CURSORY NOTICE OF TWO PUBLICATIONS.
1. THE THEORY OF DIVINE INVERSION
EXAMINED. By Thomas Weatherill, M.D., Liverpool.
Liverpool, 1843.
2.
THE SECOND
ADVENT OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST A PAST EVENT. By
Robert Townley, A.B., late Minister of
St. Matthew s, Liverpool. London, 1845. NOTE D.
Although it cannot be expected that I
should advert to any of the anonymous reviews of my "Divine
Inversion" to which the publication of that work gave birth,
[Such as those in the "Christian Teacher," "Gospel
Magazine," "Tail's Magazine", "American Universalist
Quarterly Review"; &c.] yet the abilities, as well as
position in society, of the two gentlemen who have
accompanied their strictures with their names, seem to
demand on my part some notice of their respective
productions.
To both I beg to observe that I consider
myself honoured by my work having been deemed worthy of
their animadversions ; and to both, especially to Dr.
Weatherill, I beg to tender my most respectful
acknowledgments for the courtesy which I have experienced at
their hands.
Want of leisure compels me, without any
farther preface, to dash at once in medias res ; and
therefore I proceed to the consideration of the two articles
in the order in which they are
set down, which is also the order in which they made their
appearance.
II. TO MR. TOWNLEY.
With my
friend's general notions, except in so far as
they form the grounds of his attack upon
my
"Divine
Inversion," I have nothing to do. And his numerous sneers at
the system of divine truth for which I contend, such for
instance, as that at the bottom of page 151 of his work, I
pass over, with merely an expression of regret that they
should have been penned. A
somewhat profounder acquaintance with divine
truth than my respected antagonist yet
possesses, may shew him that not only were they unmerited,
but that, from the acerbity of feeling which they betray,
they have more the appearance of springing from personal
dislike, and of his having been galled by the system which
they assail, than of having had their origin in deep,
serious, and comprehensive views of the meaning of
Scripture.
Mr. Townley's note has one great advantage:
it numbers his grounds of objection to
my views. I have
therefore only to follow him through these, as they are
successively and very distinctly laid down by him.
He divides what he has to say
into two parts : first, a defence of his friends the
Salemites ; and secondly, a series of direct assaults upon my
doctrines.
I. Defending the views of his friends, he
says,
1. "Throughout the Bible a church implies
service ; and where there is service there must be servants,
officers, priests, and deacons ; and where these are, they
must be of divine appointment." Suppose I grant this as
holding true of every external body spoken of in the
scriptures. Does it thence follow either, 1st. that an
internal church cannot exist? or 2nd, that if such a church
can exist, it must, although itself internal, have an
external service, external office-bearers, &c. ? "A church,"
says my friend, "implies in one word conditionally." Yes ; such a church, or
such churches as Mr. Townley alludes to ; but not that of
which I speak. And when a heavenly and internal church, the
very basis of the existence of which is the fulfilment of
all conditions of salvation by the Son of God, shall be
proved to be necessarily conditional, then, but not till
then, may I be placed at the bar on a charge of
conditionalizing the Word of God. More I might say
respecting the conditionalizing nature and tendencies of
Salemite doctrine ; but I forbear.
2. Surely my
friend must have read carelessly the very
words which he quotes. I, no more than he does, contend for
"a blotting out of the reign of the Messiah."
My words are, "a
blotting out" of his reign "as spiritual Abraham." This
alters the case completely. I acquit Mr. T. of all
intentional misrepresentation. Only, in animadverting on the
language of another, he should pay a little more attention
to what the subject of his animadversions actually says.
Mr. Townley thinks that 1 Cor. xv. 22-28 contradicts
my assertion as to
Jesus appearing first as head of the church, or elected
body, before appearing ultimately as head of all. Persons
may surely think differently as to this matter. The passage
in question appears to me "confirmation" of
my view "strong as holy
writ" can make it. An "order" beginning with one, extending to
some, and ultimately taking in all,
(God only excepted, who
"did put all things under him") is, it
strikes me, fairly considered, inexplicable on any other
interpretation than that which I
have given. However, treve de cela. To "the
law and the testimony", and to the church taught by that law
and that testimony,
I make
my appeal.
Pardon me,
my
friend : the question is not what I may have
thought or said thirteen or seventeen years
ago, when
my views of
divine truth were less enlightened and
scriptural than they are at
present; but what have I said in
my
"Divine Inversion"? the work expressly selected by you for attack.
It strikes me that
my
friend rather shirks -- let me use, because I wish to do so, a milder phrase,
-- avoids meeting
my
position as to Jesus being both spiritual
Abraham and spiritual Adam. -- Will he permit me to ask from him
distinct and categorical answers to the following queries :
-- 1st. Is not our Lord, who in the 1st of Matthew is spoken of
as Abraham's descendant, and as such of the kindred of
the Jews, also in Luke iii., spoken of as
Adam's descendant, and as such of kin to all? 2nd. Is not Jesus, who is set before us as
spiritual Abraham in Acts ii., Romans iv., Ephesians i., 1 Peter
i. 23, &c. &c., also set before us as spiritual Adam, in Romans v. 12-21, 1 Cor. xi. 3, (the head of every man
is
Christ,) 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45, 1 Tim. iv. 10, Heb. ii. 9, &c. &c. ? 3rdly.
Is the representation of Jesus as spiritual Abraham, the same
thing as the representation of him as spiritual Adam ? If you say
so, prove it from scripture. It will not do to say, "spiritual
Adam or Abraham." I believe that God has recorded nothing in
vain. If Abraham the father of the faithful had been a
sufficient type of Christ, why also speak of our Lord as Adam, 1 Cor. xv.
45, or as the antitype of the being who is naturally the father of
us all ? Is not such a representation, could we adopt your
principles, puzzling and perplexing incapable of being satisfactorily
explained? Observe, I know that he who is spiritual Abraham is
also spiritual Adam. It is the same glorious being who is both.
(See my
second Dialogue.) What I beg to call your attention
to is, that Adam was the ancestor, not of a part merely, but
of the whole of the human race naturally; and that to call
Jesus, Adam, is, if the type has any meaning at all, and if we are
not to involve every thing in confusion, to point to him as the
ancestor, not of a part, but of the whole human race
supernaturally. It is upon this principle we explain Christ's character
as spiritual Abraham, or head of the church.
Why
apply a different principle to our Lord when spoken of as spiritual Adam, by
denying him to be head of every man ? 1 Cor. xi. 3. And this, too,
in the teeth of the Holy Ghost's own inspired interpretation, in
Ibid. xv. 22 ?
3. Will
my
friend excuse me if, while I profess
my admiration of his acuteness, I express myself rather
surprised at the summary and somewhat contemptuous way in which he
dismisses
my statement that "they," the Salemites, "do not
seem to apprehend how the resurrection of the body which we
now have may be held, while yet we deny that it is raised a flesh
and blood body ?" This he does by quoting from John iii. 6, and 1 Cor. xv. 50. The force of this quotation, if it have any
force at all in opposition to
my
views, being,
that I maintain the possibility of flesh begetting something else than flesh, and of flesh and
blood inheriting the kingdom of God. Now,
my
dear friend, in what part of
my works can you point to me as maintaining either
the one or the other of these unscriptural notions? Where do I say,
where do I even insinuate, that flesh or fleshly mind can
beget spirit, or that flesh and blood can enter into the heavenly
kingdom ? Is it not the grand object of all that I have written
to shew that flesh can not rise above itself, and that sowing to
the flesh of necessity results, and can only result, in the reaping
of corruption ? True, I maintain that God manifest in flesh,
through obedience to divine law, and through that crowning act of
obedience to it, the sacrifice of himself, hath swallowed up flesh in
spirit in himself ; and by that mighty power whereby he is able to
subdue all things to him self, swallows it up likewise in the case of
others. But I have yet to learn that the superseding of flesh
by spirit on the part of the Creator, which I do contend for, 1 Cor.
xv. 49, Phil. iii. 21, is the same thing as flesh raising itself to
the possession and enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom, and clothing
itself with everlasting existence, positions which, in whatever form
they may be proposed, I loathe, repudiate, and utterly
deny. See 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Rev. xxi. 5. Under these circumstances, why
triumphantly exclaim, as you do, "Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit, and flesh and blood can not inherit
the kingdom of God." (The Italics are your own.) What other
object can this have but to represent me as contradicting the very
truths which I unreservedly and unqualifiedly maintain and
glory in ? -- "But the Bible tells another tale." What ! That flesh only
can produce flesh, and Spirit only can produce spirit, and that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are doctrines
which constitute the very staple of
my
works. They are doctrines for the assertion
of which I have suffered persecution, and been
turned out of an Established Church. You can scarcely help
knowing this. For have you not read the charges of heresy brought
against me in 1825 ? Have you not read several of
my
productions ? To come nearer to the point, have you not read
my
"Divine Inversion," and especially section seventh of that work ? There
the very doctrine of the impossibility of flesh rising to spirit
the doctrine which prejudice is the doctrine of the Bible is
expressly and at some length asserted. And yet, in your anxiety to
screen your friends the Salemites a very amiable and
praiseworthy feeling, I admit you represent me as on this very point
contradicting the scriptures. "The Bible tells another tale"
-- whereas I assert exactly what the Bible does ! My
dear Mr. Townley, is such conduct on your part fair ? As to your denying that
what is now flesh and blood body is new-created in Jesus glorified
as spiritual body, it is enough for me to answer you in the words of
the inspired apostle : This corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality;
1 Cor. xv. 53 ; and if
the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies, by his spirit that dwelleth in you. Rom. viii. 11. These
passages, and others of similar import might be produced
likewise, asserting in the most express terms that what appears
naturally in an inferior form is clothed upon supernaturally with a
superior one that what is mortal in time is immortal in
eternity to contradict such divinely-revealed facts involves you,
my
dear friend, in a dispute not with a paltry worm of the dust like the
writer of this, but with him whose creatures both you and I are.
Having completed his defence of the
Salemites, Mr. Townley then proceeds,
II. To a series of direct assaults upon
doctrines held, or supposed by him to be held by me. His charges against me are,
1.
My holding, according
to him, three advents of Christ. To this I answer distinctly and
straight-forwardly, that, in
my apprehension, the advents of our blessed Lord are
only two in number. First, that which occurred when he became
manifest in flesh ; and, secondly, that which will occur when he
comes to terminate this present world, and introduce his church
into the full enjoyment of the heavenly glory. As, however, the
first coming of Christ threw out its shadows before, or
afforded an earnest of its future occurrence in the natural creation of
Adam, Romans v. 14, and in the ceremonial institutions of the
Jews, Coloss. ii. 16, 17, Heb. ix., so does the second coming of
Christ throw out an earnest of its future occurrence, in that
communication of the principle and first fruits of his ascension
and glorified mind which constitutes in
New
Testament times the portion of all his believing people. Beckoning the two earnests
of the two advents as themselves advents likewise, you are
welcome,
my dear friend, to charge me with holding four advents if
you please. To me, nevertheless, there are but two. In
explanation of what I have said in
my
"Three Questions," first published in 1828,
and afterwards republished in 1835, which is
cast in
my teeth by Mr. Townley, I would just observe, that I
was then led partially into error by confounding the earnest of
Christ's second coming, which began to take effect from the period
of Jerusalem's destruction, with his second coming itself.
2. Excuse me,
my
dear Mr. Townley, if I suggest that your great and acknowledged acuteness has here
betrayed you, unintentionally I am sure, into something like what
is called "catching at a man's words." I have no doubt expressed
myself, in one part of
my
"Divine Inversion," as you represent me to
have done.
A modification of
my language is, I admit, required, in order with perfect accuracy to convey
my
meaning. And yet, after all the reflection which I have been
capable of bestowing upon the subject, I cannot see the
grossness
of the inconsistency into which you seem to think I have fallen.
The Book of Revelation does appear to me to
"consist of
information respecting the then approaching salvation of the
church, and of contrasts between the state of reconciliation and that
of salvation." Through out that wondrous book I find also hints of
still deeper principles, upon which these contrasts rest, and by
which they are to be explained. That is, besides its
relative
disclosures, there are absolute truths propounded in it, as the
basis on which the former rest, and the source whence they flow. The
word "whole" is what I perceive you cavil at.
An
addition to what I have said, of the clause, "accompanied with hints of the
principles of that information and of these contrasts, or of
those profound divine facts of which all phenomena secular and
religious are the results," will complete the idea which was
in my
mind when I wrote the words animadverted on, and which I
have elsewhere more than once expressed. This clause, or
some corresponding one, with a view to meet the objections of
friends so acute, and so anxious for the perfect self-consistency
of my
statements as you are, when I have occasion to speak of the
Book of Revelation again, I must be careful not to omit.
3. I confess myself unable to understand
the point of Mr. Townley's attack under this head. I have
said I do say that "no external or earthly church of
Christ has existed since the days of the apostles and the period of
Jerusalem's subversion." And yet, I not only denied to Mr.
Townley privately, but I now deny publicly in print, "that Christ has come a second time." (Why, dear friend, take notice of a
private conversation, when you have
my
published works denying the same thing to refer to ?) Wherein, however, is
self-contradiction here apparent ? Have the goodness to shew me. "No, he
affirms this," (that is, that Christ hath come the second time.) "He affirms, and yet he denies : it is so, and it is not so." Where
do I affirm that Christ hath come the second time, in
my
"Divine Inversion," the work now under consideration ? I have only
affirmed, as I do affirm, that the members of Christ's internal,
heavenly, and spiritual church, the only church he now has, or can
have, have enjoyed, and do enjoy, in the manifestation of
the truth to their consciences by the Holy Ghost, that which is
to them the earnest of Christ's second coming. 2 Cor. v. 1 5,
Ibid. 17, compared with Rev. xxi. 5.
When
I thus so distinctly deny in private te teste, and in public, that Christ's
second coming hath taken place, and yet affirm the enjoyment by
anticipation of the earnest of that second coming by all the members of
his church while on earth, two different things, you must
admit, is it, dear friend, kind, is it consistent with perfect
candour in you, to represent me as affirming and yet denying
the same thing ? Are you justified in charging me, in reference
to this matter, with "blowing hot and cold in the same breath " ?
4. As to what Mr
Townley says respecting my
having "no ordinance of the Lord's Supper in" my
"chapel," he may find the answer virtually involved in the principles
laid down by me in the last section. To us to whom Christ hath
revealed himself as head of a spiritual church of which we are
members, and to whom he hath thus come in spirit in the earnest
of his second glorious advent, it appears that external ordinances
are, like external churches, by that very fact shewn to be
ended. Those who think otherwise, if taught from above at all, we
bear with, on the principles laid down in Romans, chapter
fourteenth. That is, provided that the ordinances which they continue to
observe have been, at one time, in reality of divine institution ;
such as baptism and the Lord's supper: not otherwise. Instead of
your saying, pardon me, if I remark, somewhat harshly, that our
"theory is far from perfect," supposing us to be wrong, would
not the word "practice," think you, have been the more appropriate
term ?
5. I have yet to learn from the inspired
volume the impossibility of the saints of God now enjoying
the earnest of the spiritual and glorified mind of the Lord
Jesus. My friend Mr. Townley's dictum, that " this also is vanity, a faith
which clashes with the plainest declarations of scripture," is, he
must be aware, no proof whatever on the subject, and cannot be
accepted by me as such ; especially in the teeth of all those
passages of God's word which speak of "the earnest of the Spirit," and
"the witness of the Spirit," and " the sealing of the Spirit," as being privileges of the whole body of believers. As to miracles and
miraculous influences,
my friend is, I
presume, well aware that I understand them to have passed away with the apostolic
age. The earnest of the Spirit, therefore, for which I
contend as the privilege of the church now, is not the miraculous form
of it which existed in the days of the apostles, but that permanent
form of it consisting in the enjoyment of the principles of divine
light and divine love, which is the portion of the saints,
until time shall be no more.
6. Mr. Townley must be aware that I do not
undertake to communicate to others the knowledge of
divine truth. To do so is God's prerogative, not mine.
He
that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matt. xiii. 9. These words are
uttered by him who said, Let there be light
; and as he himself
alone was competent to give effect to his word in this latter case,
so also in the former. As there was light resulted necessarily from
the one command, so the ear to hear results with equal necessity
from the other. I can only state in human language, and pointing
to the scriptures as
my
authority for
what I say, what appears to myself to be divinely true. In so doing I can only reach the
outward ear, and the fleshly understanding. To be heard
internally, or through the medium of the new creation of the
understanding, is the result not of creature effort or creature ability,
but of God himself carrying home his own truth with power to
the heart and conscience. By the way, it is a little too much
for my
friend to assume that this present world shall
continue for ever, and to denounce as an "unscriptural dogma"
my
position that "this visible system of things" shall have an end. Above all, when such passages as 2 Peter iii. 10 12, and
Rev. xxi. 5, Behold, I make all things new, are staring him in
the face and reclaiming against him. Such passages he and his
friends, I am well aware, attempt to explain away. But why not stop
there ? Why, not content with imagining yourself to have shewn that the texts alluded to have been misunderstood when
interpreted with reference to the termination of this present
state of things, venture to assert positively that it shall be
perpetuated for ever ? Suppose I require you to prove
from scripture the
immortality of a system of things which confessedly had a beginning,
and which confessedly has been loaded with sin.
How
would you set about it ? How, with God himself expressly
declaring to his own Son, Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the
earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands ; they shall
perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, all of them shall wax old like a
garment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed,
Psalm cii. 25, 26, would you convict the All-wise of having
committed a mistake with regard to this matter ? "Mr. Thorn,"
you say, "holds the non-immortality of the soul." So I do. But
permit me to say,
my
friend, that
you know, I speak advisedly, that I deny the immortality of the soul or fleshly mind,
just because I affirm the immortality of Spirit or divine mind,
through which soul is new created. 1 Cor. xv. 45-49. You know this, because you
have read, and read with care too, works of mine
in which this doctrine is again and again repeated.
Why
then throw out the insinuation in the form in which it
appears in your Note ? Why merely state that I deny the
soul's immortality and stop there ? I see clearly that it
answers your purpose to do so. And yet I find it difficult
to persuade myself that to expose me to unmerited obloquy
was Mr. Townley's purpose. Again:
sects maintaining the immortality of soul are supposed by Mr. Townley to object, "How does Mr. Thorn make out his
universalism, while holding annihilation and purgatory ? " An objection which Mr. Townley makes his own, by adding, "For I can find no one who can explain this part of his creed to me."
Now, friend Townley, I hold neither "annihilation" nor "purgatory". Can I suppose you, acute as I know you to be, and carefully as
I perceive you to have gone over
my
works, to be ignorant of this ?
Why then express yourself as you have done ? Surely,
my
dear friend, this is anything but to deal fairly with me. So far
from holding annihilation, other parts of the Note under review
shew you to be aware that, whether right or wrong is not now the
question, I hold the doctrine of Christ making all persons
new ; that is, giving to all persons everlasting existence, the
opposite of annihilation, in himself. Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. xv. 22. Have
not you read also
my
brief exposure
of the annihilation theory, in Appendix B
of the "Divine Inversion" ? And so far from holding purgatory, a mere improvement of the old or human
nature in a higher state, other parts of the Note under review
shew you to be aware that I hold the doctrine of the new creation
of human beings in Jesus Christ glorified ; a doctrine which,
as laid down by the Holy Ghost and acquiesced in by me, implies,
not the purifying and thereby the continuation of old things,
but the passing of old things away and the making of all things
new. 2 Cor. v. 17, Rev. xxi. 3 5. You may not understand me :
that I can easily believe. But this at all events you do
understand, that, giving me the benefit of
my
own words, the only way in which you are entitled to judge of
my
sentiments, I hold neither annihilation nor purgatory. The last sentence of the
paragraph commented on is, I do not say exactly profane, but I
wish that for your own sake you had omitted it.
7.
My friend and I are
here decidedly at variance. "I maintain," says Mr. Townley, "that the all in
all state was opened up at the fall of Jerusalem, not, as Mr. Thorn
would say, in the sense of a beginning of something which is
progressive in its manifestations, but in the sense of manifestation
full, complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all progression and
change. I can see nothing but absurdity in the reflection which Mr.
Thom is constrained to offer on such passages as 1 Thess. iv. 13
17." Were I inclined to bandy harsh expressions I might say, and
say with truth, that the absurdity was all on the side of
my
friendly critic. But I forbear. Expressions of an unkind and
disparaging description I wish as much as possible to avoid. They
cannot do good. If,
my
friend, you
mean in what you say, that at the period of the fall of Jerusalem the inspired writings were
complete, you are right. If you mean that to the members of
the church a view of all in all state began to be opened up at
that period, you are right likewise. But going beyond the completeness
of revelation objectively considered, and beyond the opening up
of the completeness of God's purposes to his chosen ones at and
since the period alluded to, you contradict fact, and plunge
yourself, I will not say into absurdity, but into a perfect abyss of
error. As a matter of fact, the scriptures are not opened up
subjectively yet in all their fulness of meaning to God's chosen ones. As
a matter of fact, they are not opened up in their meaning to
the unregenerate world at all. "A
manifestation full, complete, perfect, and
conclusive!" What! The Salemites themselves, by
their own shewing, growing in knowledge !
My
friend Mr. Townley also growing in knowledge ! This, in the sense of a full
subjective manifestation of Jehovah, a manifestation
unsusceptible of increase, having existed for 1800 years, is
a sheer impossibility. And yet, unless this be Mr. Townley's meaning, he admits "progression and change" !
All in all means fulness of manifestation
on the part of God to all. But no such thing now exists.
The assertion of it contradicts fact, and contradicts the
experience even of those who make it.
But I take up Mr. Townley on another ground. "This," says he, "is the all in all state." All in all state
now ? Why, if you are going to push this view out to its
legitimate extent, the proper expression of it is not that it is the all
in all state now, but that there never has been anything else than the
all in all state. (A thing by the way, absolutely speaking, true.
Exodus iii. 14 ; Psalm xc. 2 ; Hebrews xiii. 8 ; James i. 17.) For
the all in all state not only excludes progression and change now, as
the Salemites and Mr. Townley assert, but excludes progression
and change at all periods and under all circumstances. Every
argument therefore which
my friend can adduce
against a state of progression existing now, may with the greatest ease and
pertinency be urged against a state of progression having ever existed
at all.
-- An "all in all state opened up," or "commencing at the fall of Jerusalem!" Why,
my dear Mr. Townley, do
you not see that -- I had almost said absurdity
-- the inconsistency with fact
of such an idea?
An
all in all state, absolutely considered, has
neither beginning nor end. It therefore could not be opened up. It
has ever existed. It must ever exist. And that unchanged and
unchangeable. You allow progression and change before the
fall of Jerusalem. You suppose an all in all state, exclusive
of progression and change, then to have been opened up. That
is, you suppose a state which by its very nature is
exclusive
of change, to have come into existence as
itself a part of an order
of things which implies change !
How
is this possible ? -- Remember that you have
here only one alternative. Either you hold the
all in all state as absolute and irrespective of progression
altogether, in which case you carry it back not to the destruction of
Jerusalem but to the beginning of time, rather into eternity itself;
or admitting progression, notwithstanding the existence absolutely
considered of an all in all state, ever to have existed, you play the
game into
my hands.
What I say, and say without any equivocation
whatever, (pardon me, if I inquire respectfully if the phrase "Mr. T.;s equivocating denial," be quite gentlemanlike and becoming
a Dublin University A.B.?) is, that absolutely considered, there
is and there can be no change in Jehovah himself; and that in
connexion with his un-changeable nature and character there exists
a state of things which, like himself, is unchangeable also.
This is the all in all state. What I say farther, and say without any
equivocation whatever is, that this state of things, in itself
unchangeable, is capable of progressive, and therefore
changing manifestation to the children of men ; or, that the state of things in itself
unchangeable becomes, in its manifestation to changeable beings,
itself changeable, in the sense of its being gradually and
progressively developed. Can I express myself more distinctly ? More
unequivocally ? In three progressive stages do I see this all in all
or unchangeable state, in scripture developed. In Paradise, with
relation to Adam; in Palestine, with relation to the Jews ; and
throughout the world. with relation to mankind in general.
My
friend admits progression in the manifestation of the divine
character up to the fall of Jerusalem, or in the two former stages.
There, all at once, he takes a bound or start. Instead of seeing
that the all in all state was then opened up merely in the highest
sense in which it was capable of being so to creatures in flesh,
he understands then a fulness of manifestation which is exclusive
of the possibility of all additions whatever. "A
manifestation full, complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all progression and
change." The progression, the possibility of any increase of
knowledge, according to him, at the fall of Jerusalem ended.
Man
I beg his pardon, the church I beg his pardon again, certain human beings
then came to see and enjoy God as all in all. Suppose I admit
such a manifestation to certain human beings. What then !
Has progression in reality ended ? Did all who were to see him
as all in all, then do so ? Certainly not. For in succeeding ages
men have been seeing him to be so. Here then, Mr. Townley being
judge, is progression. Again : do all who see him to be all
in all make that discovery at once ? Certainly not. There was a
time when the Salemites, and when
my
friend Mr. Townley, did not see him in his all in all character. (Supposing them,
by the way, to do so, which I confess I much doubt.) Well then,
here also is progression. -- Still farther : do all now see him to be
what he is ? Certainly not.
Why then, this being
the case, there is at least a possibility of farther progression in regard to
them. And what I state as possibility is actually to be realised as
fact, God himself declaring so. God willeth that all men be
saved, (literally,) and come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Tim. ii. 4.
And Christ gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified,
or a testimony, in the times, or seasons, proper to each. Ibid. 6.
Then, but not till then, will God progressively considered be "all in
all." (The very words themselves, all in all, shew the correctness
of my
view and the incorrectness of
my
friends : for according to my
view, God is fully and finally and completely developed
through all, and to all, and
in all. Whereas according to
my
friends, he is only made known in and to a part of the human race ;
those who regard him as all in all upon
my
friend's principles, committing evidently the blunder of taking a part for the whole.) And
when God shall be manifested as all in all, then but not, dear
Mr. Townley, till then will the principle of progressive
manifestation as connected with creature mind be seen swallowed up in
complete, unchangeable, and everlasting manifestation, as the
attribute of divine mind.
Dear friend, is there any equivocation in
these statements of mine ? If so, have the goodness to point it
out.
"It is and it is not comes in at every
turn." Well, suppose that it does. Are all distinctions on
every subject repudiated by
my friend Mr. Townley ?
Most assuredly not. He is too good a logician to be ignorant of their value,
and, when requisite, to abstain from employing them. "It is so and
so," "it is not so and so," I find pervading his work. Do I blame him
for this ? No. For I am aware that it is impossible to write
accurately on any topic without having recourse to such
distinctions. To write on any topic ? Why, that it is impossible to hold a
five minutes conversation without employing them. But if so,
why does
my friend censure me for saying "it is so absolutely considered ;" "it is not so relatively or progressively considered?"
Does this furnish
my
friend with a ground for charging me with
equivocation, or a tendency to falsehood ? Do,
my
dear Mr. Townley, avoid such carping in future.
"If the all in all state is not opened up
in the sense of perfect and entire manifestation so as to exclude
all progression and change, then there must be a ministry, and
that too miraculously commissioned." (I omit what follows,
from a dislike again to copy what I am sure it must be
painful to yourself to have written.) Have the goodness to
prove this, my dear friend. You know that mere assertion
will not do. To quote your own words, omitting the offensive
epithet already objected to, "Mr. Townley's denial must go for what it really is, a mere
assertion, unsustained by a shadow of proof." To me the
objective
manifestation of the divine character in the scriptures
being complete, it appears that God has thereby not obscurely intimated
his having reserved to himself alone, not conceded to a
ministry, the power of opening up that complete objective manifestation,
progressively in a subjective sense, in the hearts and consciences of his
chosen people.
Mr. Thom "writes himself minister." If
this word be obnoxious to you, I am willing to abandon it,
Assign to me any designation you please. Argumenta ad hominem
however, as you know, do not touch the real point in controversy
between us. Let us, if we can, get rid of them. They tend to no
other end than to excite unpleasant feelings.
"His" (Mr. Thom's,) "real aim is to
establish a ministry" I print your words in Italics, as you yourself have
printed them.
How
you have come to fancy yourself thus
intimately acquainted with
my
inward views
and motives I cannot tell. This however I can tell you, that in the object which you have
chosen thus publicly and gratuitously to impute to me, you are
most grievously mistaken.
My aim is exactly the
opposite of that which you declare to be mine. If there be one thing more dear
to my
heart than another one thing which, more than another,
I have had in view in
my different
publications it is and has been to be instrumental in God's hands to point the minds and
attention of men away from human ministries, from priests and priestcraft of every description, to
my
dear and glorified Redeemer, the Great High Priest and sole Instructor of his church,
speaking directly in his own most blessed word. See
my
"Irving Miracles, pp 13 14,"
my
preface to
Barclay's "Without Faith, without God," &c. &c.
The third part of
my
present work Mr. Townley will find to be an answer, although not formally yet in
reality, to his challenge, as given in the following words : "I submit to
Mr. Thorn what I have submitted to all sects, to fill up
their assumed intermediate state between the apostolic and the
perfect." In the portion of
my
work alluded
to, Mr. Townley may observe, that, taught by God's own word, I can distinguish between the
earnest of the perfect and the perfect itself between our being
conformed in mind so far to the Son of God, and our being
conformed to him entirely in body as well as mind. God does not in his
manifestation of him self advance per saltum.
He
proceeds gradually. Taught by his example, I am satisfied to represent him as
advancing from inferior to superior degrees of self-manifestation,
until, progression ending with creature nature, the fulness and
unchangeableness of self-manifestation, on the part of
Jehovah, is seen to swallow up all.
"It is idle to say there is, and yet there
is not. This is only calculated to deceive the simple-minded."
The not very gentleman-like insinuation conveyed in these
words, I am sure, upon reflection,
my
friend, Mr. Townley, would wish unsaid.
"Mr. Thom's Universalism resolves itself,
to all appearance, into a yea and nay gospel : a supposition
Christianity, as a friend happily styled it." I have wished to avoid
bandying epithets with
my
respected
antagonist, and, therefore, I abstain from expressing, what had almost flowed from
my
pen, my opinion
respecting the "supposition" character of another system of
religion, (can I call it Christianity ?) with which I happen to
have some little acquaintance. Dear friend, you are a younger man
than I am ; therefore, do take a small piece of advice from a
senior. Avoid, as much as possible, all approaches to what might be
construed into personality. Well do I know the difficulty of
acting on this advice likely to be experienced by one whose
temperament is so ardent as your own. To act upon it, however, might
do you good. Haud inexpertus loquor. "A yea and nay gospel."
Ah! dear friend, is there not conceivable something even
worse than this, namely, a system of religion
which is no gospel at
all ?
Mr. Townley is pleased to say, "If I am to be a believer in Universalism, I must have a widely different
statement from any which Mr. Thom propounds."
My
friend has his choice among innumerable other systems of Universalism
besides mine : such as Jeremiah White's, the Chevalier Ramsay's,
Petit-pierre's, Elhanan Winchester's, Stonehouse's, Kelly's, Murray's, Neil Douglas's, Huntington's of Connecticut, &c., &c.
Professor Bush is, I perceive, a favourite writer with him.
He
is also a favourite with the American Universalists, a body which
boasts of numbering among its adherents above 600,000
individuals, and which happens to agree with
my
friend in his notion of Christ's second coming being past. Suppose I recommend to
my
friend's notice the system advocated by these religionists,
as brought out in the writings of Ballou, Walter Balfour,
Whittemore, T. J. Sawyer, and others. Or, seeing that he labours under
considerable doubts respecting "soul," and respecting the punishment of the
wicked hereafter, (doubts strangely inconsistent
with his dogma of the existence now of a "manifestation full,
complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all progression and
change,") and seeing, consequently, that there may exist in his mind
a latent suspicion of there being something true in Universalism
after all, suppose I use the freedom to suggest to him to
construct a system of his own" I never propounded
my
system as absolutely perfect. To the Father of Lights I continually look up
for further instruction in divine things, through the
instrumentality of his word. Nevertheless, I do venture to think, (I might
express myself more strongly, but, in deference to the taste of
the present day, which will only be content with the appearance of
modesty, whether true or false, on the part of authors, I use this
language,) that the system brought out by me in
my
various writings, especially in
my
later ones, is
somewhat more consistent with scripture, and with itself, than any previously devised and
concocted. And yet, have I anticipated a different reception for
it than that which it has met with ? No. Believing, as I do, that
flesh lusteth against spirit, and spirit against flesh, these two
being contrary the one to the other, (Gal. v. 17,) I never
anticipated a wide and general reception of the views which I have
propounded (in the main God's views,) on the part of the learned,
the intelligent, and the fleshly pious. On the contrary, the more
spiritual, that is, the more true and divine
my
views are, the more have I counted on, the more do I count on, their being
offensive to fleshly mind, whatever form that mind may assume. Matt.
xvi. 23 ; John viii. 45 ; Rom. viii. 7; 1 John iii. 1, 2. (See
Preface to
my - Three Questions," second edition ; Epistle
Prefatory to
my " Dialogues ;" and section seventh of
my
" Divine Inversion.")
My
friend, Mr. Townley, will therefore perceive that I am
prepared for, and can without the slightest irritation listen to,
such remarks respecting
my
system as those
which he has seen meet to make. I take them, considering the quarter from whence
they come, as of the nature of a compliment to its truth an
indirect and unintentional one, to be sure. And yet I must add,
in justice to myself, as well as to
my
friend, the following: From Mr. Townley I am not only willing, but eager to learn. Let
him propound truth. Let him, uncaptivated by a plausible
and ingenious but baseless human theory, speak under the
influence of the mind of God. Nay, let him, in so speaking, not in
sporting mere paradoxes, correct errors into which as a human
being, and as of necessity entertaining limited views of
divine truth, I must have fallen. Let him do this, and then he will
not, I trust, however unwilling human beings may be to say
peccavi, find me inclined to reject his statements in the lump, or to
speak of him and his writings in a way that may fairly be deemed
contemptuous.
Will
my friend pardon me, if
I suggest to him that his admissions in the passage beginning, "In fact, I must know some thing clearer of the soul than I have ever
yet read," are scarcely consistent with the tone of dogmatism which
throughout his work, and especially thoughout the Note
animadverted on, he has assumed ?
He
feels himself in want of clearer notions
respecting soul, stating his agreement with Mr. Bush, "that on no subject are we more in the dark than
in regard to" this.
He denies his having adopted or expressed any fixed views
as to the "annihilation of the wicked" a declaration to
which I attach implicit credit. Still the question arises
What in this case becomes of Mr. Townley's "full, complete, perfect, and conclusive manifestation, denying all progression and change"?
He
says: "I can only state, that it is possible there may be
punishment in the continued principle of the present existence
of the ungodly in a future state." "Future state", dear friend!
Why
I had supposed that, according to you, we were now in
the " all in all", or ever present and ever unchangeable state. It
seems that I have been mistaken. And yet, how reconcile the
contradictory assertions ? Were I disposed to act as
my
friend has done, I might urge something about the "is," and the "is not ; " but I forbear.
Again: "there may be punishment."
How
can that be? I mean, on your own principles. Why, Mr. Townley, as this world is to continue for ever according to you,
and as you conceive us to have got into the all in all or
unchangeable state already, your language should be, not "there
may be
punishment," or "there will be punishment," both of which
propositions subvert your notion of an unchangeable state, but
"punishment in time to come is just such as is now undergone." You
deny "hell torments" as commonly understood. Well you
may, if we be in the all in all state punishment in time to come
being, in that case, what exactly it is now. "Let it be observed,
that the after existence of the wicked does not depend upon
an end of the world, a resurrection," &c.
After existence
of the wicked ! How, to repeat what has been again and again
said, can there be such "after" or future "existence," if this be
the all in all or ever present unchangeable state ? And further,
how can this be, consistently with your sentiment of there being
no resurrection of the body ? Except in the case of God
himself, distinct existence, without form or body of some kind or
another, is an utter impossibility. Hence the church puts off the
image of the earthy, not by being unclothed, but by being clothed
upon with life, or by putting on the image of the heavenly. 1 Cor.
xv. 49, 2 Cor. v. 4. But you laugh to scorn, as "unscriptural," the "tenet of a resurrection body." Why, dear Townley, do
not your views tend towards something like Pantheism, or the
confounding of the creature with the Creator? "But, indeed,
this very little concerns me in any way." Then why meddle with
the subject at all? Why, especially, with views of your own
confessedly unsettled, presume to condemn the settled
views of others? Can avowed ignorance undertake to disprove
knowledge ? And all this, after having told us, and pretended to
attack our views on the hypothesis, that your own divine "manifestation" was "full, complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all
progression and change." Stop,
my dear friend. Be a
little better acquainted with the subject, and a little more consistent with
yourself, before you again venture to take up the strong ground in the
way of denial, and to employ the contemptuous modes of expressing
yourself, which in your Note you have done. "Annihilation is a
curious expression." So it is. But it is a word which is
in use, and which was in use long before you and I were
born ;
and without it, or some corresponding term, metaphysical and
theological discussions could not be carried on. As to any charge or
insinuation founded on it, whatever reference it may have to
others, it cannot attach to persons who, like myself, believe that in
God, revealed in Jesus Christ, all live for evermore.
As confirmatory of
my
friend's condemnation of Universalism, I am treated to a quotation from Professor
Bush. It would have been more to the purpose, and more
satisfactory to me, to have seen it -- I mean the scriptural form of it,
not Universalism with a fool's cap put upon it
-- condemned by the
word of God. Particularly when I consider the unbounded
reverence for the scriptures which Mr. Townley professes, and his
boast of being exclusively guided by their decisions.
However, the quotation is made for
my
benefit and the benefit of others, and valeat quantum. Mr. Townley evidently dislikes
Universalism. Hates it, perhaps would be the more appropriate
term. Wherefore, I presume not to enquire.
He
himself should know best : but the fact is so. Hence his disposition to seize
on every weapon by which he conceives himself likely to be able
to annoy its supporters. The language of Professor Bush, a
gentleman animated by a spirit very similar to his own, most
happily and opportunely comes in to his aid. Mr. Townley will
forgive me, if I here press his conscience a little. Does he
really
believe with the American Professor (does the Professor himself
really
believe) that "if we were called upon to specify any form of
alleged Christian doctrine, for which the least amount of
evidence," (observe, the least, in italics,) "could be adduced from the scriptures, it
would be that of the final universal salvation of
the race ?" (The italics are not mine.) "For this we find
an entire lack," (the
italics are mine,) "of positive scriptural evidence." I say,
does Mr. Townley really believe this ? Does he, after his own
admissions respecting his ignorance of the nature of soul, his
doubts as to future punishment, and his pointed condemnation of hell
torments, really believe that Universalism is
the most baseless of
religious theories ? (No shirking of this,
my
dear friend.) And if not, why quote Bush's language, and stamp it with his approbation
? Besides, Mr. Townley knows that Mr. Bush is referring, in the
words quoted, to the American system of Universalism, with which
mine has scarcely any leading feature in common. Supposing,
then, argumenti causa, that Mr. Bush may be right in what he
says respecting the one system, does it thence follow that
his remarks have any application whatever to the other? and is
Mr. Townley justified in quoting them as he does, without
the slightest intimation of the opposing nature of
two theories which it answers his purpose for the moment to
identify ? I bring no charge against my friend of
"equivocating." But I certainly appeal to his own conscience
as to the correctness of the line of conduct which he has
seen meet to pursue. Quoting Professor Bush, (still with
approbation,) Mr. Townley says, "moral character must necessarily be the basis of
destiny. 1 Moral character, a life and conversation becoming the gospel, it is the
high privilege of every child of God to cultivate and exhibit." But
pardon me, dear friend Townley, if I suggest, that
the
purpose which God purposed in himself before the world began, not
the character of a creature, is the basis of destiny, or
rather, destiny itself; and if I state that, until now, I had always
understood, not moral character, but the divine righteousness of
Jesus Christ, to be that in which guilty creatures stand perfect and
accepted before God. *
* Before looking into
Professor Bush's work,
I had some sort of a suspicion, judging from the quotations made, that the
author had been bitten by, and had been borrowing from, the New Jerusalem or Swedenborgian theory. I have since discovered, by an actual perusal of
the
Anastasis, that I was right. Swedenborgiariism is an old acquaintance of
mine, and to its merits, in certain respects, I have not hesitated to bear
testimony, in the Second Edition of my "Three Questions," and the sixth Section
of my "Divine Inversion." To Mr. Noble, the able, amiable, and zealous
writer of the "Appeal," &c., which I have read, I was at one time not altogether
unknown. Swedenborgianism, however, is rather a ticklish theory for any
one gifted with strong imagination and metaphysical acumen, and at the same
time under the influence of no higher principles than those of fleshly
mind, to meddle with. Owing to its adaptation to conditionalizing views of
things, its pretended ability to lift the mind upwards into the regions of the
unknown, its elegant and amusing fictions, its hanging tolerably well
together, and its occasional exposure of popular fallacies, to clever men it often
proves an edge-tool, with which, handling it unskilfully, they contrive to
cut themselves. The following extract from the "Intellectual Repository and New Jerusalem Magazine," for January, 1834, page 40, being
the language of Mr. Noble, (to whom Mr. Bush, in his preface, acknowledges
himself indebted,) may serve to shew those who know the truth what
Swedenborgian sentiments are, and to put them on their guard against a system in
which such sentiments are embodied Mr. Noble is describing a sermon
which he delivered on a week day, in the hearing of several of my friends and
myself: -"Only one person went out during the discourse, though a
considerable part of it was occupied in proving the free will of man, and the
conditional character of the gospel dispensation; and the remainder of it in
asserting the superiority of charity over faith, and the necessity to salvation of
good works all points which are perfectly abhorred by Mr. Thom and his
people." How far Mr. Noble has understood my views I am not going to say:
perhaps some may have difficulty in recognizing them in the above caricatura.
Denying "the superiority of charity, or love over faith" ! 1 Cor. xiii. 11.
Does any one who knows me, and has read my works, believe this ? See Irving
Miracles, pp. 28, 29. This, however, I will say, that any person holding the
absolute freedom of man's will, the conditionally of salvation or its dependence on the creature, and the
necessity of good works as a ground of hope towards
God, shewing himself by such doctrines to labour under the most complete
ignorance of His character whose will alone is free and sovereign, of eternal life
being His gift, and of good works flowing from the knowledge of salvation
freely bestowed upon us, not being the ground of that privilege, puts us at once on
our guard against himself and his general theory; and thus preserves us from
being carried away by it, as Mr. Bush and some others appear to have been.
Bush's little anecdote is a very pleasant
one. Its conclusiveness against Universalism no fleshly mind can
dispute. Unfortunately, however, it labours under the slight
disadvantage of virtually, if not expressly, contradicting
our Lord and his apostles : the former of whom has declared that
he came to call, not the righteous, but
sinners to repentance;
Matt. ix. 13 ; that is, to make bad men good, for he himself gives the
repentance ; Acts v. 31; see also John xii. 32; and one of the
latter of whom, besides asserting that God who is just, is
also the justifier of the ungodly, Rom. iii. 26, iv. 5, v. 6 8,
proposes his own case, which was that of the salvation of the chief
of sinners, of one who had been before a blasphemer, and a
persecutor, and injurious, a very bad man, who had been made a good
one, as a pattern of the principles upon which Jesus Christ
proceeds, in the salvation of other bad men similarly circumstanced
with himself. 1 Tim. i. 13 16: see also 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6, iv. 10.*
* I know that the present
justification of the ungodly is through faith ; Rom.
iii. 20 30; but I know, also, that in the power of God
to save a part is manifested that principle, so
offensive to the pharisaical and fleshly mind of man, of
the power of God to save the whole. Rom. xi. 32-36. How
remarkable to see the apostle, in the second and fourth
chapters of 1st Timothy, pushing out to the extent of
universal salvation, God is the Saviour of all men, the same principle which, in the first
chapter, he had shewn to be carried into effect now, in the
case of believers specially of those that believe. 1
Tim. iv. 10.
In Note O, Mr. Townley thus expresses
himself: "As this is the last time I shall have occasion to
mention Mr. Bush's work, I would beg again to suggest its perusal, as
a startling objection to popular notions of the resurrection. The
preface and introduction alone are worth the price of the
volume." This is high praise ; and, in as far as the abilities of
the author are concerned, not higher than is deserved. Here, however,
a most important question arises :
Am
I to understand my dear
friend as expressing approbation of the doctrines laid down in
the learned Professor's preface and introduction? If so, I
am
pained to say, but a regard to truth compels me to do so, that a
more startling exhibition of great talents devoted to the
propagation of religious scepticism, and the inculcation of fleshly
views of divine truth, it has scarcely ever fallen to
my
lot to encounter, than in the portions of Mr. Bush s work thus recommended.
(Except, perhaps, in his Argument from Reason, most admirable
as a mere piece of human ratiocination, but a most barefaced
assault upon the self-sufficiency, and alone sufficiency, of divine
revelation.) Passing over the preface, and confining myself to
the introduction, I remark, that progression in the knowledge of
the scriptures, abstractly considered, is a grand and
glorious truth ; (strangely at variance, to be sure, with "a manifestation"
of truth which "denies all progression and change," such
as is that contended for by Mr. Townley;) but progression in the
knowledge of the scriptures, like knowledge of them at all,
is confined to the
members of the election of God. For divine knowledge in
flesh, as it never has belonged to, so it never was
intended to belong to the mere men of the world. See the commencements
of most of Paul's Epistles : see particularly the
eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, while
progression in divine knowledge is with me a fundamental
principle, I contend for it as bestowed, not, as the Professor supposes, in
consequence of our interrogating the scriptures, (after the
fashion recommended, with reference to the physical sciences, in the
Novum Organum,) but solely in consequence of their divine Author
choosing to open up their meaning; not by means of active
exertions put forth by those who make divine discoveries, but by
means of God's making himself known to such as passive recipients
of his truth. God was to be sought for by the Old Testament
house of Israel ; but the grand principle of his dealings with the
members of his
New
Testament church is, that he is found of
them who seek him not. Isaiah Ixv. 1, 2, Rom. x. 20, 21. The fact
is, that God, in diametrical opposition to the Professor's
theory, sees meet to bless the poor; (those "minds of the lowest
order," at whose assent to the truth the worthy gentleman
sneers, p. 50 ; see 1 Cor. i. 25 29;) while he sends the rich,
the self-conceited Pharisees, German Rationalists, Tractarian
Theologians, Hebrew Scholars, and Professors of Hermeneutics
imposing their laws of interpretation (save the mark!) upon divine
revelation, empty away. And while progression in divine
knowledge is with me a fundamental principle, it is not such
progression as consists in bending the infallible declarations of
Jehovah to the theories of the sceptical, the scientific truly or
falsely so called, and the deistical, (see the introduction, pp. 21
20,) but in the having opened up more and more, by
Him
who alone can do so, such views of the scriptures as by their beauty,
harmony, truth, power, and glory, pour contempt more and more on
all the boasted efforts and achievements of man ; bending
science, as merely human, to their divine discoveries, and not
in any way succumbing to the real or pretended discoveries of
science. The whole shewing, that the same God who once puzzled
the scribes and the wise men of this world, by that
cross
which was to them respectively a stumbling block and
foolishness, I Cor. i. 17 25, iii. 18 20, is still, through his works of
nature, which fleshly mind fancies it can thoroughly scan,
puzzling all except those whom he condescends to instruct through his
word. Yes ; I rejoice in the progressive discoveries made
to me, and to those besides who know the truth, by God himself,
through the instrumentality of the scriptures ; but not in the
fancied discoveries made by scientific men, or by myself, at the
expense of revelation. Dear Mr. Townley, look at the snare
laid for you by such men as those whom you admire, and in
certain respects justly admire. Entangled themselves in
fleshly theories, what can they, except such theories, throw
around others? Blind themselves, what result can follow to
those who blindly entrust themselves to their guidance,
except that both fall into the ditch ? If you can not
see the snare laid for you, may that God who alone can,
preserve you from it.*
* "Surely," says the Professor, "a revelation
not intelligible would be no revelation at all," page 18. This is fleshly
mind speaking. Intelligible ! Aye, according to him,
capable of being
understood by all. Not so speak the scriptures themselves. Their "revelation" is not
"intelligible;" it is more it is
understood. And understood by all those by
whom it was intended by its divine Author that it should be understood;
but by none besides. All who are to understand it, have ears given to them
to
hear; and they do hear. By no others is it intelligible, that is,
capable
of being understood. Revelation intelligible, or
within the scope of man's natural abilities to
understand it, is thus the idea and the language of
fleshly mind ; revelation understood, or
revelation as what it really is, is the principle of
revelation itself, and the experience of every one who
is taught from above. Corrected, therefore, as it should
be, Professor Bush's language would run : " Surely a
revelation not understood, would be no revelation
at all." What, in this case, becomes of Mr. Townley's
statements, that that is a revelation of which,
nevertheless, persons continue ignorant ? that that is
light which, nevertheless, does not make manifest ? Eph.
v. 13.
Allow me again for a moment to travel out
of Note D. In one of those sneering attacks [I at once
assume your language, at the bottom of page 108 and top of
page 109, as intended for me : indeed, it would argue sheer
affectation on my part to dissemble my conviction that it is
so.] upon the system of divine truth for which I am honoured to contend,
[A system, by the way, from which you have borrowed many
valuable, although unacknowledged hints. The want of
acknowledging your obligations to it I bring not against you
as any ground of accusation certainly. Supposing your
procedure in this respect intentional, it is a mere matter
of taste on your part. But it is just as likely that your
omission may be unintentional.
Dr. Lee,
Messrs. Roe, Wilkinson, Stark, and Bush, have such claims on
you, that no wonder an obscurer individual should have been
overlooked. Dear friend, it is extremely gratifying to me to
find that I have been able to render you any service.] attacks which, I
am sorry to think, but too much abound in and disfigure your
clever and ingenious book, you are pleased to represent me as
"avowing belief in a future resurrection of dust"; and what you
mean by "a resurrection of dust" is denned by yourself, at page
123, to be "a repetition of bodily life " : therefore about this matter there can be
no mistake. Now,
my
dear friend, it is not my
practice to charge any man with falsehood, when I can explain his
language consistently with any other hypothesis. And if such be
my
practice in general, still less, where you are concerned, will
my
feelings towards you permit me to suppose for one instant that
you could intentionally state what you knew to be untrue. Without
any equivocation or reservation whatever, then, I acquit you of
falsehood. But can I equally acquit you of carelessness ? Can I
satisfy
my own mind that you have always taken the pains
requisite to inform yourself accurately on the subjects of which you
venture to treat? Let the facts of the case speak. You say that I
"believe in a resurrection of dust." Instead of so doing, the
sentiment which you ascribe to me happens to stand diametrically
opposed to mine. I do not believe in a resurrection of dust !
I do not believe in any view which involves, through the death and
resurrection of Christ, "a repetition of bodily life," or a
recurrence in any respect what ever to the state of things now existing !
Nearly twenty years have elapsed since I could be charged with
holding any such notions ; and in the first part of
my
"Three Questions," a work which I think you have read, the whole force
of my reasonings is directed against them. To the same notions
the whole scope of
my
"Divine
Inversion" stands opposed. My view as
to this subject is expressed in the language of the
apostle : as we have borne the image of the earthy,
Adam, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly, Christ Jesus ; 1 Cor.
xv. 49 ; and he that raised up Christ from the dead shall
also quicken our mortal bodies, (not body, dear friend, but bodies,) by
his
Spirit that dwelleth in us. Rom. viii. 11. That is, what are now bodies
of dust, or of flesh and blood, I rejoice to think are raised up
and live for ever as spiritual and glorious bodies, fashioned
like to the spiritual and glorified body of the Son of God. In a word,
I repudiate entirely, as unscriptural, not on rational grounds,
for with fleshly reason in divine things I have nothing to do, the
idea of the resurrection of a body of dust. The view thus
entertained by me, although you have perused pretty carefully several of
my
works, you appear hitherto to have overlooked ; a circumstance
which has evidently betrayed you into confounding
my
sentiments on the subject with those of the general run of professors of
religion, who do hold the resurrection of dust, or of a flesh and
blood body, and along with that, of necessity, "a repetition" more or
less of the present bodily life and state of things. Your
present mistake, however, you will not commit again. That sense of
candour which I
am
satisfied you possess, will prevent you from
doing so. You will understand me as avowing, that as Christ's
personal body rose, so do our personal bodies rise likewise, a
result essential to our complete conformity to him, as well as to
our individual existence ; but you will understand me as avowing
also, that what is now soulical or dust body is not raised
again as such, but is raised as spiritual body, just as Christ's was. You
may not understand me. You may dislike my view. You may
consider it as unscriptural. You may even feel disposed again to
sneer at it. (Do, for your own sake, correct your sneering
tendency,
my dear friend.) But I think I know you too well to
suppose that you will reiterate what I now tell you is incorrect,
namely, that "I avow
my
belief in a
future resurrection of dust." A body
of dust exists, and can only exist in time. It is
only as clothed upon with spiritual body that our glorious Lord
exists, and that any one can exist, throughout eternity. 1 Cor.
xv. 42-49.
The grand reason of
my
friend's dislike to my
views, and what I perceive has drawn down upon me the
expressions of asperity which occur in his work, is evidently
my
leading proposition, that there is progression in the knowledge of
divine truth now, in consequence of an increased and increasing
opening up of the meaning of the scriptures, to his chosen ones, by
their divine author. This is at variance with the Salemite
theory. And also with Mr. Townley's dogma, of the present existence of "a
manifestation full, complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all
progression and change." Opposition to
my
statement, at whatever cost, followed,
therefore, as a matter of course.
How
pleasant in matters of controversy is it, after one has been subjected to the
saying of smart, and even bitter things, which can break no bones, to
find one's main proposition supported, nay, even contended for,
by one's antagonist! Remarkably is this the case with
my
friend Mr. Townley. Not withstanding "the completeness of" his
"manifestation," he is still so much at a loss respecting "soul," and some other points, that he is desirous to have the full and
complete "manifestation, which denies all progression and change,"
yet farther completed to his own mind. That is, he is waiting for
farther "progression," and consequently "change in the manifestation," to himself !
This is certainly very good. But it is not all.
Progressive advancement in divine knowledge is actually by the
denier of all such progression asserted as a principle ! In his work
itself he says, "In proportion as it," (our interpretation, or
our system, or our knowledge of the Bible, the last I think,) "is
seen and embraced, it corrects any tendency," &c. Page 5. Nay, not
only so, but at page 7, we find him using the following
strong language : "And then, moreover, with respect to the supposed
non-ability of interpreting every scripture in favour, which
appears to make against us, may we not be allowed to ask, if it is not
quite as possible that the revelation of the infinite God should not
yet be exhausted in a way of discovery of its glories, just as it
is possible that the same should be the case in natural things" ?
A very proper question,
my
dear friend.
And, by all who know the truth, falling to be answered, as it is your intention it should
be, in the affirmative. Many, many are the years during which I have
been contending for this glorious principle, that the
creature hath not exhausted, and cannot exhaust, the
infinite manifestation of the Creator ; [See especially the
Seventh Section of my "Divine Inversion," as well as my "Why
is Popery Progressing ? " and my "Preface to Barclay," and
other productions.] and John Barclay, as I think you are aware,
did the same thing before me. Many, many are the years during which I
have been opposing this principle to the fixed humanly
devised creeds of theologians. Happy am I to hail you now as a
coadjutor in this one of
my grand objects. Still
the question arises : How can Mr. Townley hold this principle of
progressive divine manifestation consistently with his avowal of the
existence of "a manifestation full, complete, perfect, and conclusive,
denying all progression and change"? The true answer, I suspect, is
this, that Mr. Townley hitherto has neither understood me nor
himself. Like him, I contend for revelation, in so far as the
fact of committing it to writing is concerned, having been "full,
complete, perfect, and conclusive, denying all progression and
change," (nay, pronouncing a curse upon him who should add to it, see
Rev. xxii. 18, language inconsistent with Dr. Tilloch's scheme,
[In so far as it makes the Book of Revelation the first
written.])
previous to the period of Jerusalem's destruction. (Query
-- In attacking
me, would not perfect candour have dictated the making of
this known ?) And it now appears by his own admissions that,
like him, I contend for this same revelation, complete as to the
writing of its words, being susceptible of gradual and progressive
opening up to the children of God, (or by whatever other name
he chooses to designate those who know its meaning,) by
its divine Author. Wherein, then, friend Townley,
as to this
point, do we differ ? And if agreed, what becomes of your
assertion, that God is now manifested fully, completely, and without
the possibility of progression ?
How can a manifestation
which is progressive, as in your own case you admit it to be, nay, as you
maintain it must be, be reconciled with "a manifestation which"
somewhat inconsistently you maintain also "denies all progression
and change " ? Excuse me for being thus particular,
my
dear sir. Think over the matter again. "It is," and "it is not," must here
be had recourse to.
"It is" objectively perfect ; "it is not"
subjectively so, but capable of progressive manifestation to the mind ;
is, to save circumlocution, and, when addressing those who
understand the meaning of words, the way in which I should explain
myself. And "it is not" progressive in some sense, but "it is " progressive in some other, is what
my
friend Mr. Townley, do what he will, unless
he choose to repudiate his own words
altogether, will be constrained to say. What then become of the
high-swelling pretensions of the Salemite system ? You may try to evade
the conclusion upon which I am forcing you, by saying that
the Bible is "a clear revelation to the church, no matter whether
understood or not." The second Advent a past event, page 29.
That is, a book "is a revelation" which reveals nothing, and
therefore is not a revelation. And that that " is clear" which is clear to
nobody. Again : "there they are, a revelation, no matter as to the
ignorance or knowledge of that poor earth-worm man." Page 90.
In other words, that is "a revelation" which is no
revelation. Do you expect me to refute this? Or, "that men would permit
that the Bible should speak for itself!" Ibid. p. 26. By
this am I to understand the power of man to comprehend the
scriptures independently of the teaching of their divine
Author ? If so, then what becomes of a separate number? why do not all
comprehend them ? and why not avow yourself at once a
Pelagian ? [Strongly tempted am I to doubt your
entertaining correct and scriptural ideas on the subject of an elect number
alone being taught the truth. The whole strain of your work is at variance
with my supposing you clear as to that point. Besides, there are passages now and
then occurring which seem to indicate the identity of your views with
those of our liberal religionists. Such as, for instance, "If, on the other hand, our diagram plan is
in its great principles correct; i. e., if the second advent
of Christ has taken place, and if this doctrine should once
seize upon the minds of the people, what then ?" &c. The
Second Advent, &c. p. 136. What is really divine never was
calculated to seize on the minds of the people, and never
will. Popular and fleshly dogmas, however, may. ] If not, then this is not the fulness
of the all in all state, but merely a step in the
progression towards it.