fleur de lis, the ruling dynasty. Now, if the apostle had said, "I saw three unclean spirits like lilies come out of the Mouths," he would have intimated by such a similitude that the French Bourbons were the cause of the "unclean spirits" issuing forth from the sultan, the emperor, and the Roman prophet. But he does not say this; he says they were like frogs. The truth, then, is obvious. In A.D. 96, when John was an exile in Patmos, the Franks were savages in an unnamed country, living by hunting and fishing like American Indians. But the Holy Spirit revealed to him, that the people would play a conspicuous part in the affairs of nations; and, foreseeing by what symbol they would represent themselves, he symbolized their nation it, and styled them "Frogs." He informed him, that under the sixth vial their influence would be remarkably apparent. That the Frog nation would have much to do with the dragon, beast, and false prophet; in fact, that so intimate and direct would their dealing be with them, that its effect would be perceived in the warlike tendency and influence of the measures proceeding from the sultan, the emperor, and the pope; who, being so completely entangled in the complications created by the policy of the Frog power, would in their endeavours to extricate themselves, involve the whole habitable in war, which would end in the destruction of the two-horned beast, and the false prophet, and in the subjugation of the surviving horns to a new Imperial dominion for a time.
(Concluded in our next)
“THE GATHERING STORM IN THE CHURCH.”
(Abridged from the Family Herald.)
A serious struggle has commenced, and already the discontented clergy talk of separation from the State, of giving up their livings, and accepting poverty, and what they are pleased to call persecution from their opponents. And what is it all about? The people do not know. It is something about baptism, they hear, but they do not understand it, and they think it all theological or clerical eccentricity. Some, no doubt, are suspicious of priestcraft! Ecclesiastical revolutions are always serious matters. However trifling the subject at its commencement, it is like the acorn that carries the oak in its bosom. There is a power of development in an ecclesiastical controversy which exceeds that of all other questions that interest society. The present is more serious than is at all imagined by mere politicians who regard temporal matters as all important. It is the Scotch rupture transferred to England, and likely to prove more conclusive and revolutionary in the South, where the foundations of the church are deeper laid in history and tradition.
“A new spirit showed itself in the Church of England in 1833. Since then it has grown rapidly, and produced a graduated scale of impressions upon all the clergy of England. Some it has sent to Rome, converting them into monks and friars; others it has merely Romanized; others it has filled with very high and exalted notions of their own clerical profession and its apostolical authority, with a correspondent reverence for forms and materials used in worship—such as looking to the East in prayer, regenerating by water, the absolute necessity of bishops or their delegates for transforming the bread and wine into the real Body and Blood, and numerous other modes of belief, all strongly tinctured of the Roman Church.
“The movement itself has progressed so rapidly and fiercely that it has confounded and disorganised the members who conducted it. They disagreed from the beginning; and their successors are now at variance upon numerous details, whilst the Church of England has no living authority to pronounce a decision upon any of them. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a lay authority, backed and supported by the Courts of Law, has, however, dared to pronounce that a clergyman of the Church of England may, or may not believe, or teach, regeneration by water. The judgment has roused the clergy who believe and insist upon all others believing this fundamental doctrine. The Bishop of London even proposed that a commission, consisting of bishops, should be invested with the power of determining what was right and what was wrong in matters of faith, and thus silencing the clergy or turning them out whensoever they dared to teach a theological error. The Parliament wisely refused to confer upon them so dangerous a prerogative.
“Something must be done, however, and the question is, what? Will the laity of the nineteenth century condescend to receive their faith from the clergy? Will the people cease to think or believe without clerical permission? That is the question at present arising, and this question of baptism is merely a starting point from which the revolution takes its commencement.
“Apparently a trifling question; but an awful—a tremendous question, when once it is analysed. Let us briefly look at it. If baptism by water be necessary to regeneration, it is necessary to salvation; therefore all who die unbaptised are damned everlastingly—so say the High churchmen. Augustine, the great oracle of the church, declares that infants dying unbaptised are under eternal condemnation. Some of the fathers, a little more mercifully disposed, though they excluded them eternally from heaven, maintained that they were admitted into a sort of intermediate state called Limbo, which is neither heaven nor hell. Gregory Nazianzen was of this opinion; but Saint Augustine declares peremptorily against the existence of such a place. “There is no middle state,” says he; “he must be with the Devil, who is not with Christ.” Fulgentius says, “It is to be believed, without all doubt, that not only men who are come to the use of reason, but infants, whether they die in their mother’s womb, or after they are born, without baptism, are punished with everlasting punishment in eternal fire; because, though they have no actual sin of their own, yet they carry along with them the condemnation of original sin from their first conception and birth.” No wonder there were Dark Ages, and a long reign of foul and ferocious superstition, persecution, and torture by fire and faggot, rack-wheel, and thumb-screw. What frightful ideas they had of God, of justice, and mercy!
“The people who believed those awful doctrines were naturally eager always to have their children baptised as soon as they were born. Augustine says, that men ran with their children to be baptised, and as soon as the water covered their bodies, and the mystic words were pronounced, they believed that the helpless little creatures were saved from the fiend. Hence arose the practice, prevalent in Roman countries to this day, and very common in England long after the Reformation, for midwives and monthly nurses to baptise children as soon as they were born, lest they should die before a priest could be procured, and thus perish everlastingly. It makes one shudder to think that in God’s universe such ideas could be entertained of His justice and mercy. But they were entertained; and moreover, they are now entertained, and those very clergymen who are at present, stirring up their brethren upon this question of baptism, hold these opinions. They are afraid, however, to speak out their mind boldly in this nineteenth century. It is their determination, however, to revive these doctrines if they can, and to frighten all babies into baptism by the terrors of the law, in order to secure their salvation. The divines mean well, if not wisely.
“We are by no means sorry to see this movement in the church and we sincerely hope it will go on with vigor. A Church like that of England, becomes dead in a state of tranquillity and indulgence. It is dead enough at the best for the want of an efficient ruling power. Just yesterday we heard of a clergyman losing five pounds at cards, and borrowing the money from a lady to pay the debt. Such stories fly like wildfire, and are very numerous. But the bishop will never interfere—the gambler will never be rebuked. The Bishop of Exeter will not refuse to commune with him at “the table of the Lord.” But a clergyman who teaches that a child, or a Quaker, or a young Baptist, may be saved, or regenerated, without water baptism, is accounted a monster, and the Bishop exclaims, “I protest that I cannot, without sin, and by God’s grace I will not, hold communion with him, be he who he may, who shall so abuse the high commission which he bears.” The controversy will be useful. It cannot fail to lead to numerous other subjects of importance with which it has no immediate relation. It will conjure up the spirit of criticism, and hold up the mirror to the critics themselves, who will thus have an opportunity of seeing themselves as others see them, and of being reminded of duties which they have either forgotten or never thought of. All truth and all holiness are not with one side alone. We cannot suppose that the one party goes to heaven and the other to hell. Such a doctrine might have been believed in the Middle Ages, when they consigned little children to eternal fire for not being baptised. But now we are more charitable and merciful, if not more orthodox. And as Charity (agape, love,) is greater than faith, it is greater than orthodoxy, and has the promise of longer continuance than even faith itself.
* * *
OUR VISIT TO BRITAIN
(Continued from page 94.)
When we received the Wallisian church-letter of July 5th, we wrote the epistle to the Barker Gate church, which appears on page 58 of the Herald, volume IV. We had been informed when at New York that Mr. William Marriott, one of the six signers, was favourable to the doctrine we taught. We therefore selected him as the person to whose care we would forward our reply, judging that he would take care that all the church should know its contents. We feared it might be suppressed if entrusted to Mr. Wallis. Marriott, however, proved a capital advertisement, far better than we had anticipated. He very absurdly supposed, that we had written six copies of this long letter which occupies ten columns of the Herald, and had sent one to each of the signers! The result was, that though ours was dated July 8th, Mr. Wallis did not know of its existence till July 24th; for under the said supposition, Marriott made no haste to communicate its contents to the others as they said nothing upon the subject to him. Mr. Wallis says, he sent the letter to the Second Advent church, where it was read on the 16th; and in consequence determined by that body, that a letter of sympathy should be addressed to us with an invitation to visit them; and that from thence it was transmitted to Lincoln the day after, where it was again read and transcribed, and some days afterwards found its way back to Nottingham, and at length came into his possession dirty, worn, and torn as an old newspaper. From his letter on page 64 of the Herald, poor Wallis seems to have been in a perfect quandary at the eccentricity of the path described by this noted epistle. But his troubles were not ended when resting in his hands “all tattered and torn.” A few, perhaps three or four, days after a portion of the letter was published in the August number of the Gospel Banner; so much of it as related to the things we believe and teach. This number was sent to us in London, by which we were introduced for the first time to the knowledge of the existence of such a paper in Britain. Our surprise at seeing a part of our reply to the Barker Gate church letter in print, was as great as Mr. Wallis’ at its meanderings for sixteen days between London and Peck Lane! We could not unriddle the affair, but contented ourselves with waiting until a solution should turn up in the course of events. Every thing seems to have worked together happily for the promotion of our enterprise. Here was a paper that might be useful. We afterwards found that the feeling between the editor of the British Millennial Harbinger and the proprietor of the Gospel Banner, was not harmonious. The letter conceived that Mr. Wallis had done him injustice. We do not pretend to decide between them, but the fact is unquestionable that his unpopular course towards certain of his brethren has originated two papers beside his own, the Bible Advocate and the Gospel Banner. These three papers are more than Campbellism can sustain in Britain. The influence of the Advocate is nothing, if indeed it yet lives, or rather lingers out its existence. Mr. Wallis’ B. M. Harbinger hardly pays its way; we rather think that extraordinary contributions are made for its support. Be this as it may, its fortunes will not improve. Its traditions are effete, and its pages without life. The Gospel Banner is now a proscribed paper—interdicted by Messrs. Campbell and Wallis. It has done good service, however, for the truth in Britain as a medium of defence against the misrepresentations and untruths published by Mr. Wallis and his American correspondents. It was more than we could have calculated upon that a paper was awaiting us in England ready to aid us in neutralising the slanders, and in defeating the machinations and machiavellianism of the enemies of the kingdom of God, although its editor and proprietor might be said to have scarcely any item of belief in common with us. Yet so it was, and thanks to God for the providence.
Before we received Mr. Wallis’ of July 26, 1848, we were in possession of the letter of sympathy referred to in his. As this has not hitherto appeared in print we shall publish it in this place for the reader’s information—it reads as follows:
New Basford, Near Nottingham, July 17th, 1848.
“Dear Brother Thomas:
Although to us personally a stranger, yet we address you as a brother in the Lord, to congratulate you upon your safe arrival in this country, to express to you the interest we take in the object of your mission, and our wish for your success in the cause of truth.”
“We have observed with feelings of regret and dissatisfaction a notice put forth upon the cover of the British Millennial Harbinger for July; the object of which seems to be to throw discredit upon your mission to this country, and thus to impede the benevolent object you have in view. We think it our duty to address you to express our sympathy towards you on this trying occasion, and to assure you that the sentiments expressed in that most unchristian-like document by no means represent the feelings and wishes of the great body of believers here.”
“We say unchristian-like, because the very reasons assigned for the refusal to receive you into the fellowship are founded upon an anti-christian principle. The great founder of Christianity taught us to “resist not evil.” We have in this notice an accusation made against the brethren in America, ‘that none of the brethren emigrating to America are received into the fellowship of the churches there without a well-attested recommendation,’ and in the spirit of retaliation, the question is asked ‘Ought not the same principle to be adopted in reference to all parties coming from America to this country’?”
“We ask not whether the charge made against the brethren in America is founded upon facts or not; we assume that it is as stated, and find even in that case that the principle adopted is not a Christian one, but utterly at variance with the precept taught by the Lord, ‘Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you’.”
“J. Wallis states further that the ‘Second Advent brethren, or those who believe in the personal, literal, visible reign of Christ for 1,000 years in this world, are anticipating a high treat on the occasion’ of’ your visit. This is true, and he might have added with equal truth, that a great body of the ‘New Testament disciples’ anticipated this treat also. Now in order that we and they may not be disappointed, we have unanimously agreed to offer you the use of our Hall of worship at any time you may make it convenient to visit Nottingham. We have accommodation for 300 to 400; and we might, if it were deemed necessary, perhaps be able to obtain the use of some larger place. Our chapel is situated at New Radford, about ten minutes’ walk from the centre of the town of Nottingham. Our society is not composed of the rich and influential—according to the world’s estimation—but we are united, and waiting the speedy fulfilment of the promises made to the fathers, and rejoice in the hope of Israel. There is an earnest desire on the part of the brethren to see and hear one who holds the like views and entertains the same hope as themselves; and although it may not be in their power to extend to you that accommodation they could wish, yet they are ready and willing to receive you as a brother—to give you encouragement and God speed in your labour of love, and to contribute in temporalities in so far as the Lord may enable them.”
“That the Lord may direct your course and uphold and strengthen you in the cause of truth, is our earnest prayer. Believe me, dear brother, yours in the blessed hope, on behalf of the Advent brethren, —
D. Widdowson, Secretary.
P. S. —Our society numbers about 100 members; the oversight of which is entrusted to seven Deacons, three of whom are Elders; or rather four Deacons and three Elders. The ordinances we observe are Baptism by immersion, and the Breaking of Bread every first day of the week. Our Hope is in the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; to be fulfilled in and by means of the Resurrection from the dead, at the appearance of Jesus Christ in glory and power; that the risen and changed Saints will reign with him upon the regenerated earth 1000 years; and that at the end of that period the wicked dead will arise to judgment, and be utterly destroyed, —which is the Second Death.”
* * *
Thus from an unexpected and unknown source a door of utterance was opened to us in “the Jerusalem of this Reformation” in Britain, even in Nottingham, where it was “deemed inexpedient and improper” by the Simon Pures of that town for us to receive an invitation to visit. The invitation, however, came, and we accepted it, promising to deliver our first discourse at the Second Advent meeting house on Lord’s Day morning, July 30, 1848. On the 26th instant we received a letter with a note enclosed informing us of the arrangements made for our accommodation. The note was penned to be dispatched alone; but an afterthought delayed it, and it was enclosed in the letter written the day after. The note will show how our introduction to Nottingham opened the way for us to Derby, Lincoln, Birmingham, and Plymouth, which we afterwards visited at different times. The letter corroborates our account of things already before the reader. We shall therefore give them both in the order of their dates.
“New Basford, near Nottingham, July 24th, 1848.
“Dear Brother, —I have received your kind letter announcing your intention to be here on the 29th, which was received with joy by the church yesterday.”
“I now hasten to inform you of the arrangements which have been made thus far.”
“We have, in the first place, arranged that you should take up your abode at my house during your stay here: it is a short distance from the town, but it may not be the less agreeable on that account.”
“It was announced yesterday that you would preach at the chapel in Denman Street, New Radford, on Sunday, 30th instant, morning and evening. Further arrangements for the ensuing week will be made this evening. We have communicated with the brethren at Derby, Lincoln, and Birmingham, stating that you are intending to pay us a visit. If you have a desire to go to the places, openings may be made for you; also Plymouth; but this must be decided according to your own arrangement when here.”
“Have the kindness to write in the course of this week, stating at what hour on Saturday you will arrive at Nottingham Station, and I, or some of the brethren will meet you at the train. That you may know us, one of us will hold in his hand one of your papers on the Sisterhood of Nations. If perchance we miss you, please enquire for brother Grimshaw, superintendent of the Goods Department at the station, Nottingham: his house is near the station.”
“Some of the brethren are desirous to obtain the copies of the article you enclosed to me. Have the goodness to enclose three or four in your next letter. Should there be any other communication of importance, I will write to you again.
Yours faithfully, D. Widdowson.”
“New Basford, Near Nottingham, July 25th, 1848.
“Dear Brother, —After writing the note enclosed herewith, I thought the delay of a post would not in that case be of much importance, and delayed sending until after the evening meeting, as there might probably be somewhat more to communicate.”
“One of our brethren had made application for the use of the Chapel in Barker Gate during the week-day evenings, being more commodious than our own. Mr. Jas. Wallis attended last night to state that it could not be granted, consequently thus far, the arrangements for your speaking remain as stated in my note of yesterday. Mr. Wallis also informed us that a letter which had been written by you to the church in Barker Gate had not been received by them until yesterday; that numerous letters had been received by him from other churches, in various parts of the country, requesting to know what steps the society in Barker Gate intended to take in reference to you; that answers had been returned, stating ‘that no answer had been received by them to the communication made to you; that seeing that the matter stood in so awkward a position, Mr. Wallis requested us to explain to you, when you came here, how the circumstances happened.’ I do so now (briefly) in order that you may have a correct understanding of what has occurred.”
“It appears that the answer you returned to the church in Barker Gate was enclosed with a pamphlet to one of their deacons (Mr. Marriott), he (as I suppose) thinking that each of his brethren had received one likewise, held it as a communication to himself personally, and used it accordingly. It was handed by him to one of our brethren for perusal, and also to others, and was also sent to Lincoln (the church in Barker Gate being all this time unconscious that any letter had been sent by you to them).”
“Thus the matter stands. I have stated it briefly, and, as I believe, strictly correct.”
“The Millennial Harbinger is on the eve of publication, and in it are some articles (as I understand Mr. Wallis) in reference to your visit to this country, and your communication with him (Mr. W.,) or the society with which he stands connected. Perhaps without the aid of the information I have now given you, what may be published in the Harbinger might not be properly understood. Waiting your arrival here, I remain, yours faithfully,
David Widdowson.”
* * *
Thus, though the adversary was deeply plotting, and compassing all means to exclude us, and to prevent the people from enjoying the privilege of hearing the things pertaining to the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, his policy was confounded, and his knavish tricks frustrated in a most remarkable manner. The door was opened, and no man was able afterwards to shut it. We entered through the door, and none were able to cast us out. Difficulties vanished on every side. Satan, indeed, got into a rage every now and then; but he was beaten and driven back with shame and mortification. But of these defeats we shall speak more at large hereafter.
Shortly after our arrival in London we called upon Mr. John Black, whose place of business is in Hatton Garden, and delivered to him a letter of introduction from one in America regarded by him as an orthodox and esteemed brother in the faith. Our interview was an agreeable one, and as our sister, who accompanied us, was previously acquainted with Mr. B., it was less formal than it might otherwise have been. Our new friend is “elder,” or “pastor,” of a church, meeting at Elstree street, Camden Town, one of the suburbs of London; and therefore dignified with the title of “the London church.” The meeting house is small, and the church smaller; and as intelligent as could be expected under the teaching they approve. Messrs. Black and King regard themselves as the chiefs of the society, the latter being their “evangelist.” From what we learned elsewhere, Mr. David King had formerly been a sort of Methodist exhorter. He came to perceive that baptism was for remission of sins, and that the Holy Spirit operated only through the word. As this conviction strengthened, Methodism fell to the zero of his understanding; and the result was that he was baptised for the remission of sins, though perfectly infidel of the gospel of the kingdom of God, as he confesses in these words, “we receive not what you call the Hope,” that is, the Hope of Israel, which Paul styles “the mystery of the gospel,” and “the mystery of Christ,” for which he was an ambassador in bonds. —Acts 28: 20; Ephesians 6: 19-20; Colossians 4: 3. He is therefore not saved from his sins through the belief of the hope in the name of Jesus, but in some other way best known to himself. This gentleman, whose mental calibre is of small diameter, is remarkably high on the top of his head. His “self-esteem” is large, and being unbalanced by ample, well-stored, and disciplined intellectual and perceptive faculties, it is his misfortune to estimate his own importance at a rate which his contemporaries do not equally appreciate. It has been the misfortune of “this reformation” to be victimised by sectarian talkers, whom nobody ever heard of until they obtained undeserved prominence as preachers of reform. Mr. King is of this class. He has assurance, and ability to occupy time with talk; but as to enlightening the public in the gospel he is as incapable as an infant of days. We express our opinion of this person after this manner as the result of observation, testimony, and experience subsequently acquired. We met him at Glasgow in October, where, as the delegate from the London church, he figured against us in the Campbellite Convention. Colleagued with our enemies, he professed to be neutral; and hypocritically exhorted us to love and to good works, while he was practising the very reverse and intriguing against us. On that occasion we told him to go and convert his friends, and we should then be prepared to listen patiently to his exhortations concerning the spirit he alleged we were animated by. There are people in the world so overweeningly conceited of their own cunning, that they think none can plumb their depth, and that they will pass for what they pretend to be. Of this amiable coterie is the gentleman before us; but his outer is too much the facsimile of his inner man to hide the truth. We saw into him and through him, and were consequently preserved from victimisation by his intrigues.
We do not remember if Mr. Black invited us to speak at his place. A few days after, however, we received a note from Mr. King, dated July 6, 1848, requesting us to meet him at Mr. Black’s the next day at half-past three; and stating that “in the event of our not being able to do so, he would thank us to send him a line appointing time and place as they deemed some conversation requisite before next First Day.” We accordingly went at the time appointed, and had an interview with Messrs. Black and King, and a third person whose name we forget. The object they had in view in inviting us to this conference, as stated by Mr. King in a letter to the Gospel Banner, was to enquire “whether we, when in the States, refused to fellowship those christians who had not been baptised while possessing those opinions which we held.” He meant by this to inquire whether we refused to fellowship those professors called Campbellites, who when they were immersed were ignorant or faithless of the Hope of Israel or kingdom of God as expounded by us. To this inquiry we answered, that we did not refuse; which is well known by every one to be the fact. We do not feel that we are called upon to do more than testify to and for the truth. We have not been appointed a judge in these matters by God or men; therefore whatever we may think of the christianity of persons called Reformers and Baptists, we feel at liberty only to show them the position they occupy in relation to the truth, and neither to refuse nor admit them into the fellowship of God. This is beyond our jurisdiction. We believe that God has admitted us into this fellowship through faith in the gospel of the kingdom in the name of Jesus. Having obeyed this gospel by immersion into the name of the Holy One, and continuing to walk in the truth, we have “fellowship with the Father and his son Jesus Christ,” and the apostles of the Lord. —1 John 1: 3, 6-7. If others do this, then “we have fellowship one with another,” not else. We do not regard the breaking of bread at the same table as a test of fellowship, but the “walking in the light as God is in the light.” We leave others, such as Messrs. Campbell, Wallis, and King, to cast men out of fellowship; for our own part we pass not sentence, whatever we may think the party may deserve, “until the Lord come.” We show what the truth is, where it condemns and justifies, and leave the application to particular cases to the individuals themselves. We are not lords over men’s consciences; when these become sufficiently enlightened they will not rest until they do the truth, and then all will work well. That we do not “refuse” those who are immersed on Campbellite and Baptist principles, is manifest from the fact that the churches we visit are principally composed of such. We desire to enlighten and save them, not to anathematise and proscribe them, while at the same time we testify that no immersion is worth a stiver which is not predicated on faith in the things of the kingdom and the name of Jesus.
Our examination at Mr. Black’s was continued by our being asked, if we had ever been excommunicated? We replied that we had not; but that it was not for the want of a will to do so on the part of Mr. Campbell and his friends; but because they could not devise the means. Here we were informed that Messrs. Campbell and Wallis were no law to the London church. From this we perceived there was a weak place in the fraternal bond. We found that there was a coolness between Messrs. Black and King towards Mr. Wallis. The merits of the case we are not prepared to state. Whatever they were, the “Bible Advocate,” edited by D. King, came into existence to break up Wallis’ monopoly of the profits accruing from the advocacy of Primitive Christianity in Britain. Their opinion of Mr. Wallis did not improve from his visit to London in company with Mr. Campbell. He acted the keeper and middle-man too much between Mr. C. and them. This was good policy, however, on the part of Mr. Wallis. Knowing the heart-burnings existing between himself and the Londoners, he took good care not to leave Mr. C. too much alone with them, lest they should open his eyes to Mr. Wallis’ maladministration of the ecclesiastical affairs of his sect in Britain. Mr. Campbell was thought to be too much under Mr. Wallis’ influence; and more interested in London sight-seeing, than in the spiritualities of Ellstree street. These things became a grievance and cause of alienation. The sore place was still unhealed at the time of our interview; so that they felt very independent of Messrs. Campbell and Wallis under its irritation; and professed to think none the worse of us because of their disposition to excommunicate us if they could. Mr. King says, “we never should have thought of rejecting Dr. Thomas but for the remarks on the cover of the Harbinger,” alluding to the notice published in our last number. They were not disposed to fall in with Mr. Wallis’ dictation; and although he had caused his church to refuse to receive us, Mr. King testifies, that he and his church “could find no ground for rejecting us,” especially as we had “brought with us letters of recommendation from brethren known to them.” Here then the London church, and the Nottingham church, were at issue respecting us. Had harmony prevailed between the leaders of the two bodies, it is probable we should have been rejected by both; but the contrary obtaining, the result was as we have stated.
The end of the conference was that we were “invited” to assemble with them, and to speak on certain Lord’s Day evenings. We accepted the invitation, and though distant three miles, we met with their church two mornings and evenings, making our travel twelve miles each day. The house was full in the evenings, and the audiences very attentive. Mr. King speaking of these occasions says, Dr. T. has spoken twice, and to say the least, is well worth hearing.”—(See letter from D. King to the Banner, in Herald IV, No. 2., p. 42.) The impression seems to have endured beyond the occasions themselves; for Mr. Black wrote to us in August saying, “very many are loudly exclaiming, ‘when will bro. Thomas be at Ellstree street?’ They want to hear more from you, and the inquiries go far beyond the brotherhood. I am therefore requested to write, and obtain the earliest information I can. If we had a much larger place, no doubt it will be filled easily.” This state of things was contrary to our expectation; for not being invited to speak again after the second time, we concluded our teaching had given offence to some of the rulers. But it appears not, at least to Mr. Black; who adds, “I was much disappointed you were not at our assembly on Lord’s Day week; if you had I should openly have invited you for the evening, &c.”—(Herald, Vol. IV., No. 3, p. 56.)
This was quite an auspicious beginning to our acquaintance with Messrs. Black and King’s church in London. Other influences, however, began to operate, which changed the current of their souls. To account for the remarkable fact, that although our two discourses gave such satisfaction to the Ellstree Brotherhood, and to the “very many” not of their fraternity, we were not only never invited more, but positively repudiated on the plea that we constructively non-fellowshipped them. To solve this enigma, the reader must remember that there were three printing presses to be supported by the reformers in Britain for the republication of Mr. Campbell’s speculations there. We say three presses by synecdoche; by which we mean, that Messrs. Black and King had a press, and a paper called the Bible Advocate; Mr. James Wallis has a paper styled British Millennial Harbinger, but no press of his own; and Mr. Hudston has a press, and a paper named the Gospel Banner. The Advocate, the Harbinger, and the Banner, were all publishing Campbellism when we arrived in England; but with no very heavenly disposition among the proprietors. We say not who was to blame; but simply state the fact, that their love did not abound towards each other in knowledge and all intelligence. The Advocate and Banner, mutual rivals, were both offended at the Harbinger; and the Harbinger at least equally so with them. There was no battle among the books; the readers saw no show of fight in their pages; they were co-operators, but “brethren” afar off. The Advocate indeed wished to coalesce with the Banner, which might have lifted Mr. King into a more conspicuous chair; but the Banner was too sagacious to become the tool of Mr. K’s ambitions.
(Continued in our next.)
* * *
From the London Sunday Times.
DECLINE AND FALL OF THE PAPACY.
It may be gathered from the study of history that states and institutions often appear to be recovering new strength at the very moment they are about to be extinguished for ever. They send forth a glare, like an expiring lamp, which startles and deceives the eye, till the blackness of darkness succeeds, leaving no room for scepticism. In this way the papacy appears at this moment to be throwing forth its dying light, bewildering the weak, inspiring the strong with contempt, but, at the same time, displaying numerous phenomena calculated to perplex even the most clear-sighted. While in the last agonies in Italy, the land of its birth, it appears to be spreading and acquiring power in several regions north of the Alps, as an ancient tree, sometimes, in spring, exhibits a profusion of green foliage at the extremity of its branches, while the trunk is falling rapidly a prey to incurable rottenness. How these things are brought about it is difficult to explain, though it be perfectly intelligible that familiarity with the workings of Romanism, and a long experience of its evils, may have inspired the inhabitants of the sub-Alpine peninsula with the desire to adopt a new creed, while those who once accepted the teaching of the Reformation are in many cases panting to escape from the light which has shone around them during three hundred years, and take refuge once more in congenial darkness.
Englishmen, writing from Italy, are often misled by prejudices and traditions. Most of our countrymen, through some extraordinary influence unintelligible to me, uphold the established order of things in the Peninsula, even to the very papacy. They look on it as a temporal power, organised for temporal purposes, and are easily betrayed into violent hostility when called upon to explain their views respecting the political significance of the late movements. With them a republic is necessarily a revolutionary government, and though we ourselves owe whatever liberty we possess to a revolution, they seem to regard with extreme jealousy the efforts of all other nations at emancipating themselves by the same means. However, when religion comes to be the question under consideration, they will sometimes consent to lay aside their prejudices and common-places, and to admit that the regeneration of Italy can never be accomplished through any other agency than that of a Protestant republic.
While Rome was in the enjoyment of its freedom, the Diodati bible was printed and circulated in great numbers. The people acquired and studied it, and discovered in every page fresh lessons of democracy. In many cases they heard for the first time of the equality of mankind, of the christian doctrine of universal brotherhood, and aspired to that perfect freedom which is based on the recognition of these doctrines.
It was a dread of the importance of this fact that led the Pope to accept the aid of foreign bayonets, because he well knew that a few years of republican government would have entirely removed the ground from under the feet of the papacy, and left it totally disconnected with the popular belief and sympathies. It was hoped that in Italy as well as in Austria, the sword would be able to extirpate all obnoxious opinions. But both at Vienna, at Rome, and throughout all Italy, a movement has been begun which can never more be arrested till it shall have levelled all the dens of superstition, introducing truth into the church of St. Peter, illuminating the dark places of the Vatican, and infusing into the whole atmosphere of Italy a renovating spirit.
Symptoms extremely significant have recently appeared in Tuscany, where, in consequence of the freedom allowed by the revolutionary government, Protestantism sprang up with miraculous rapidity, and found converts, not only in the capital—where a congregation of about three hundred exists—but likewise in all the provincial cities where the errors of the papacy are earnestly abjured, and belief in Christianity founded extensively on the scriptures. For a diffusion of the knowledge of these circumstances, Europe is indebted to the Swiss Protestant Church established at Florence. It long existed in complete obscurity, its ministers preaching habitually in French, though for the accommodation of the inhabitants of the Grisons, the service was performed once a month in German and Italian. To the teaching of this little obscure church the Florentines came first by twos and threes, but as a knowledge of the light spread the visitors multiplied, first into scores, and then into hundreds, until at length the government became alarmed. Recourse was then had to persecution, and in the course of last month numbers were seized and dragged before the police courts, confessedly in contravention of the existing law, but in conformity with some law which, they say, is to be hereafter enacted. But, as among our puritanical forefathers, the adoption of the truths of Christianity makes men bold, and accordingly, the Italian converts, setting their government at defiance, resolved to prosecute the studies on which they had entered, and adhere resolutely to their new faith.
Here are facts on which Cardinal Wiseman and the proselyte makers of this country ought seriously to reflect. While they are making converts by degrees among us, Protestantism, is making converts by thousands in Italy, where, in the course of a few years, the principles of the Reformation will overpass every barrier and spread from sea to sea—
“Nor Alp, nor Appenine, can keep them out,
Nor fortified redoubt.”
It is, probably, a conviction of this truth that makes Pio Nono sigh for the seclusion of a monastery, where he may soothe his bigoted conscience by practising those fantastical rites and ceremonies most agreeable to a weak, fluctuating, and pusillanimous mind. Among his vicars apostolical, bishops, and archbishops in the north, ambition in most places supplies the place of piety; believing probably in no creed of any kind, they assumed the exterior semblance of belief for the purpose of obtaining an empire over the feeble-minded, among whom we must reckon these wretched clergymen who, having once been Protestants, could mechanically shut their eyes, reject the truth, adopt error in its stead, and apostasies from that religion whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light, to that foul Golgotha where an infallible old pedant sits dreamingly among the decaying relics of deceased bigotry and idolatry.
In saying this I am by no means endeavouring to reconcile you with the audacious aggressions of the Pope, or with that party still more odious and obnoxious, who, entrenched in the very citadel of Protestantism, are basely seeking to betray it into the hands of Rome. The Puseyites are only so many traitors in the camp; those among them who have more honesty than the rest have lifted the mask and gone over to the Vatican, but a majority, more acute and politic, are labouring to reconcile the temporalities of Protestantism with the doctrines of Rome. To them fasting in a hair-cloth shirt has no attractions; they prefer a lazy luxurious life, led at the expense of silly congregations, who, in return for being indulged in spiritual drunkenness readily contribute the good things of mammon to these who administer to their intoxication.
When Lord John Russell wrote his letter to the Bishop of Durham he seems to have contemplated sweeping Puseyism clear out of the church. He has since apparently discovered reasons for changing his mind, since they who are the accepted interpreters of his views no longer expect from him so energetic and thorough a reformation. But of this it is yet too early to judge. Lord John Russell may do his duty honestly, though it would be far more consistent with the spirit of Whiggery to deal in large promises and small performances. But at all events the aggression of the Pope must be met, and in their usually unsatisfactory manner, ministers have already promised so much to the country.
But, as has often been said, there is no legislating for religion, though you may settle by act of parliament the visible emoluments of priests and the organization of ecclesiastical establishments. Over opinions you can exercise openly no effectual control, though, as has been proved in Italy and Spain, you may prevent the spread of truth, and impart something like a perpetuity to error by surrounding your church with a circumvallation of pains and penalties, and making it exile or martyrdom to depart ever so short a distance from its pale. If men will quit the truth to go back to the worship of error, you will find it impossible to deter them by the faggot or the stake. There is no absurdity for which men will not hazard their lives.
“Some have worshipped rats, and some
For that church suffered martyrdom.”
And the worship of a rat is as respectable as the worship of a saint, especially if the saint has been canonised for wearing a hair-cloth shirt, and feeding on vermin and raw vegetables.
Wherever Romanism has felt it safe to apply all its machinery to the process of proselyte making, it has had recourse to the most absurd and monstrous means of conversion. It is related of the Russian government that when desirous of compelling certain Mahommedan tribes to submit to the rite of baptism, it surrounded them with an overwhelming military force, and left them no choice but to be cut off, or retreat across a river. Their choice may be easily foreseen; and while they were in the water a Russian priest read the service of baptism and pronounced them all to be good Christians. Cardinal Wiseman would willingly do the same if he could—duck us in the Thames, and call us Papists. I will vent5ure to predict, however, that Romanism is destined to acquire no further political development in this country. A few men of morbid imaginations—a few women of excitable temperament, who easily substitute passion for devotion—a few poor children, ignorant and helpless—may go over to the Romish persuasion, but the mass of the people are too well educated to be caught in the trap of the Jesuits. They know that political servitude must always accompany spiritual servitude, and that poverty, insignificance, and social degradation would be the inevitable consequence of taking the Pope, like the Old Man of the Sea, upon their shoulders. Cardinal Wiseman, a person of vulgar ambition, but great shrewdness, now perceives distinctly that he has overshot his mark, and, accordingly, shrinks from entering our law-courts to try the legality of the course he recommends to Pio Nono, whom he has contributed to bewilder and degrade in the sight of Christendom.
I return to the main point, and reiterate my affirmation that the Papacy is in its last agonies. Its spiritual dominion is at an end, as it could not fail to be when the support of the temporal power was removed. For spiritual dominion means priestcraft, and priests will not care to be crafty unless there is a great deal to be got by it for them and their friends. Now, Popery all over Europe has long been growing less and less lucrative. No doubt a few men like Cardinal Wiseman draw large prizes; but the majority of Popish priests have to struggle with something like apostolical poverty, with nothing like the spirit of apostles to sustain them. I speak, of course, of comparative poverty, because a priest even in Ireland invariably contrives to live much better than the class from which he is raised or lowered to the level of the ecclesiastical body. But they no longer enjoy the voluptuous ease, riches, and power as of old. Their pride, pomp, and ambition have been reduced to small dimensions, and every day that passes over our heads will behold the whole system dwindling still more and more. All real Protestants would rather accept the Koran for their guide than the degrading traditions of the Romish church for a Mohammedan is at least a worshipper of God, whereas the servile disciple of Romanism crawls at the feet of the most contemptible personages, living or dead.
Accordingly, as knowledge spreads, it is fair to infer that the dominions of the Vatican will be circumscribed, for whatever education gains is lost to Rome. A correct mental discipline, and a belief in the legends and traditions of a superstitious church, are things by their nature incompatible. No fear, therefore, of popery ever gaining the ascendant; but this conviction should not be suffered to relax our endeavours to punish the insolence of the Pope and of those bloated and servile instruments he has long employed to diffuse superstition among us. We should all unite heartily in accelerating the descent of the old idolatry over the inclined plain which is conducting it to its proper place. A Papist is an individual of the past, the remnant of a species professedly extinct, save in those isolated specimens which have been left to excite our wonder and astonishment at the depth of degradation to which humanity can be made to descend.
GREVILLE BROOKE.
* * *
WEEKLY COMMUNION.
“Almost all churches in the whole world do celebrate the sacred mysteries of the Sabbath Day, at the end of every week; yet the people of Alexandria and Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this.”—Socrates Scholasticus, Lib. v. c.22.
“It is certain, that not only almost all, but that all churches celebrated the Eucharist on the Sunday. It had been well if christians had never declined the practice.”—Sam. Hardy, Rector of Little Blakenham, Suffolk, 1770.
* * *
The Honorable Bapt. Noel’s definition of a Church: “The Church comprises all those who have credibly professed their faith in the gospel; and every assemblage of such persons, whether small or great, rich or poor, is, in a scriptural sense, a church.”
* * *
HERALD
OF THE
KINGDOM AND AGE TO COME.
RICHMOND, VA., APRIL, 1851.
THE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS.
The reader’s attention is particularly invited to the interpretation of the remarkable prophecy of the “Unclean Spirits like Frogs.” The interpretation is entirely original; and, as the writer believes, the only true and correct one extant. If any one can show a better, and one more in harmony with what has been, is, and will be transpiring from Feb. 24, 1848, to the breaking out of that terrible war which is near at hand, why then let him do it. None will be more thankful than we for the unsophisticated and genuine construction of the text. But until such an interpretation shall appear, or we gain more light from the progress of events than we possess at present, we shall regard it as unique, and beyond dispute.
A millennium, or period of national blessedness of a thousand years, is expected by nearly all classes of society. But the kind of millennium, and the agency by which it is to be introduced, are matters of disputation. Some regard it as a “spiritual millennium,” that is, a state of church-prosperity unequalled before; when the Jews shall be converted, genuine christianity be diffused through all the nations, and Christ reign by his invisible influence in a glorious manner. This invisible influence is styled his “spiritual presence,” or literally, his personal absence! Others regard the millennium as a state of things to succeed the conflagration of the present earth, in which the Saints only will inhabit the earth made new from the debris of the old planet, and reigning with Christ over the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, &c., which is the original and proper dominion of man, as appears from Genesis 1: 28. This they call “Paradise Restored.” The scriptures, however, reveal a very different millennium from either of these. They set forth a period of one thousand years in which “all people, nations, and languages” shall constitute one dominion or empire; that this empire shall be appended to a kingdom, then existing in the land of Israel; that the subjects of this kingdom will be the Twelve Tribes of natural Israel; its throne, that of David restored; its king, Jesus “the King of the Jews;” and its peers, or nobility and administrators of its affairs, those Jews and Gentiles who shall have attained to immortality “by faith,” and “through the faith”—Romans 3: 30, that is, by belief of the gospel of the kingdom before Christ came; and by belief of the same gospel and recognition of Jesus as the Christ. These saints of the patriarchal and Mosaic economies, and of the post-pentecostial times, having risen from among the dead, or been changed, will “possess the kingdom and empire, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven.”—Daniel 7: 18, 27. Hence society in the Age to Come will be mixed. It will not be wholly mortal as now, nor wholly immortal as after the millennium; but a Theocracy on the earth in which the subjects of the kingdom and empire will be mortal, and their rulers living and incorruptible, “equal to the angels.”—Luke 20: 36. During this time the Lord’s nation will be the first-born of this nation-family; so that “the nation and kingdom that will not serve Israel shall perish.”—Isaiah 60: 12; 65: 18. Jerusalem will then be a rejoicing, and her people a joy; and Jehovah will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame. —Zephaniah 3: 19. They will be greatly blessed in their own country, then converted into the Paradise of God; and all other nations having prudence enough to submit to the sovereignty of Israel’s king, will rejoice with the Twelve Tribes—Deuteronomy 32: 43; Romans 15: 9-12—in the rest and enjoyments of those peaceful years.
Such is the thousand years, or Kingdom and Age to Come, the gospel proclaims, and which we advocate as the subject-matter of the faith which God counts to men for righteousness in the name of Jesus as its priest and king. Few, we admit, believe in such a millennium as this. That, however, is one scriptural evidence of its truth; for an almost entire faithlessness in the gospel of the kingdom is a recorded sign of the closing up of the time of the Gentiles and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Numbers are no mark of truth. We think nothing of numerical force; one testimony of a prophet outweighs a host, though marshalled by all the divines and philosophers of the age.
These gentlemen have sadly erred respecting the agency by which the millennium is to be introduced—as egregiously as they have in regard to the nature of the millennium itself. They suppose it will come on by degrees, and be fully established when the world is seven thousand years old. This coming on, they imagine, will be the result of clerical preaching, of the operation of benevolent institutions for the illumination of the people, the circulation of the Bible, and so-forth! But we need hardly say to those who take heed to the sure word of prophecy, that all this is mere twaddle, and utterly at variance with the Law and the Testimony. The agency is of a very opposite character to this. As a whole, it is revolutionary, diplomatic, military, naval, and lastly, supernatural. This agency, which is premillennial, is necessary to effect a political clearance, so as to make room for “the Mountain” which is to “fill the whole earth.” There is no resting place for “the Stone” even, to say nothing of the Mountain, so long as the land of Israel is in the possession of the Gentiles; and though the Stone-kingdom occupied the land, it could not become “a great mountain,” it would still be restricted to the Land promised to Christ and Abraham, so long as the existing thrones, and dominions, principalities and powers, continue to rule over the people, languages, and nations of other countries. Hence, the Horn-kingdoms of the west must be humbled; the Austro-papal empire must be destroyed; and the Dragon-dominion of the combined east and west broken to pieces on the mountains of Israel; after which Assyria, Persia, Greece, and the iron-kingdoms of the west, must be subdued, and made subservient to the law of Him who wastes and overcomes them.
But before Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, and Greece—seven of the Horn-kingdoms having in them the strength of the iron—can lose their independence and become vassal-kingdoms to the Dragon; —the flames of war must be kindled in all those countries. It is the mission of the “Unclean Spirits like Frogs” to accomplish this. They have been at this work since February, 1848. They are at it now, and will not cease their wonder-working influence until they have embroiled “the kings of the earth, and the whole habitable.” The governments may try to keep the peace, but they will not be able. When the war begins it will wax hot and terrible; and will not end till Magogue and Gomer and his bands become subject to the “Prince of Ros, Mosc, and Tobl;” that is, until Germany and the ten kingdoms of the west acknowledge the sovereignty of the Autocrat of All the Russias. The war will then take its direction eastward. The embattled hosts of the Russo-Assyrian king of the north will overspread the land of Israel as a cloud. Then will Britain and the Autocrat contend for the dominion of the east. Thus will the ambition of the latter, and the preservation of India to Britain, bring “all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;” and thus assembled, the Lord appears and overthrows them with a terrible defeat. But more of this anon.
* * *
THE EDITOR AT THE CAPITOL.
It was thought desirable by some friends in this city that the attention of the members of the Legislature of Virginia should be called to the subject of the Kingdom of God, which is destined shortly to supersede this Confederation of Republics as well as the thrones, principalities, dominions, and powers of the Old World. The opportunity was thought to be particularly favourable, as the Convention was in session as well as the General Assembly. For our own part we were not sanguine of doing any thing with either body. What prospect is there of planting the truth in the hearts of men whose minds are pre-occupied with the vanity and follies of life, with the wretched politics of rival factions, and with the ambition of pleasing their constituents in hope of a re-election! And such constituents! Hundreds, perhaps thousands of whom, may be bought up with a few cents worth to each of the commonest eau de vie. Men who can condescend to solicit the votes and to sit as the representatives of such, could have but little taste for the politics of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and the General Assembly of the First-Borns. The Legislature of Virginia might be an exception to legislative bodies in general; but our apprehensions were that they might be no exception to the general rule. We were therefore not inclined to bestir ourselves in the matter. Time was when councils, governors, and kings were deeply interested in the things pertaining to the kingdom; but a spurious christianity has divested them of their intelligibility and importance, has divorced them from their connection with mundane affairs, and exiled them to the Milky Way; so that the same classes in modern times have ceased to concern themselves upon the subject. Perhaps this is as God would have it. He has warned them in the beginning. He sent the apostles to notify his purpose, and to inform them that their governments were but temporary expedients which he permitted to exist under certain regulations and control until the time should come to abolish them, and to establish his own dominion in their place. They have forgotten the information vouchsafed, and have settled it in their own foolishness that what is will always be, and that they have nothing else to do but to divide the spoil of the world’s industry among themselves. So they wrap it up. They promise the nations liberty, happiness, and peace, if they will only mind their work, and submit to them. They never dream that they are but mere accidents in human affairs—mere provisional governments until terrestrial things shall be established on a divine and permanent basis. They are absorbed in Constitution-making, legislation, law-administration, and the gratification of their lusts. God is not in any of their thoughts, nor are his purposes before their minds. They are like the bees industriously engaged in making honey, not all suspecting that when their work is finished they will be smoked out, and their hives and treasure become the spoil of better, honester, more noble, and righteous people than themselves. The time is hard upon them when the reality will be manifested, and their terror will become extreme. We have little hope of influencing politicians by reason and testimony in relation to divine affairs. Their minds are so sensualised by their trade that they have no relish for heavenly things. Yet after all politicians are the very men that ought to interest themselves in the things of the kingdom of God; for it is an element which, when introduced into the world, will derange all their speculations. It will destroy the “balance of power,” and turn the scale against them. Ought they not to prepare themselves to meet this peril, to prepare some offset for the emergency? But what can they do? It is too high, their legislation cannot reach it! The kingdom will come; and they cannot prevent it; yes, and when it comes, “it will break in pieces and consume” all antagonist dominions, and convert all these republics into kingdoms for the Saints.
Perhaps the discussion of these things in the political arena of the Capitol might arrest the attention of some of the more soberminded of the legislature. It was thought it would, and that we had better consent to make application for the use of the Hall of Delegates for a course of lectures on such subjects as could not fail to interest the intellectual, and under covert of which the gospel of the kingdom might be insinuated into their understandings. We waived therefore our disinclination to concern ourselves with politicians and their assemblies, and consented to make application in the usual form, having but little expectation that our request would be complied with. Two of our friends arranged the matter, and the result became public in the Whig of March 20, through the following announcement:
COMMUNICATION FROM JOHN THOMAS.
The following unique and characteristic communication was presented by Mr. August from Dr. John Thomas.
—“To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Delegates of Virginia, —Your petitioner, John Thomas, M.D., of this city, lately returned from a tour in Europe, respectfully solicits the use of the hall of the House of Delegates, at the hour of 7.30P.M., in which he purposes to deliver three Lectures (free) upon the following subjects:
First Lecture.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, or the Empire now ruling in the Old World, and the Destiny of the Kingdoms of Europe.
Second Lecture.
Gog and Magog, or the Image Empire proved to be the Russian, whose Autocrat will be the Emperor of Germany.
Third Lecture.
The Unclean Spirits like Frogs, or Austria, the Pope, and the French powers in relation to the present and the future.”
Mr. August moved that the use of the Hall be granted to him for the purpose specified. It was opposed by Messrs. Crutchfield and Patrick, but the motion was agreed to.
In the same journal the editor very courteously invited the attention of his readers to the proposed lectures in the following paragraph:
“Dr. John Thomas. —By reference to the Legislative proceedings of yesterday, it will be seen that the use of the Hall was granted to this gentleman to deliver a series of lectures upon a variety of interesting subjects, such as Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, Gog and Magog, the Frogs, &c. As the Lectures are free to the public, we anticipate a full attendance. A satisfactory elucidation of these mysterious and perplexing questions must afford very general pleasure. The first lecture takes place tonight.”
The first lecture was respectably attended both in number and persons, and from the interest that seemed to exist, we augured a considerable increase on the succeeding nights. But circumstances seemed likely to prove untoward. For one night there was a general invitation to the members of both Houses to attend a party at the Governor’s, on another, the rain prevented our meeting at all; and upon all the nights the Convention met at the same hour to make speeches about the proposed Constitution for the State, for their constituents to read at home. Added to all this, there was some Signora, or Madami gella, to tune her chordae vocales at the theatre for the entertainment of the lovers of song. Now Honorable Members, whether grave Senators or worthy Delegates, are little proof against such temptations as these. What chance of their regard had Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, Gog and Magog, the Unclean Spirits, and the signs of the times, in competition with the “honor” of being at the Governor’s, the hearing of political declaimers, or the warblings of “a divine songstress” from Italy! The listening to the words of Jehovah by the prophets of Israel is nothing to such delights, such intellectualities, as these! Instead, therefore, of having a crowd of lawgivers to give ear to the politics of a higher law than their’s, we had to speak to a minority of the class, and to be comforted with the fact, that the Legislature of Virginia contains some members who feel more interest in the prophets than in the amusements of the world.
When we arrived at the Capitol on the second night, we found the Hall crowded to excess by Delegates, who were in full debate on some party resolutions concerning South Carolina. This seemed fatal to our lecture altogether. Many who came to hear retired under the impression that the debate would be prolonged too far for us to speak at all. They rose, however, a little after eight, leaving us in doubt whether we should proceed or defer our meeting for another night. Some wished us to go on with the subject proposed; but others wished it adjourned as some of the members wished to hear it, but could not on that occasion as they were going to the party at the Governor’s. We were desirous of accommodating all parties especially members, as they had been liberal enough to grant us their Hall. We therefore concluded to speak upon something else for the time being, and to defer the interpretation of “Gog and Magog” till the morrow-night. We spoke on the Book of Daniel in general, and showed how all his prophecies concerning the gentile dominions terminated in the setting up the kingdom of God, and the empire of his Son. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s Image is demolished by the Stone-power which subdues the nations and becomes universal, or a great mountain filling the whole earth. The Fourth, or Greco Roman, Beast, with its Little Horn of the west, is destroyed, and the Son of Man and the Saints become the rulers of all nations. So also the Little Horn of the Macedonian or Grecian Goat, the Greco Roman power of the east, combats with Michael, the prince of princes, and comes to his end with no power to help him; and Israel, the political subjects, or children of the kingdom, are delivered, and the righteous dead are raised to rule them and the conquered nations of the earth. We showed that this kingdom and things relating to it were the subject-matter of the gospel, hence the phrase “the Gospel of the Kingdom.” Whether what we exhibited found its way into the hearts of our hearers, we know not. They heard our words, but whether they will do them, remains to be seen. Several Israelites were there, and were gratified, we are told, with the discourse, excepting that, however, that held forth Jesus of Nazareth as the personage who is to wield the power of the Stone in the destruction of the Image.
Saturday being very rainy, we concluded it would be best to postpone the two remaining lectures till Tuesday and Wednesday following. We had obtained the Capitol for three specific discourses, of which only one had been delivered although we spoke twice. The Delegates having interrupted our course, we concluded to take four evenings instead of three as a matter of fairness and necessity. The postponement was accordingly advertised, and by the delay more time afforded to make the meetings known. The weather proved propitious, and the Jews responded in good numbers to our invitation for them to attend. We understand there were about thirty of them, male and female, present on the last night. Two rabbis were introduced to us, and desired to cultivate our acquaintance; one of them especially, who spoke to us on a second occasion, and hoped we would not forget him. A third Jew, a student of the University of Vienna, resident in this country about a year and a half, hoped he might be permitted to call and see us; as he would like to talk with us on things in general and particular. We invited him to come whenever it suited him, and as soon as he pleased.
Our lectures at the Capitol, which upon the whole were well attended, have somewhat stirred up the Jews in this city. Rabbi Solomon Jacobs, recently from Kingston, Jamaica, one of the rabbis we were introduced to, delivered a discourse at the Synagogue on the Law, endeavouring to show, in opposition to some ideas we had suggested, that no New Constitution or Covenant for Israel was necessary; and today (Saturday, April 5th,) he has invited all denominations to come to the Synagogue and hear him discourse on the Hope and Destiny of Israel. We are glad to see this. We should delight to see the Jews filled with zeal on one side or the other. We shall go and hear him; and perhaps report what we hear on the subject at a future time.
* * *
Interview With An Israelite.
Our friend the Austrian Jew called to see us the day before yesterday. We had a very interesting conversation for about two hours. Having been in Germany, we commenced by calling his attention to the fatherland in connection with the revolutions of 1848; for we were aware that he assisted at the Austrian revolution in Vienna, on March 15, of that year. His account of it proved to us that revolutions are human accidents, but divine appointments. As Daniel truly says, “it is God that changes the times and the seasons,” in other words, it is God makes revolutions. The students of the University, who were the chief actors, had no intention to revolt, and did not know ten minutes before that there would be a revolution. They had drawn up a petition to the legislature and had a meeting for a general signing among themselves, when one of their number suggested that they should carry the petition and present it in a body instead. This was agreed to, and they set out. In their way their numbers became a crowd though without tumult. The fears of the authorities brought out the soldiers who were ordered to fire on the people. Some twenty fell. This only exasperated without dispersing the increasing multitude, who rushed upon the military and wrested their weapons from their grasp. The soldiers were overpowered, and the revolution was formed to the surprise of all.
From the gentile dominions we soon transferred the conversation to the things concerning Jesus. We remarked, that we could easily understand why the forty-second generation in which he appeared should have been so hostile to Jesus. The leaders of the people perceived that if he substantiated his claims to the throne and gained the ascendancy, that they would lose all power, and standing in society and the government, seeing that he intended to promote to honor those only whose characters should be approved by him for integrity, righteousness, and truth; and they were, as he told them, the very reverse. But, we could not exactly perceive why candid Jews of our time should speak of him with bitterness and indignity. He had done no evil to them; and viewing him simply as a man, he was the finest character that ever lived, Moses not excepted. He replied, that they did not feel bitter against him. He was a good man and a great reformer. He had made a great revolution in the world; but his religion was opposed to the great principle of the Law, which was dear to Israel, and identified with them as the witnesses for its truth, namely, Shemang Yisrael yeyah Elohainu yeyah echahd, Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Israel believed in one God, not in three Gods as taught by christians. We replied he was mistaken in supposing that Jesus or the New Testament inculcated any such thing. We admitted that the Gentiles taught three Gods in one, and one in three, the same in substance, duration, equality, and power; multitudes of them also worshipped angels, the ghosts of dead men, and the virgin Mary as queen of heaven. But this was all Gentilism, and not christianity, and ought not to be confounded with it. The Jews made a great mistake in judging of the character, claims, and doctrine of Jesus from the caricatures of them in the Gentile theologies and pulpit declamations. Jesus was to be tried by the Jews as Moses was by intelligent Gentiles—by testimony and reason, and not by common report and prejudice. The candid and intelligent of Israel admitted that Jesus once lived, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote what may be fairly regarded as his history or biography. In fact there is no room to doubt in this matter; for Jesus left his mark so indelibly upon his generation that to question the apostolic account of him would be to manifest symptoms of incipient insanity. Now justice and impartiality require that Jesus should be considered according to the testimony of his personal acquaintances and biographers in relation to what he said and what he did; and not according to the interpretations of men living hundreds of years remote. He did not teach that he was the Father, nor that he was the Holy Spirit. He expressly declares that no man had seen the Father—John 6: 46, though a multitude had seen him. It is true indeed, that he says, in another place,
“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also.”
But then he explains in what sense the Father was seen; in seeing him the Father was reflected from him to the beholder as the image of man is reflected from a mirror. Jesus was “the image of the invisible God;” for he was “in the Father,” living, moving, and existing in him; and the Father was in him, dwelling in him by his spirit, suggesting the words of his discourses, and doing the miracles he performed. —John 14: 8. The doctrine of the apostles harmonises with this, for John says, “No man hath seen God at any time”—John 1: 18; 1 John 4: 12—He is not visible, but is declared to all his creatures, angels as well as men. Again Paul says,
“God only hath deathlessness, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.”—1 Timothy 6: 16.
It is true that Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” in the sense of claiming to be his Son; but he never set himself forth as the deathless self-existent First Cause of all things, but his obedient Son and servant to do his will, and to establish it, and to cause it to be respected in all the earth as it is in heaven. Thus we see the doctrine of the New Testament harmonises with the principle of Israel’s faith that “the Lord is one.”
The next point on which we conversed was the paternity of Jesus. We undertook to show him from the prophets that be he whom he might, the Messiah promised to Israel must be both Son of David and Son of God; and that consequently the same circumstances of birth would attach to him as are testified of Jesus. In the everlasting covenant made with David concerning his family being the royal family or house of God’s kingdom of Israel, he promised him he should have a son, the throne of whose kingdom he would establish for ever. Now of this son he said, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son;” so that this son of David was to be both son of David and son of God. He was to be son in a sense in which no other descendant of David could be said to be son of God; and this Son, when he sits upon David’s throne, is to maintain peace as long as the Moon endureth; consequently he must be immortal. And that he was intended to be David’s superior, although David’s son, is proved by David’s calling him his Lord; saying,
“Jehovah said unto my Lord (Adonai,) Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.”
Now David did not style Solomon his Lord, nor would he have called any of the kings descended from him his Lord if he had been contemporary with them; but now was a son promised whom he recognised as his Lord as well as Jehovah, which could only be on the principle of his being Jehovah’s son as well as his own descendant, and therefore entitled to pre-eminence over himself in his, David’s kingdom and throne.
Now granting that the Messiah promised to Israel was to be son of David and son of God, it is evident that his generation must be divided between flesh and spirit; in other words, his mother must be a descendant of David, and his father, or begetter, the spirit or power of God. After a similar type, Luke styles Adam, Son of God. Adam’s mother was the ground out of which he was taken; but his Father was the Lord God. The primary difference between Adam and Jesus in formation was their maternity, not in their paternity—Jesus was born of flesh, Adam of the ground; but both of God. Hence they are styled the first and second Adams, and Sons of God.
God therefore having to produce a son from a daughter of Abraham and David which should be his, must have selected a virgin or a married woman. Now in the fitness of things viewed in relation to God, which was the most appropriate? Unquestionably the former. If a married woman had been chosen there might have been ground for suspecting that the child was her husband’s and not the Son of God; but by selecting a virtuous maiden suspicion was precluded. Now the alternative here supposed was the one predetermined by God in the sign given to the House of David. Hah-almah the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Before any dispute arose between Jews and Gentiles about the meaning of almah, the Seventy, upwards of 200 years before Jesus, rendered it into Greek by hee parthenos, one who is chaste, pure, and uncontaminated. She is styled in the psalms Jehovah’s handmaid; and her son, “ the son of his handmaid.”—Psalm 86: 16; 116: 16. Whenever, therefore, Israel’s Messiah shall appear the same adjuncts must attach to his generation as are affirmed of Jesus.
Now, as to Jesus, one of three things must have attached to him—either he was the son of Joseph, “as was supposed,” or he was a son of accident, or the Son of God. Joseph denied that he was his son, for when he found Mary enceinte he was minded to put her away, regarding her situation at first as the result of vice. He had such proof, however, submitted to him that he was convinced that it was not as he supposed, and by cordially retaining her subjected himself to what would otherwise have been a personal indignity, and insult to his own honor. Now Joseph is a better witness in Mary’s case than the enemies of her son in after ages. If he were not impartial, his partiality did not lean to Mary. She was in a situation that could not be gainsayed; it was not by him; therefore, leaving God out of the question, she must have been playing the harlot, which was sufficient to make him discard her, for he was a just man. But notwithstanding this prima facie evidence of guilt, he acquitted her as innocent, and acquiesced in the solution given, that “that which was begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
Joseph’s conduct, then, proved two things; first, that the child was not his; and secondly, that Mary was virtuous, and consequently that it was no other man’s. God had acknowledged to Joseph that the child was his; others might, however, dispute Joseph’s testimony, and attribute his assent to delusion. The public must therefore be convinced of the divine sonship of Jesus by God himself. The Messiah was to be Son of God, as the prophets affirm, and if Jesus was that Son, God must declare it.
Now the Israelites had no controversy with John the Baptist, whom they regarded as “a burning and a shining light,” and one in whose light they were willing to rejoice for a season. Their rulers sent priests and Levites to him to enquire if he were the Messiah, but he confessed that he was not; but that he came baptising in water that in the course of his ministration the Messiah might appear among those he should immerse. Now this accepted and impartial witness gave evidence, that when he baptised Jesus in the Jordan the Spirit of God assumed the form of a dove and descending from above alighted on Jesus and abode upon him. In this way he was singled out from the surrounding multitude. This was the sign given to John by which he might know the Messiah when he should appear. For although Jesus was his cousin, yet he did not know that he was the Messiah; although doubtless he was familiar with all the information current in his father’s family concerning his birth. For he says,
“I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptise in water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he that baptiseth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bear testimony that this (Jesus) is the Son of God.”
But in addition to this God acknowledged him as his Son with an audible voice, saying,
“Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”
Now this sign and declaration were not given before a few select friends. They were manifested in the presence of a promiscuous multitude of Jews, priests and Levites, Pharisees and Sadducees, publicans and other sinners of various classes, forming a crowd which John addressed as a generation of vipers. —Luke 3: 7. The sign and declaration were notorious. Hence in an argument with those who sought to kill him he inquired of them,
“Have ye never heard his voice, nor seen his form? And have ye not his declaration remaining in you; that whom he (the Father) hath sent forth on this man you believe not?”
This was God’s avowal that Jesus was his Son, which even his enemies could not gainsay, for it was too well known by the public generally. Now Israelites also admit that Jesus worked miracles in the name of God; do you think, if he had not been his Son God would have permitted him to work miracles by his power to prove it? The God of Israel is a God of truth, and in him is no darkness at all, and he never would have given his sanction to so gross an imposition on the supposition that Jesus was a blasphemer in saying that he was the Son of God.
Our friend here broke silence, and remarked that some among the Jews supposed that Jesus being a Levi