KINGDOM AND AGE
TO COME.
“And in their days, even of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up A KINGDOM which shall never perish, and A DOMINION that shall not be left to another people. It shall grind to powder and bring to an end all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.”—DANIEL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREACHING TO SPIRITS IN PRISON.
“In which having gone, he preached to the Spirits in prison.” —PETER.
“To this also was the gospel preached to dead ones.”—PETER.
The
editor of the Christian Magazine says that the apostle Peter teaches
that after his decease Christ Jesus ‘preached, having the imprisoned dead as
his congregation.’
Speaking of the dead who ‘never heard of Jesus while in the flesh,’
he says, because he was appointed their judge, ‘therefore they must hear of
him in the Spirit in order to their acquittal or condemnation.’
Again,
‘in the Spirit Jesus preached to the dead.’
Referring
to those that suffer for the truth, even unto death, he says, ‘by death they
cease from sin, and like Christ, may enter upon an extended ministry among the
dead.’
These
notions he considers as sustained by the doctrine of scripture, which teaches
that ‘Christ died to reconcile’ ‘things in heaven’ even ‘the
invisible.’ He refers to Colossians
Speaking of ‘ministering angels,’ whom he styles ‘bright and joyous stars,’ he says, ‘Ranks and hosts of these spread themselves throughout the spiritual world, like beings of different grades in this, and under Christ carry on the scheme of his redemption for the benefit of millions, who either by age, or tyranny, or imbecility, could never hear of him while in the flesh.’ By this agency his theory provides for the salvation of ‘infants, idiots, and pagans.’
He says furthermore, “We never commit the body of a single human being to the grave, for whom it is not a pleasure for us to know that his soul has already entered where the knowledge of Christ may yet be his; and that if at last condemned, it will not be for any thing that was unavoidable in his outward circumstances on earth.” And on the hypothesis of his own salvation, he continues, ‘our happiness, we apprehend, will consist in giving knowledge to all to whose capacity and advancement we may be, there as here, adapted.’
The foregoing novelty is taken from an article on “Spirits in Prison.” In defending it against an attack made upon it by the President of Bethany College, he says, ‘I have uttered an opinion, that men who have not heard the gospel will hear it before they are condemned by it. This is the substance of the whole matter’—and a very gospel-nullifying ‘substance’ truly!
This novelty appears to be based upon a rendering of Peter’s words, which the editor says, was authorised by Mr. Campbell in his controversy with me some years ago; but which the same learned gentleman now finds it convenient to repudiate. The words are, en ho kai tois en phylakee pneumasi poreutheis ekeeruxen, rendered in the ‘New Version’ (Third Edition)—‘by which also he made proclamation to the spirits in prison.’ In this, Mr. Campbell has thrown out the word ‘poreutheis’ as I find the same omission in Jones’ ‘revised and corrected edition’ published in London in 1842. Why have these critics omitted this word? The common English version retains it, and renders the text ‘he went and preached.’ Mr. Jones is dead; but Mr. C. still lives to answer for himself. —The other words of Peter in the premises of the new theory are, eis touto gar kai nekrois enegeenlisthee, rendered by the above critics, ‘For to this end the gospel was preached to the dead;’ in James’, ‘to them that are dead.’ ‘The dead’ is not the literal rendering of the adjective nekrois; it should be ‘to dead’ with ones, or persons, understood. Dead ones are a particular class of the dead in general.
While the editor of the ‘Magazine’ accepts the rendering of the
King’s Version, ‘to them that are dead,’ he adopts the sentence, ‘in
which Spirit, also, he went and preached to the spirits now
in prison,’ as the true representative of the original. This, he
says, clearly to his mind ‘conveys the idea that Christ, by his spiritual
nature, or by the Spirit, did preach to the spirits of the invisible world.’
To this he adds, ‘and if as to include all, the apostle refers to those
who died in disobedience in the days of Noah, which would make his language
equivalent to all the dead.’—These words show that he considers the
phrase ‘the gospel was preached to the dead,’ as importing that
it was preached to all the dead—‘to those now dead, not ‘in the flesh’
(but) now in prison.’
The English of this seems to be, that the editor considers that there is in man an ‘immortal soul’—‘his spiritual nature’—capable of disembodied existence, an existence which begins at the last pulsation of the heart. Next, he believes in ‘a Spirit-World,’ into which ghosts, or separated human spirits, or souls, are received at death. He believes also that there are good and bad human spirits, and some that are neither good nor bad, such as baby-souls. Now, in all this he is approved by all pious Musselmen, all devout Papists, and all sincere pagans, and others. But he does not appear to believe in the ‘Hell,’ which, we hesitate not to say, is falsely ascribed to ‘Jesus Christ and his apostles,’ and is thus indicated in the words of Mr. Campbell; ‘everlasting torment, in utter seclusion from the presence of the Lord, and of everlasting agony, without one ray of hope forever and ever.’ M. H. p. 440. The editor of the ‘Magazine’ is horror-struck, as he may well be, at such a not worthy, I suppose, of being translated destiny in reserve for non-believers of the gospel, which God in his providence had never ceased to be proclaimed to them. —He rejects such a fiendish dogma; and, therefore, instead of dividing his Spirit-World after the Bethanian fashion, he constitutes it more after the model of the present visible ‘evil world,’ save that here is all matter, while there it is all naked spirit. Heaven and hell in the spirit world are very much like heaven and hell here, said to be in our midst every day—a state of mentality be it good or evil. The Spirit-world of evil consciences, is the newly discovered hell, or “prison,” in which are provisionally confined the dead-alive spirits of infants, idiots, and pagans, with all other sincere unfortunates, who are yet uncondemned by the gospel, because they have had no opportunity of hearing it!
The issue between the editor of the Magazine and the editor of the Harbinger seems to be purely hellish; that is, whether all unbelievers, without distinction, shall everlastingly agonise in torment, mental and physical, without one ray of hope; or, some of them, and that a vast majority, be afforded an opportunity of repentance and deliverance? The Harbinger’s prison has no back door; the Magazine’s has, and this seems to be the tweedledum and tweedledee of the matter. They may dispute about the merits of their respective theories for ever, and each denounce the other for heresy till doomsday; but they will neither of them be any nearer the truth than when they began. It lies beyond their grasp, and must ever do so while they despise Moses and the Prophets, and make immortal-soulism the fulcrum upon which their levers rest.
The passage they are disputing about is an interesting one, and difficult of interpretation only to those whose minds are spoiled by ‘philosophy’ and ‘science falsely so called.’ Leaving the editors for the present to play at single stick undisturbed, we will turn from their logomachies to the words of truth and soberness indited by the apostle.
The
‘elect through sanctification of the Spirit’ to whom he wrote, were ‘in
heaviness through manifold temptations,’ or persecutions. The Gentiles
spoke against them falsely as evil doers, and therefore buffeted them. He terms
this ‘suffering in the flesh’ ‘for righteousness sake,’ which was an
evidence that they had ‘ceased from sin,’ not by returning to dust, but
by unwavering obedience to the truth; and intended no longer ‘to live the
rest of time in flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God’ The
living in flesh to the will of God is living to God in spirit; and to be
persecuted for so doing is to be ‘condemned by men’—a condemnation which in
apostolic times often resulted in death. It did so in the case of Christ. He
was put to death in flesh, ‘but made alive by the Spirit.’ Now unto
suffering the elect are called; because ‘it is through much tribulation
they must enter the
To
be ‘called of God unto his kingdom and glory,’ is to be called to suffer
for it; according to the saying, ‘that ye may be counted worthy of the
‘Think it
not strange, beloved, concerning the fiery trial which is to prove you, as
though some strange thing happened to you: but rejoice inasmuch as ye are
partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that when his glory shall be revealed,
ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of
Christ happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth
upon you.’
They were, therefore in the Spirit.
This persecution for the Kingdom’s sake, he styles ‘judgment beginning at the house of God.’ It was judgment inflicted on the elect by ho antidikos diabolos, the legal adversary causing to transgress—the public prosecutor of the day, who sought to devour them judicially. The ordeal to which they were subjected through him was so fiery, that it was too much for the faith of some, and almost overpowering to all.
‘The time is come,’ says the apostle, ‘that judgment must begin at us, what shall the end of them be that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?’
In the Spirit-world to be saved by preaching, if they have not heard the gospel before! But this is manifestly foolish. We will therefore proceed.
The reason, then, why the gospel of the kingdom was preached to Jews and Gentiles was that they might constitute the house of God in this present evil world, and by suffering in flesh for a time prove themselves worthy of the Kingdom. —When Peter wrote his epistles, many of these Christian heroes were mouldering in the dust. They were the nekrois, or dead ones to whom the gospel had been preached, and who in flesh had been ‘condemned by men;’ but all the time of their warfare had ‘lived to God in Spirit;’ for ‘though they walked in flesh, they did not war according to flesh.’ They were a strange spectacle to their former boon companions, who refused to subject themselves to the obedience of faith; spoke evil of them, and maltreated them. But this conduct God will not wink at, as he winked at their evildoings in their ignorance. For the apostle says,
‘They shall
give account to him who is in readiness to judge living and dead ones. For to
this end also was the gospel preached to dead ones, that in flesh indeed they
might be condemned (to suffering) by men, but in
spirit live to God.’
Peter does not mean by this, that the gospel was preached to their ghosts while their bodies were rotting in their graves; but preached to them while working the will of the Gentiles, but since deceased, and dead while he was writing about them. Jesus is in readiness to judge living and dead ones. Not the dead universally; for those to whom the gospel has not been preached the scriptures teach are not to rise—
‘They are dead, they shall not live, they are deceased, they shall not rise; thou hast visited, and destroyed them, and caused all the memory of them to perish’—Isaiah 26: 14.
The living and dead ones to be condemned at their resurrection, are the ‘all’ who have sinned wilfully against the truth; the rest are ‘condemned already,’ to sleep eternal in the dust.
Now to elect living ones before they become dead ones, he says,
‘Holily reverence (hagiasate) the Lord God in your hearts: and be always ready with an answer to every one asking you a reason for the hope that is in you with forbearance and respect; having a good conscience, that whereas they speak evil of you as evildoers they may be put to shame who accuse falsely your good deportment in Christ. For it is better, if God’s purpose require it, to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. Because Christ also suffered once for all on account of sins, a just one in behalf of unjust ones, that he might lead to God, having been put to death indeed in flesh, but made alive by the Spirit: in which also having gone he preached to the Spirits in prison, having formerly refused belief at the time the long-suffering of God waited once for all in the days of Noah, while an ark was being built, in which few, that is, eight souls were preserved in safety through water, an antitype to which baptism also now saves us * * * through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who, having gone (poreutheis) into heaven, is at the right hand of God, angels and dominions and powers being placed at his disposal.’
Such, I believe, is a rendering of Peter’s words that cannot be improved. The exhortation with which they begin is excellent, and worthy of all reception by our contemporaries. I wish the two editors in question would attend to it, and in presenting their answers, ‘speak as the oracles of God;’ and let them remember that, when Peter wrote these words, the only oracles so recognised were the writings of Moses and the Prophets. As they therefore profess to contend for apostolicity of practice, will they be so good, for the sake of truth and the salvation of themselves, and of those who hear them, as to speak according to Moses and the Prophets? If they will only do this, and abandon their vain logomachies, or strifes about words to no profit, they will speak in harmony with the apostles also; for the apostles said ‘none other things than what Moses and the prophets testified,’ save that to some extent as yet, they found a partial accomplishment in Jesus. If they will kindly consent to this course, all ‘profane vain babbling’ about endless agony in torment, preaching to ghosts, sky-kingdom heavens, spirit-world hells with postern gates, immortal souls, and all that sort of foolishness, will fall into desuetude. Let them cease then to ‘despise the word’ as ‘an old Jewish almanac,’ or a system of ‘thundering Jewish phrases.’ The ‘christian scriptures’ are contained in the Book of the Abrahamic Covenant, with the New Testament as a codicil attached for the illustration of the mystery. While they neglect Moses and the Prophets, they are doomed to blindness and the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jesus, the holy and the just one, suffered hyper, not ‘over,’ as the editor of the Magazine renders it after others, but ‘for or in behalf of’ persons, who were in an unjustified state at the time of his sufferings, which were sacrificially consummated in his death and resurrection. It was peri ‘for or on account of,’ their sins that he suffered hyper, in their behalf; that being justified from their past sins ‘through his name,’ they might be, the rest of their time in this evil world, in a state of reconciliation with God. Christ did not suffer in their stead, that is, that they should not suffer, as their being made ‘partakers of his sufferings’ by a ‘fiery trial,’ proves. Had he not died and risen again, they would have perished as the beasts; but by his stripes applied, or inflicted, so to speak, upon the old man of sin within them, by faith in the gospel of the kingdom in his name presented, they are healed in conscience; and will hereafter be healed also of that ‘loathsome disease’ that imprisons them in the dust. ‘For the transgression of my people was he stricken,’ saith the Lord. ‘By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.’ Of this ‘many’ Isaiah was one. Hence he says, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions (or sins;) he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.’ Paul also was one of this ‘many,’ of which all mankind are not—a many which is constituted of persons whose justification proceeds ek pisteoos, out of faith in the kingdom and name, and is consummated in the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience with the blood of Jesus, when faith in his blood is counted to a believer of the gospel of the kingdom for righteousness, in the act of putting on his name in baptism. The apostles were of this ‘many;’ the living ones to whom they wrote were also of the number; as well as those of their company who had been devoured by the executors of Caesar’s will. These ‘dead ones’ of this ‘many’ had been ‘washed, sanctified, and justified by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God;’ and had resisted the enemy ‘steadfast in the faith.’ Bruised in the heel, they lie sleeping in the dust, waiting for the trumpet sound to wake them into life. In behalf of this ‘many,’ Paul says, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died hyper, for us;’ ‘when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son;’ ‘being reconciled, we shall be saved in his life,’ by being planted in the form of his resurrection.
‘That he might purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God, He is the Mediator of the New Will, that being subjected to death for redemption of the transgressions against the First Will, THE CALLED might receive the promise of the age-inheritance.’
No man ever kept the law of Moses but Jesus, and he came under its curse by what was done to him. That law being weak through the flesh could give no one a right to eternal life as a consequence of justification thereto. Devout and undevout Israelites, therefore, were all upon the same footing in relation to it—all of them cursed; as it is written,
“Cursed is
every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law to
do them.’
‘From faith’ in the gospel of the kingdom, the justification of the devout transgressors of the first covenant proceeds; as ‘through the faith,’ beginning in the Christ and ending in Jesus, comes the justification of the Gentile constituent of the ‘many.’
I have made the above remarks for the especial benefit of the editor of the ‘Magazine,’ who, by his handling of the Greek particles, forcibly betrays his want of understanding in ‘the righteousness of God.’ In other words, he does not understand the doctrine of justification; that is, how a man may be accounted righteous before God; nor the purpose for which righteousness is proclaimed. The other editor is not much ahead of him in this particular; or he would not advocate the traditions he does. The common idea of religion haunts their imaginations, and makes them see strange sights ‘beyond the skies,’ and in their spirit-worlds beneath. The popular notion is, that religion is for the keeping of the ‘immortal souls’ of all who get it, out of the bottomless pit of burning brimstone; and for the translating of them to an ethereal heaven beyond the skies. The alternative it offers to the world is get this religion, or be damned to this hell for ever and ever, men, women, and children, infants and sucklings, idiots and pagans. Ferocious minds revel in this alternative, always flattering themselves that they are safe. They call it one of the sanctions of the gospel; and are ready to hang, draw, and quarter with satanic fierceness, the unlucky wight that shall breathe a doubt of the scripturality of their speculation. Calling upon such to do justice, is like seeking mercy at the jaws of a dragon. There is neither justice nor mercy for their opponents in the hearts of men who would attribute to God the decretal of such an alternative. Benevolent and justice-loving minds revolt at it; and hence arise universalism, restorationism, baby-salvationism, salvation without faith in the gospel, and preaching deliverance to the damned. But ‘they err not knowing the scriptures;’ that is, Moses and the Prophets, the only scriptures extant when Jesus uttered the words. There is no such alternative in them. God does not propose to reap where he has not sown; nor to punish them for not working whom he has not hired; nor to reward those to whom he has made no promise. He intends to found a kingdom and empire on earth; and he intends that they shall be governed by men chosen upon certain well-defined principles—that is, by the ‘many.’ He does not invite all mankind, nor every creature of all mankind, to the possession of this kingdom; but ‘every creature’ of the ‘all nations’ of the Roman dominion, contemporary with the apostles; and those of after ages and generations, who can discover the truth by the study of the word—the remnant of the Woman’s Seed. There are, and have been, systems of nations to which he has never spoken. These need no gospel to condemn them because of its rejection. They are ‘condemned already;’ but not to the same condemnation which the gospel threatens. They are condemned to return to the dust, and to abide there for ever; but the gospel condemns its rejectors to a resurrection to punishment in the judgment of the Beast, and the False Prophet. The alternatives of the Bible are:
1. Possession of the kingdom with all its appurtenances, by a resurrection to eternal life; or,
2. Resurrection to punishment, consequent on rejection of the gospel and unworthiness, of the kingdom; or,
3. A return to original dust, and sojourn therein for ever, consequent on necessitated, and therefore unavoidable, ignorance of the whole matter.
With the third
class, or that characterised by the ignorance of necessity, the gospel
has nothing to do; therefore we need not trouble ourselves about them. But with
the first and second it has. They both stand related to it as acceptors or
rejectors, by believing, refusing to believe, or believing and walking unworthy
of it. The gospel can only be accepted or rejected in this present world;
because, when the kingdom, which is the subject of the gospel, is established
in the resurrection-period, ‘the world to come’ will be an existing
fact, and there will be no more good news about inheriting the kingdom,
to preach. The good things that are now promised,
will then have been performed in the bestowal of them upon the saints. The
acceptors and rejectors of the gospel are either living or dead. If they be
living, they are above ground among the living; if dead, they are in the
ground, or ‘spirits in prison,’ ‘sleeping in the dust of the
earth.’
They are well
termed ‘spirits’ as contrasted with organised flesh and blood; for they
are without form, image, likeness, or substance. They have evaporated into divers spirits or gases; and nothing of them remains, but ‘dust
and ashes;’ and their characters written in the book of God’s remembrance.
Like the spectral impression of the coin upon the mirror, though invisible, it
is there, and can be brought out by breathing upon the surface; so the men and
women are, as it were, spectrally in the dust, but knowing nothing, and as
unsubstantial, save their ashes, as nonentity itself, till the afflation of
God’s formative Spirit refashion them; and, as in the case of the few loaves
and fishes which increased in quantity sufficient to feed thousands, from a
little dust give them the bulk and stature of adults with their former identity
restored. They will then be no longer ‘spirits in prison,’ but ‘the
dead cast out of the earth.’
That the ‘prison’ is the tomb, or place where dead bodies are laid, must be apparent to every one. They are fettered there by the necessity that binds them, and they can not come forth. The grave is their prison-house, and they the captives or prisoners of death, which has taken them captive.
‘My flesh shall rest in hope; because thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave (nephesh le-sheol;) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.’
Here ‘flesh,’ ‘soul,’ and ‘Holy One,’ are all regarded by the prophet as confined in the grave (sheol;) the lowest dungeon of which is ‘the pit,’ called also ‘the lowest hell,’ indicative of the state of invisibility as the result of corruption being complete. Hence the Holy One’s resurrection, or release from prison, is again referred to by David in these words,
‘Thou hast
brought up my soul from the grave (min-sheol
nepheshi;) thou
hast kept me alive (preserved me from decomposition) that I should not
go down to the pit.’
And again,
‘Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave (sheol.)’
In another place the Holy One in prophecy supplicates Jehovah in these words,
‘Attend unto
my cry, for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are
stronger than
There needs no more testimony to prove that Christ’s ‘flesh’ was his ‘soul,’ and that when it was dead, and walled up in the sepulchre, it was in prison; and that as ‘in death there is no remembrance of God,’ and ‘in the grave no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom,’ it is clear that Christ neither in body nor soul ‘preached to a congregation of imprisoned dead;’ for while in prison he could say nothing in praise of his Father’s name.
Let
it be remarked, that Peter does not say that Jesus preached to the spirits in
prison, but that Christ did so; that is, that which ‘made Jesus both
Lord and Christ,’ namely, the anointing or Holy Spirit. The apostle
distinctly indicates the time when the Spirit that made Jesus alive preached to
them, to wit, about 2400 years before Jesus was born, that is, in the days of
Noah. And why does the apostle cite the case of Noah at all? Because
as Jesus had predicted it had even come to pass. Peter wrote his epistle
when ‘the end of all things was at hand’—the end of all things
constituted by the Law of Moses: and James, referring to the same crisis, says,
‘the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.’ Now, Jesus on Olivet also
speaking of the fall of
‘Of that day
and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not
until the flood came, and took them all away: so shall also the coming of the
Son of Man be.’
From James’ and Peter’s two epistles it is evident, that the Jews, with a few exceptions only, were as demoralised as the antediluvians. The Spirit had been preaching to them through the apostles of ‘judgment to come’ for nearly forty years; but they heeded his proclamation no more than the antediluvians did when he preached to them through Noah. Christian Jews said, ‘My Lord delayeth his coming,’ and became iniquitous; while others scoffingly inquired, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ But they were willingly ignorant, or unmindful of the events of Noah’s age. They resisted the Spirit in refusing to believe the apostles; therefore the fate of the antediluvians overtook them, and a few of the baptised only escaped, who, like Noah, believed the word.
When
Peter brought up the case of the antediluvians they were as now, ‘spirits in
prison;’ but when the Spirit went and preached to them through Noah, they
were like the contemporaries of the apostles, living men and women at large
upon the earth, enjoying ‘the pleasures of sin for a season.’ ‘The dead
know not any thing;’ what then is the use of preaching to them? They
must be made alive by the Spirit as Jesus was—and then something might be done.
When they come forth they will indeed hear the words of the Lord; but there
will be no mercy in his speech; for he will pronounce them ‘cursed,’
and command them to depart from his presence. There are other prisoners,
however, who will rejoice in the year of liberty and release. They are styled ‘the
Lord’s prisoners,’ in the pit where no water is. Thus, Jehovah
addressing the king who rides the ass into
‘Turn you to
the stronghold (to
Here, then, are two classes of
prisoners—the one class, in the prison-house of the captive dead; and the
other, in the Gentile prison-house of the living captives of
EDITOR.
* * *
Imprint the beauties of the prophets upon your imagination, and their morals upon your heart.
* * *
WHO BAPTISED THE APOSTLES?
In
‘The Christian Age,’ one R. Brown writes to its editor, and asks, in
relation to John 3: 22, ‘whether Jesus baptised the Twelve Disciples, or who
did baptise them?’ Evidently unable to answer the question, the Editor, in what
he calls a ‘reply,’ says, ‘I suppose you mean who baptised the twelve at
But
why not have the candour to confess his ignorance? A man,
though an editor and a satellite, had better do this, than publish such an
egregious blunder as that before us. Does he think that the intelligence
of his readers is so completely prostrated and perverted by Bible, missionary,
college, and publication speculations, that he can safely publish any absurdity
without liability of detection? Men, like himself and brethren, experimented
after this fashion even in the days of the apostles and succeeded; and from the
signs of the times among ‘reformers,’ we discern that the experiment is being
repeated and with like success. We were informed lately by letter from
Washington, D. C., that many of the members of the
Campbellite church there believe the things we advocate, to some extent, but
dare not avow it publicly for fear of Alexander Campbell! Alas! And do such
people call themselves free Americans, to say nothing of their being free-men
because the truth has made them free! Afraid of A. Campbell! O ‘tell it not in
After
telling R. Brown he supposed he meant the Ephesian twelve, when he asked about
Jesus and the twelve, he refers to John 4: 2, as proof that Jesus did not
baptise with his own hands; from which the reader is left to infer that Jesus
neither baptised the twelve at
Who
then baptised the Apostles? The answer to this question is emphatically, John
the baptiser. The apostle Andrew is styled by the apostle John, one of
John’s disciples—John
‘Now when all the people were baptised, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptised, and praying, the heaven opened.’
The other class being composed of the ‘upper ten thousand,’ were ‘respectable’ and few. They were ‘the righteous,’ who, in their own estimation, needed no physician, having no occasion for repentance. As a class, they despised the people as cursed, knowing not the law. They regarded a baptism of repentance for remission of sins as quite unsuited to them; so that ‘they rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of John;’ while the people, on the contrary, who thought more humbly of themselves, ‘justified God, being baptised with his baptism’—Luke 7: 29-30.
The
testimony saith that ‘the publicans,’ or tax-gatherers, were
baptised of John as well as all the people. Now the apostle Matthew was one of
the publicans of
The apostles were all attendants upon John’s preaching. One of them says,
‘That which
was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life * *
that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.’—
1 John 1: 1-3.
John affirms this of himself and the rest of the apostles. Matthew and he have written accounts of some of the things they saw and heard ‘from the beginning’—a beginning indicated by Mark as characterised by the commencement of John’s baptismal proclamation, which he styles ‘the beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ’—Mark 1: 1. All the apostles were ‘witnesses unto Him,’ therefore what John and Matthew and Andrew saw and heard, they were all able to testify to from personal observation. John and Matthew heard John preach, saw him immerse Jesus, saw the Spirit descend upon him, heard the Father’s voice, &c.; and because they saw and heard these things they were able to declare them. Peter also intimates, that he and the ten were well acquainted with the things that pertained to ‘the beginning;’ and declares that it was necessary that the candidates for the twelfth place in the apostleship should be as familiar with them as themselves.
‘Of these men,’ said he, ‘who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness of his resurrection’—Acts 1: 21-22.
He must be able to testify the things concerning Jesus in connexion with John’s baptism as well as with his resurrection. If he were unable to do this, how could he testify that God had anointed him, or made a Christ of him? The conclusion, then, is certain that all the apostles heard John’s proclamation that the King of Israel was about to appear, and that they should prepare to receive him; that he came baptising in water to the end that God might set his seal or mark upon that one of the baptised whom he should choose for king; and that having witnessed the promised sign descending upon Jesus, he testified that Jesus was the Son and Lamb of God, whom he had chosen to take away the sin of the world. The apostles all heard this, and having heard it have declared it unto us.
This being admitted, then, it is equivalent to admitting also that the apostles were baptised of John’s baptism; for the testimony we have already quoted says, ‘all the people that heard justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John.’ The apostles were of the people, not of the ruling class, they heard, and believed what they heard, and were therefore baptised in the hope of the king’s making his appearance soon. Nor were they long held in suspense. When John pointed to Jesus as the king, Andrew and another introduced themselves to him and had the honour of an invitation to spend the day with him at his abode. On leaving, he sought his brother Simon Peter, and told him they had found the Messiah, that is, the Anointed. Peter then went to see him, and having entered his service received a change of name. After this Philip, a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter, was enlisted. Philip then told his friend Nathaniel, ‘we have found him, of whom Moses and the prophets did write;’ and when Nathaniel had conversed with Jesus, he recognised him as Son of God and King of Israel.
But it is further certain that the apostles were all disciples of John, (and they only were his disciples who were baptised of him.) before they were disciples of Jesus, from the consideration evinced in the answer to the following question—From which of the two classes above mentioned is it certain Jesus would select his apostles? Would it be from that class which rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being baptised? From the Pharisees and Lawyers? No; these were they upon whom he pronounced his woes. It follows then that he selected his apostles from those who ‘justified God in being baptised with John’s baptism.’ There is no other conclusion open to us. It is this or none at all.
But one may say, Were the apostles not afterwards rebaptised in the name of Jesus, and if so who immersed them? No, they were clean without it. Their case was peculiar, and cannot occur again. Jesus did not baptise in his own name. Indeed there was no baptising into any name before Pentecost There could be none; for although Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins, his name had not acquired a sin remitting efficacy, because he had then as yet neither died nor risen again. John’s baptism was the immersion of believers into repentance for remission of sins; so was the baptism Jesus preached. The difference existing between them was in that believed by the disciples of John and of Jesus. Both classes believed in the Hope of Israel; John’s, however, expected the coming of Messiah to put the nation in possession of its hope; while the disciples of Jesus believed that he was already come, and that Jesus was he. Many of John’s disciples, it is likely, though expecting the King whom Jehovah had provided, did not receive Jesus as that personage; but to ‘as many as did receive him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.’ Among these were the apostles, and those on Pentecost and afterwards ‘who believe on his name.’ The faith that served for baptism before Pentecost would not suffice on that day. It must expand, for it had to comprise the king’s death for sin and his resurrection for justification unto life, in addition to what was believed before. The baptism of believers into repentance for remission of sins was the nature off the three baptisms administered first by John, then by Jesus, and afterwards by the apostles on Pentecost; while the faith of John’s disciples was positive; that of Christ’s, comparative; and of the apostolic converts, superlative.
The
case of the apostles, we have said, was peculiar. John the Baptist was not
immersed at all; not even by Jesus: but Jesus was immersed by him, how much
more necessary therefore for the apostles. They had all bathed religiously
in
‘Ye are
clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.’
But Judas had heard the same things, been bathed by John, and washed by Jesus, why was he not clean even as the rest? Because, not being a man of honest and good heart, the word sown there could not germinate and grow. What he understood had no genial influence upon him. It found him a thief and left him a thief and a traitor, therefore his bathing and washing proved of no account. But it was not so with the eleven. After their washing Jesus said to them,
‘Ye are now clean through the word which I have spoken to you.’
Their cleansing was complete and permanent by the water through the word.
Thus by reasoning on the testimony we come to the full assurance that the apostles were baptised of John, and cleansed by Jesus with water and the word. He exhorted them to wash one another’s feet, as a memorial, doubtless, of their being shod, and of the humility he exemplified for their imitation. Such a feet-washing was never before or since, nor will ever be again. The lesson inculcated remains in all its force. Jehovah’s future king of the world washing the feet of the thief, who he knew, within two days, would sell him to his enemies that they might put him to death! No meekness and humility ever exceeded this. But here we must pause till a more convenient season.
EDITOR.
* * *
He who makes an idol of his interest, makes a martyr of his integrity.
* * *
OUR VISIT TO
FIRST TOUR
CONCLUDED. —RETURN TO
Having
completed a tour of nearly five months, I again found myself in
The
Peace-Society people seemed to be the only available medium of access to the
public on a large scale. They were trying to convert the world to the ‘peace
and safety’ cry which precedes the sudden destruction from the Lord; and to
bring about a system of arbitration for the settlement of national differences,
faith in which would of necessity prevent faith in Moses and the Prophets, who
preach peace only to the righteous; and to those generations of humanity which
shall be blessed in Abraham and his Seed, when Christ shall have ‘subdued’
them to himself by the energy of God. This Society is treading upon
gospel-ground; and by its emissaries hardening the hearts of the people against
the
On Thursday evening,
Mr. Charles Gilpin,
Sir:
In one of the morning papers I perceive an advertisement of a public meeting at
which you are to take the chair. The object of the meeting is stated to be the
adoption of ‘a petition to Parliament in favour of Mr. Cobden’s motion for
special treaties of arbitration to supersede the cruel and costly war system.’
As one of the public, I write respectfully to inquire, whether the originators
of the meeting advertise the public to convene to discuss the principles of
peace and war as the basis of a petition expressive of the sentiments of the
majority; or, merely to come together to hear speeches in favour of the
foregone conclusions of a party, and to vote its petition as a matter of
course? In either case would it be considered improper to grant me the liberty
of showing cause why such a petition ought not to be adopted? An answer at your
earliest convenience will confer a favour on, Sir, very respectfully yours,
JOHN THOMAS.
In
reply to this, I received the following note, enclosing bills headed ‘Arbitration
instead of War,’ and with the inquiry ‘What does it cost?’
‘Charles
Gilpin begs to refer John Thomas to the Secretaries of the Peace Congress
Committee,
5
Bishopgate Without,
2 Mo.
21st, 1849.’
I
next addressed the Rev. Henry Richard, one of the Secretaries referred to, from
whom I received the communication annexed:
‘Sir: In reply to your question relative to the public
meeting about to be held, I may say that the object certainly is not ‘to
discuss the principles of peace and war,’ but to adopt a petition in favour of
Mr. Cobden’s motion for treaties of arbitration, the very phraseology of the
bill, as it seems to me, very clearly implying, that the parties invited to be
present, are supposed to require no discussion on the evils of war or
the desirableness of peace. At the same time while replying thus to the
question so directly put by you as to the object of the meeting, I do not
presume to say, that you will have no right to move an amendment to the
resolution proposing a petition should you think fit to do so.
I am, sir, yours respectfully,
HENRY RICHARD.
Arrived at the place of meeting, I found an audience
assembled of about two thousand men, principally of the working class. Two
persons from
“When
he had concluded, I rose to speak. On this there was a call for Elihu Burritt.
I remarked that I had the floor with the consent of the chair, and was desirous
of addressing them before Mr. Burritt. He was the great Peace Society apostle,
and consequently, no doubt, a very efficient advocate of its principles. Now, I
intended to controvert those principles, and I wished him to attend to what I
had to say, that when I had done he might point out to them wherein I had
failed in sustaining the anti-peace society principles to be submitted to them
in the amendment I was about to propose. But the clamour was still for ‘Elihu
Burritt’; and as speech was impossible in the midst of so much tumult, I
yielded. Mr. Burritt, however, refused to present himself. He had a cold, or a
headache, or something, and therefore begged to be excused. I was then suffered
to proceed in quietness for a few moments. I invoked their patience while I
made a few remarks introductory to the amendment I held in my hand. The
objection deemed to be the strongest against war by the advocates of peace,
seemed to be its costliness. This was an appeal to the pocket, as though the
public conscience were chiefly, or mainly, accessible through that useful
receptacle alone. The cruelty of war, and its anti-christian character, were
indeed treated of; and appeals were made to the scriptures to prove the abominableness
of its practice; but still the great peace-gun discharged against it, was the
suffering inflicted upon acquisitiveness by the expenditure incurred. War in
itself is an evil; and so is the amputation of a limb. They are cruel
inflictions to those who suffer by them; but often salutary in their results.
Institutions are not to be judged of by their immediate workings, but by the
remoter purposes they are to establish. War, punishments, and surgery, are
three institutions, without which, though evil and painful operations, society
would be greatly damaged. Surgery, which is cruel work, and often practised
with little or no feeling, has saved the life of many a useful member of
society. Men do not petition for its abolition, because it is costly, and cruel
to the patient’s feelings, and no where sanctioned in the Bible. On the
contrary, notwithstanding these things, they regard it as a blessing, because,
though a severe remedy, it saves the lives of men. The punishments of
imprisonment, transportation, and death, are costly to the state, excruciating
to the feelings of their victims, and often ruinous to their families; but are
they not, nevertheless, beneficial to society? Now war is to nations, what
punishment and surgery are to society and the subjects of them—a necessary
evil and ‘blessing in disguise.’—The world could not progress without it.
This day is the anniversary of
But
while war ultimates in civilisation and blessedness to the non-combatants of
our race, it is the fiery indignation and wrath of God upon nations for their
wickedness, and cruelty to his people. Let the nations, if it were possible,
forsake the evil of their doings and turn to him, and there would be no war.
But this they will not voluntarily consent to do, therefore war is necessary
and indispensable. —You profess to be groaning under the cost of former wars.
And why should you not? War has generally been popular with this nation. Your
forefathers endeavoured to rivet a yoke upon the necks of the Trans-Atlantic
colonies which they were unable to bear. This cost you £136,000,000. The French
having taken vengeance upon the Power that reeked with the blood of the Huguenots, drew the sword against the destroyers of civil
and religious liberty in foreign lands. Instead of rejoicing in so righteous a
retribution, in which God was giving them blood to drink, and scorching them
with fire—Revelation 16: 6, 8, for their cruelty to his saints and prophets,
you expended £1,625,000,000 sterling in sustaining the Continental tyrannies against
the Corsican firebrand and Gallic sword of God. And now you cry out about the
cost of war! Those who make war in support of
The
objection to war on the ground of its anti-christian character is fallacious.
—The doctrine concerning the Christ and his mission is Jewish; and is taught in
Moses and the Prophets. The New Testament writers were all Jews; and they
taught no other doctrine than what agrees with the Law and the Testimony. Now
these holy writings show that war is in perfect harmony with Christ’s
mission. —They also teach, however, that during his absence from our
planet his disciples are not to take the sword, nor to avenge themselves.
Christ’s mission extends beyond the past. It belongs especially to the near
approaching future. He is intitled the Prince of Peace—Isaiah 9: 6; and as a
prophet was sent of God to preach peace—Acts
‘Think not,’ says he, ‘that I am come to send peace upon the
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword’—Matthew
Christ has not yet earned his title of Prince of
Peace; for as yet he has given no peace to the world, nor will he give any,
until he has purified it with judgment, and rebuked the strong nations of the
earth—Micah 4: 3. We have been told tonight, that ‘the time has arrived to
establish peace among the nations.’ This is an unscriptural notion. —The Bible
rule is ‘first pure, and then peaceable.’ This is the
divine principle, applicable to the consciences of men, and to peace on earth. ‘There
is no peace for the wicked, saith God;’ they at present possess the
nations, which of right belong to Christ—Psalm 2: 8; Daniel
The
reader is not to suppose that while these ideas were being expressed, the
peace-meeting was in a very peaceable state. Peace was in the petition, but war
in the people’s hearts, and on their lips. —The audience proved to be nothing
more than a mob of anti-tax fanatics. They were prepared to applaud any
absurdity provided that its key-note was anti-taxation and the costliness of
war. The leading sections of the peace-socialists are the ‘financial
reformers,’ and the Quakers. —The former are for cutting down the taxes at all
hazards. The head of this faction in Parliament is Mr. Cobden, the apostle of
Free Trade; and a man who can conceive of no millennium other than unbounded
scope for getting rich by commerce and manufactures. This is the one idea of
Free Trade policy, which is struggling to establish its ascendancy in the
government. With this party, manufactures are the basis of commerce, and must
be fabricated at the least possible expense, that the British manufacturer may
be able to sell as low, or a little lower, than his foreign rivals in the
markets of the world, whose workmen feed on the cheap bread of an unprotected
agriculture. To attain this minimum of fabrication-cost, free traders have
obtained the repeal of provision laws, so that workmen can get as much food as
before for less money, and masters can lower prices for labour to a certain
proportionate degree above actual starvation. Still wages are not considered
low enough. Hence, free traders have got up a scheme of ‘financial reform,’ to
reduce the taxes on tea, coffee, tobacco, &c. But as this cannot be effected without reducing the expenses of the state, they go
in for lopping off all institutions that are not productive, or manufacturing,
as it were. In this work, they come in contact with the fanatical element of
Quakerism. This is a system that combines the worship of Mammon with a species
of Spiritualism, characterised by non- resistance and passive obedience; the
abrogation of Christ’s institutes, baptism and the supper; and the subjection
of the Holy Scriptures to natural reason, which they absurdly style, ‘the light
within!’—This was just the system to sanctify financial reformism in the estimation
of ‘the pious,’ who are opposed to Church and State. Quakerism and Financialism
formed an alliance in the scheme of lowering wages to the minimum of existence
for the enriching of capitalists by encompassing the globe with British
commerce and manufactures. But, as I have said, this scheme cannot be carried
out to the desired extent without materially reducing the expenses of the
State. Financialism, therefore, lends itself to the Quaker cry off the cruelty
and anti-christianity of war, though it cares for neither its cruelty nor
supposed Christlessness; for acquisitiveness being the key-note of
financialism, it has the heart of Mammon, which cares only for getting rich. On
the other hand, Quakerism chimed in against the costliness of war by which it greatly
captivated its ally. Now financial reformers are people of all sects and
parties, political and ecclesiastical, that are the partisans of a
manufacturing and commercial, rather than an agricultural,
It was Mammon shouting and hissing, and yelling through
this unthinking multitude, who made the delivery of my
protest almost an impossibility. When I could get a chance, I told them they
might just as well hear me peaceably, as I intended to maintain my ground, if I
had to stand there till morning. I saw a well-dressed, white-headed man in the
centre, gymnasticising with awful energy. Of course I could hear not a word he
said; but by the shaking of his head, beating the air, and flourishing, now his
cane and then his fist, I interpreted his signs as very ominous to the security
of my cranium, were it within his reach. The tumult was terrible, and I doubt
not instigated by peace-loving enemies to peace, except according to their own
crotchet. I had expected to meet a respectable, religiously-disposed, and
sober-minded audience; but it proved the very reverse. It was a mere mob of
swine, to whom it was not only useless, but dangerous, to cast the pearls of
truth. But I was engaged in the fray, and being single-handed, I had to open
for myself a way out as best I could. Having at length got through my remarks
by snatches, I promised to conclude if they would agree to hear me read my
amendment peaceably. They seemed to assent to this, so I read as follows: -
‘AMENDMENT.’—
‘Resolved, that war being an institution of
Divine appointment for the bruising to death of the Serpent-power, though
disastrous to the subjects of it, has proved of great benefit to the human
race; that civil and religious liberty have been won by the war power in
connection with the advocacy of truth, which it has often protected;
that the rights of God in the earth, the vengeance due to the blood of His
people poured out like water in past ages, the chastisement and overthrow of
civil and spiritual tyrants, the defence of liberty, and the establishment of
peace based upon the ascendancy of right over wrong, of knowledge and faith
over ignorance and superstition, and of a well ordered and enlightened liberty
over despotism—are things of infinitely greater value than gold or human
life; —that those who rule the nations, being men who have been trained in
the school of State superstition, arbitrary power, covetousness, and contempt
of the laws of God, and the rights of humanity, are malprincipled, seared in
conscience, and amenable only to fear; that natural wars to avenge the
injured, and defend liberty, are neither impious nor impolitic; —that while a
Bible Christian must not fight in the absence of the captain of his
salvation, the Scriptures leave the nations to do as they please, holding them,
however, NATIONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the principles and manner in which
they make war; —that the nations of Europe, being Papal, Protestant, Infidel,
and Mahomedan, and NOT CHRISTIAN, the question of international war as
compatible or incompatible with the spirit of Christianity, is extraneous;
—that while taxation to maintain an extravagant and luxurious regal
establishment; to enrich a pampered and vicious aristocracy; official
sinecurists in Church and State; to bribe religious sects with costly endowments;
and to build royal and episcopal palaces in the midst of impoverished and
almost breadless populations, is odious and abominable—taxation to maintain an
efficient military and naval force in the present condition of the world is
wise, prudent, and indispensable; —that an army and navy are as necessary to
the body politic of nations as at present constituted as the right and left
arms to the body natural; —that considering the known traditionary ambitious
designs of the Court of Russia, and the threatening attitude of the Autocrat in
relation to Schleswig-Holstein, Transylvania, Turkey, and Persia, in which
countries its ascendancy would be to bring the Cossacks to the gates of Britain
in Europe and India, a reduction in the army and navy of England is loudly to
be deprecated by all the real friends of liberty and humanity in the TWO
WORLDS: that these things being so, it is the enlightened and sober-minded
conviction of this meeting that whatever may be the merit of Mr. Cobden’s
financial speculations in other respects, ‘special treaties of arbitration
instead of war’ is a visionary, utopian, and impracticable project; and that
his ‘motion’ to that effect ought not to be sustained by petitions in its
favour.
This
amendment having been seconded, it was put from the chair, whether it should
pass as the resolution of that meeting? The show of hands was multitudinous
against it. The reader, doubtless, will be curious to know, how many were in
favour of it? I do not know exactly, but I do not think there were more than
half a dozen. Myself and the seconder, it is probable, would have made eight;
which was a large minority in the two thousand, compared with the Noachic
minority in a world. One of the reporters asked me for a copy of the amendment,
which I gave him, having furnished myself with two. From this, I was encouraged
to hope it would appear in one of the
The
following is the letter which I forwarded to The Advertiser under the
anti-peace caption of
WAR A DIVINE INSTITUTION.
To the Editor of the Morning Advertiser
Sir:
Among the utopian speculations of the day, the introduction of the reign of
peace among the nations, by the Exeter Hall-philanthropy of the ‘Peace
Society,’ is not the least remarkable. The supporters of the scheme are, no
doubt, many of them persons of large ‘benevolence’—high in the medio-superior
frontal region—and of feelings, which find much gratification in the
contemplation of tranquillity and prosperity at any price among men. Their
peculiar organization may be actuated by a pure and disinterested affection for
their fellow-creatures, or it may not; for ‘benevolence’ may be actuated by
‘acquisitiveness,’ ‘love of approbation,’ ‘self-esteem,’ or by the nobler and
more exalted sentiments of ‘veneration’ and ‘conscientiousness.’ Benevolence
actuated by acquisitiveness produces that Commercial Philanthropy which would
effect the abolition of war, because it interferes with the money-making
business; actuated by ‘love of approbation,’ the benevolence of ostentation is
the result; by ‘self-esteem,’ a self-important philanthropy, a self-complacent
and self-glorifying benevolence; and actuated by ‘Veneration’ and
‘Conscientiousness,’ and a concern for human happiness and love of man, may be
the consequence, having their origin in a conscientious regard for the law of
the Almighty controller of human affairs. Now, if all men were of a uniform
cerebral organization, we might say, that Peace Society efforts sprang from a
common ground of action; but as this is not the case, we are justified in
saying, that they result from a combination of various impulses as the basis of
their operations. We cannot therefore censure or commend peace-socialists
individually; but must speak of them in the aggregate as of a Society of the
far-famed utopia.
This
compound benevolence of the society professes to have one common object, namely,
the abolition of war. Its orators appeal to their audiences arithmetically,
commercially, religiously, and lastly and subordinately, to scripture. The
strongest arguments I have heard are addressed to the pocket; as though the
system of the world was constituted only with reference to cash! There has
doubtless been a great deal of ‘filthy lucre’ wasted in war, and most
burdensome debts entailed upon posterity that are certain never to be paid; but
money, though it seeks to be omnipotent, both in secular and religious affairs,
was never designed by him who laid the foundation of the world, to be the gauge
of right and wrong. ‘The love of it is the root of all evil;’ and, I
apprehend, that this idolatry of gold has more to do with peace speculations,
than either love for man as man, or conscientious regard for the word of God.
That
prismatic affair, current in the world called ‘conscience,’ is one of the
greatest eccentricities extant. It is conscientiousness biased by prejudice;
hence the phenomena which define the kind of conscientiousness are as varied as
there are sects and parties in the several grand divisions of the earth. Men
may act conscientiously, and yet be guilty of great impiety and folly. The
Bible recognises but two kinds of conscience, a good and an evil conscience.
Conscientiousness trained in error is evil and its acts cannot manifest that ‘wisdom
which cometh from above, which is first PURE, then peaceable, gentle and
easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without hypocrisy.’
Conscientiousness enlightened by the wisdom and knowledge of God is a good
conscience, which it is easily demonstrable is not the conscience of the Peace
Society. These following points are the virtual consequences of its
proceedings; —
1. While it appeals to the Scripture, it
advocates a doctrine at variance with it;
2. It perverts the Scripture to establish its
speculation;
3. Its success would militate against the
veracity of God, and the best and permanent interests of the human race.
1. War was instituted as a part of the terrene
system by Jehovah himself. Its appointment is thus decreed. Addressing the
serpent he says, ‘I will put enmity between thee and the Woman; and
between thy Seed and her Seed: He shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise
his heel.’ Is not that war when two parties at enmity undertake to bruise
one another? Or is it peace? Here then Jehovah declares there should be war
between the Two Seeds; a war of enmity which he implants between them. In the
first place, this passage is exactly literal, and secondarily, allegorical.
The literal enmity is seen in the desperate hatred of man towards poisonous
serpents; the allegory of this is the uncompromising and deadly enmity of
mankind in their wars for ‘religion’ and liberty. Political and Scriptural
Truth is the ground of enmity between the Serpent party and its opponent. The
opponent party is composed of two classes; the one which ‘contends earnestly
for the faith once delivered to the Saints,’ as commanded of God; and the
other which does the fighting. The contention of the faithful brings down upon
them the enmity, cruelty, and destructiveness of the Serpent Power, which is
often vigorously antagonised by those who fear not to wrestle with it in
desperate and bloody fray. To this providential arrangement, we, in
Does the Peace Society imagine that the
present condition of things is a finality? That the
fairest portion of the earth, the most magnificent countries, and the most
genial climes, are destined to be forever what they now are, the productive
soils of ignorance, superstition, oppression, and cruelty? It vainly imagines
that nations can be persuaded into a millennium of peace and righteousness! A
more unscriptural conceit never entered the heads of the wildest schemers. Even
the Prince of Peace himself, and his Apostles could
not persuade the masses into reason and virtue; and does the Peace Society
imagine it can compass more than they? Nations never have been persuaded, nor
ever will be, voluntarily to submit to ‘the wisdom that is from above which
is first pure and then peaceable.’ Jehovah has a controversy with them for
past offences yet unsettled; and he has placed it on record that ‘they shall
lick the dust like a serpent.’ Can the Irish Priesthood be persuaded to
loose the chains that bind the Celt to the papal car; will persuasion induce
the continental rulers, even if they knew how, to reign in righteousness, to
succour the poor and needy, ‘and him that hath no helper,’ to take care
of the orphan and the widow, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
before God? Will persuasion ‘bruise the Serpent’s Head?’ No; the Serpent
Dominion must be broken up by violence, the old heroes of the faith slain in
ages past in combat with ‘the Beast’ must be avenged, and oppressors
brought to retribution; and this can only be effected by that armed enmity
which Jehovah instituted when he laid the foundation of the world.
2. The Prince of Peace has declared,
‘I am come to send fire upon the earth;
think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace,
but a sword. I am come to set a man at variance against his nearest relative,
so that a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.’—
Here he declares he came to send fire and sword