THE NECESSITY OF A NEW REVELATION--THE ARGUMENTS OF MODERN CHRISTIANS
AGAINST IT CONSIDERED.
I shall take it for granted that those who have followed me to this
point are convinced that the world has need of a new witness for
God; that the Church of Christ was destroyed; that there has been an
apostasy from the Christian religion so complete and universal as to
make necessary a new dispensation of the gospel.
I have already remarked, in noticing the Protestant claim that the
Church of Christ was re-established by the Reformers of the sixteenth
century, that the gospel having once been taken from among men, and
divine authority lost, the only way that either one or the other could
ever be restored would be by the Lord giving a new revelation, and
re-commissioning men with divine authority, both to teach the gospel
and administer in its ordinances. This is a proposition so obvious to
reason that I can scarcely persuade myself that it requires either
argument or proofs to sustain it.
If there are those, however, who think that the plan of salvation
might be clearly defined from the fragmentary documents which comprise
the New Testament, without the aid of more revelation, I ask them to
consider the Protestant effort to accomplish that task. The Protestants
accepted the Bible as an all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and
morals and church discipline. But when they undertook to formulate
from it a creed that should embody the whole plan of salvation, and
prescribe a government for their church, it was found that well nigh
each Doctor understood the Bible differently. One saw in it the
authorization of the Episcopal form of church government; another the
Presbyterian form; and another the Congregational. One saw in the Bible
authority for believing there was a trinity of persons in the God-head;
another that there was but one. One saw authority for believing that
God had predestined an elect few to be saved; another that salvation
was equally within reach of all. And so on through all the vexed
questions that have distracted Protestant Christendom and divided it
into a hundred contending sects.
It must be remembered that to this effort to construct from the New
Testament scriptures a creed which would embody all the principles
and ordinances essential to salvation, and re-construct the Church
of Christ, all the zeal and learning that we can hope to see brought
to such a task was possessed by Protestant "Reformers," and they
failed miserably; for the confusion grows greater by the constant
multiplication of sects, led by men making the vain attempt to
re-construct the Church of Christ and define the gospel by their own
wisdom from fragmentary Christian documents.
But if the theory of salvation could be clearly defined from the
scriptures, by the wisdom of man; if all the doctrines to be believed
and all the ordinances to be obeyed could be formulated, where,
without further revelation, is the divinely authorized ministry to
teach the gospel or administer its ordinances? However distinctly the
gospel as a theory might be defined from the New Testament, the dead
letter authorizes no one to perform its ceremonies, or even teach its
doctrines. The New Testament writers have recorded in a number of
places how Jesus called his apostles and commissioned them to go into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, saying in one
place, that. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he
that believeth not shall be damned;" [1] and in another place, "Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you alway
even unto the end of the world" [2] But to say this authorizes anyone
else but those to whom the commission was directly given is to advocate
the stealing of other men's commission, and presumptuously attempting
to act in the name of God without divine appointment.
A case of this kind is related in the Acts of the Apostles, the result
of which should be a warning to those who would advocate such a course
now. Among the Jews who witnessed the power of God displayed through
the administrations of Paul--the Holy Ghost imparted by laying on
hands, the sick healed and unclean spirits cast out--were seven sons of
one Sceva, a chief priest among the Jews, who took it upon themselves
to call over one possessed of an evil spirit the name of the Lord Jesus
saying, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth * * * And the evil
sprit answered and said: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped upon them, and overcame
them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house
naked and wounded." [3]
Another case in point is the incident of Uzziah stretching forth his
hand to steady the ark of God without authority--"And God smote him
there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God." [4]
King Uzziah's presumption in this kind also points a warning. Made
king when but sixteen years of age, he was wonderfully blessed of the
Lord, and his fame went abroad until he was feared or honored by all
the surrounding nations. In the height of his glory he presumptuously
entered the temple of God and essayed to exercise the functions of the
priest's office--to burn incense before the Lord. Azariah, the chief
priest, withstood the king's usurpation, saying, "It appertaineth not
unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests,
the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the
sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine
honor from the Lord God." The king was not inclined to yield to the
admonition, and while he was yet angry with the priests the leprosy
arose in his forehead, and he lived a leper the remainder of his life,
separated from his people and from the house of the Lord. [5]
If the usurpation of authority to act in the name of the Lord in
casting out an evil spirit, in steadying the ark of God and burning
incense called forth such pronounced evidences of the divine
displeasure, would usurpation in administering the more sacred
ordinances of the gospel meet with divine approbation? If men by
usurping authority could not drive out an evil spirit from one
possessed through calling over him the name of Jesus, just as they had
seen Paul do, would there likely be any more efficacy attend their
administrations if they baptized in the name of the holy Trinity for
the remission of sins, or laid on hands to impart the Holy Ghost? The
reasonable answer is obvious.
"Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things
pertaining to God; * * * and no man taketh this honor unto himself,
but he that is called of God as was Aaron." [6] Aaron was called by
revelation, and ordained by one already holding divine authority. [7]
It amounts to nothing to say that this particular passage relates to
high priests of the Mosaic law. The principle is announced in it that
those who officiate for men in things pertaining to God must be called
of God by revelation through a divinely established authority; and
that holds good in the gospel as well as in the Mosaic law; aye, and
more abundantly is it true; for as the gospel is more excellent than
the carnal law, so is it to be expected that more care will be taken
to have it administered by a divinely authorized ministry. "You have
not chosen me," said Jesus to the Twelve, "but I have chosen you, and
ordained you, that ye may bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should
remain." [8] This sounds the keynote relative to an authorized ministry
for the gospel. Men are not to take it upon themselves to administer
in things pertaining to God. They must be called as Aaron was, as the
Twelve were, as Jesus himself was; for even "Christ glorified not
himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten thee. * * * Thou art a priest forever
after the order of Melchisedek." [9]
But I must not be drawn into an argument on a point that is obviously
true, namely, that the gospel of Christ having been taken from among
men and divine authority lost, the only way of regaining them is by a
re-opening of the heavens and a re-commitment of them to man from God.
This of course would constitute a new dispensation, a new revelation;
and as all Christendom, both Catholics and Protestants, hold that
the volume of scripture is completed and forever closed--that divine
inspiration, prophecy and revelation, together with the visitation of
angels has ceased forever, I think it necessary to inquire into those
reasons that are assigned for such a belief, or rather unbelief.
It is a necessity to inquire into this question; for disbelief in new
revelation bars the way to a consideration of the claims of the New
Witness I am introducing. The case stands thus: The Christians in
the early centuries of our era having turned heathens again, thereby
losing the gospel and divine authority, it seems reasonably clear that
the only way these precious things can be regained is through a new
dispensation of the gospel, by means of a new revelation, which shall
restore all that was lost. But since all Christians have been persuaded
that the volume of the scripture is completed; that God will give no
more revelation; and that the Bible sustains that view of the case, it
becomes necessary to investigate the reasons given for this doctrine.
I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance
of revelation came into existence as the an excuse offered for the
absence of revelation. Ministers of apostate churches found themselves
without communication with God, either through the visitation of
angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers
so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the
church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying
these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only
to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to
establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish
things.
In support of the theory that the volume of revelation is closed
forever, the following passage in the Book of Revelation is usually
quoted: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if
any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." [10]
As this passage occurs in the last book of the New Testament--and also
the last book of the Bible--in the last chapter, and the last but
two of the closing verses of the chapter, it has been argued that it
is a formal closing up of God's revelation to man. No more is to be
added--nothing is to be taken from it, it is completed and sealed up,
and therefore no more revelation is to be given after that.
Upon this it should be observed, _first,_ that it was not by the
arrangement of the inspired writer himself that the Book of Revelation
was made the last book of the Bible; nor is that book the last
inspired book of the New Testament collection that was written. It
is the prevailing opinion of the early Christian writers that the
Book of Revelation was written while the apostle John was an exile on
the isle of Patmos, and that he did not write his book called "The
Gospel according to St. John," until after his return from Patmos.
[11] "The weight of evidence now tends to prove," says Canon Farrar,
speaking of the Book of Revelation, "that it is _not_ the last book
in chronological order; that it was written nearer the beginning than
the end of St. John's period of apostolic activity amid the churches
of Asia; that the last accents of revelation which fall upon our ears
are not those of a treatise which, though it ends in such music,
contains so many terrible visions of blood and fire; but rather those
of the gospel which tells us that the 'Word was made flesh,' and of the
epistle which first formulated the most blessed truth which was ever
uttered to human hearts--the truth that 'God is love.'" [12] And again:
"Some may think it an exaggeration to say that this closing of the Holy
Book with the Apocalypse has not been without grave consequences for
the history of Christendom; but certainly it would have been better
both for the church and for the world if we had followed the divine
order, and if those books had been placed last in the canon which were
last in order of time. Had this been done, our Bible would have closed
as the Book of God to all intents and purposes did close, with the
epistle and solemn warning of the last apostle, 'Little children, keep
yourselves from idols.'" [13]
If the words in the last chapter in the Book of Revelation mean that no
more scripture or revelation was to be written after the prohibitory
words under consideration, then John himself became a violator of
the word of God which he himself had written; for according to the
testimony here adduced his gospel and first epistle were written after
he Book of Revelation. Such an alternative as makes the divinely
inspired writer a violator of his own supposed inhibition of further
revelation is so absurd, so unlike the conduct of an inspired apostle,
that it is sufficient in itself to overthrow the theory that the
passage in the last chapter of the Apocalypse intended to close the
volume of revelation.
_Second:_ Since the Apocalypse had no connection with the other
books of the New Testament for many years after it was written, its
prohibitory clause under the most liberal construction could only
have reference to itself--it forbade men adding anything more to
that particular book of prophecy, the Apocalypse, not to a volume of
scripture with which, at the time, it had no connection.
_Third:_ A careful reading of the passage discloses that it is only
_man_ who is prohibited from adding anything more to that book of
prophecy, not God. While man may have added to him the plagues which
are written in the book if he presumptuously adds to the words of
the prophecy and passes them off for the word of God, yet God would
still be left free to give revelation _ad infinitum._ I must needs
think that this is the proper view to take of the prohibition, since
in Deuteronomy I find it recorded: "You shall not add to the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." [14] To
give to this passage the same interpretation that is placed by modern
Christians on the passage under consideration from the Apocalypse
(and it is just as reasonable to place such an interpretation on the
passage in Deuteronomy as to place it on the one in Revelation) would
result in rejecting all scripture that was given after the prohibitory
clause in the writings of Moses--which would be the greater part of the
Old Testament and all of the New. The same is true of the prohibitory
passage in Proverbs: "Every word of the Lord is perfect. * * * Add
thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a
liar." [15] There can be no doubt that these passages mean only this:
Man must not add his own words to the revelation of God and pass them
off as God's word. To say that they mean that no more revelation is
to be given after they were uttered is to condemn all the scripture
written subsequent to that time. What those passages mean the passage
in Revelation means. Man must not add to the words of Deity; but God is
left as free to give more revelation as he was before this prohibition
to man was placed on record. The passage in question does not in the
remotest manner refer to the close of the volume of revelation.
When the last act of indignity which the wicked ingenuity of his
persecutors could suggest was perpetrated on the Son of God, Jesus
bowed his thorn-crowned head and exclaimed "It is finished." By some
who contend against new revelation it is held that this means that
no more revelation is to be expected--revelation is finished! Such a
construction would exclude the inspired revelations, visions, dreams
and revelations given to the apostles after the crucifixion of Jesus
and abundantly testified of in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles
and the Apocalypse. It is so clearly evident that the exclamation, "It
is finished," [16] had reference to the suffering of the Son of God,
that it is not necessary to enter further into a refutation of the
claim that it means the revelation of God to man was finished.
Again it is contended that Paul predicted that prophecies should
cease: "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be
tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish
away." [17] Unfortunately, however, for those who see in this passage
a prophecy of the discontinuance of revelation, Paul tells us _when_
prophecy or revelation (for prophecy must needs always be founded on
revelation) will cease; that it is not in this mortal life, but "when
that which is perfect is come." "For we know in part and prophesy in
part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part
shall be done away. * * * For now we see through a glass darkly, but
then [when that which is perfect is come] face to face. Now I know
in part, but then [when that which is perfect is come] shall I know
even as I am known." [18] That this refers not to this life, where the
best and purest only see in part and know in part, but is to be looked
for in that future and perfect existence where men shall see as they
are seen and know as they are known, is too obvious to need comment.
That prophecy, and the revelation on which it is based, was designed
to continue with the saints in this mortal existence is evident from
the fact that in the opening verse of the succeeding chapter [19] the
apostle admonishes the saints to "follow after charity and desire
spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
The whole genius of the gospel contemplates continuous revelation in
the church; and so far is the Bible from justifying the belief that the
time will come when it will cease, that on the contrary it teaches that
revelation will increase more and more, especially becoming abundant in
the last days.
Revelation is the very "rock" or principle upon which the Church of
Christ is founded. "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" was the
abrupt question which Jesus once put to his disciples. The answers
given were varied. "But whom say ye that I am?" Then Peter answered:
"Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." "Blessed art thou
Simon Barjona," was the Lord's reply, "for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [20] That is as if
the Master had said: "Blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood hath
not revealed unto you that I am Christ, the Son of the living God, but
my Father which is in heaven; and I say unto thee, Peter, upon this
principle of revelation will I build my church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it."
This I hold to be the plain meaning of the passage, and not the
interpretation given it by the Catholic Church, which is as follows:
First let me remind the reader that when Peter was introduced by
his brother Andrew to the Lord Jesus, the latter said to Him: "Thou
art Simon, the son Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by
interpretation a stone." [21] Therefore when on the occasion above
referred to Jesus said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build
my church," Catholics say that "the words of Christ to Peter, spoken
in the vulgar language of the Jews * * * were the same as if he had
said in English: "Thou art a rock, and upon this rock will I build my
church," so that by plain course of the words, Peter is here declared
to be the rock upon which the church was to be built, Christ himself
being both the principal foundation and founder of the same." [22] But
this interpretation strikes wide of the real truth. To say the least
it is a far-fetched assumption to hold that Jesus when He addressed
Peter on this occasion had any reference to the name He had given
him on a former occasion, which, by interpretation, meant a stone.
If the Master meant to announce his intention to build his church on
Peter, one cannot refrain from asking why he did not explicitly say
so? The passage would then doubtless have read: "I say unto thee,
Peter, that thou art a stone, and upon _thee_ I will build my church."
Unfortunately for the Catholic contention such is not the reading,
and it is only by juggling with the words that such a meaning can be
read into the passage. The subject under consideration was not Peter,
but the principle upon which he had learned that Jesus was the Son of
God--revelation, and on that principle, and not on Peter, the Lord
promised to build his church.
But I said the whole genius of the gospel contemplates the continuation
of revelation--a statement incumbent upon me to prove. We have seen
that the Lord promised to build his church upon revelation. It is
the very life and light of it. The means by which it preserves its
correspondence with heaven, and learns the will of God under the
constantly varying conditions through which it is called to pass.
The means by which revelation may be communicated to the church or to
man are varied. Revelation may be given by direct communication with
God, as in the case when the Lord walked with Enoch, [23] or talked
face to face with Moses, as a man speaks to his friend. [24] Or it
may be by the ministrations of angels, of which we have numerous
instances, both in the Old and New Testaments; but more generally the
communication of God's will to man is through the medium of the Holy
Ghost.
No one can doubt that prophecy is based upon revelation. No man can
truthfully predict the future save God reveals it to him. "Prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man," writes Peter, "but holy men
of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost." [25] Again, in
further proof that the Holy Ghost is the means of revelation and the
source of prophecy--"When the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide
you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
he shall hear that he shall speak; and he will show you things to
come." [26] This Jesus said of the Holy Ghost. If anything were lacking
to prove that the Holy Ghost is a medium of revelation, the very spirit
of prophecy, it would be found in the following: "When the Comforter
is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." [27]
To this Paul agrees: "No man speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth
Jesus accursed, and no man can say that Jesus is the Christ but by the
Holy Ghost." [28] It is the Holy Ghost, then, that testifies that Jesus
is the Christ. Now mark what follows: An angel appeared to John, the
Apostle, on Patmos, "and," says John, "I fell at his feet to worship
him, and he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant,
and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: Worship God: for
the testimony of Jesus _is the spirit of prophecy._" [29] This is the
sum of my argument: The Holy Ghost testifies that Jesus is the Christ,
and that "testimony of Jesus" is the spirit of prophecy; and since
prophecy must of necessity be based on revelation, the "testimony of
Jesus"--the Holy Ghost must also be the spirit of revelation.
When Peter on the day of Pentecost preached the famous sermon by which
three thousand souls were converted, he made an unqualified promise
of the Holy Ghost unto all who would obey the gospel. Replying to the
cry of the multitude, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" he said:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." [30]
This simply means that the Holy Ghost is promised to all who will
obey the gospel. It was promised to those that were listening to the
apostle, to their children, to all that were afar off, not only as to
distance, but as to time; to those a hundred years off, five hundred,
or five thousand years off; "even to as many as the Lord our God shall
call"--that is, called to obedience to the gospel. It is a promise
that reaches our own generation as well as the first generation of the
Christian era.
We, then, are promised the Holy Ghost, the spirit of prophecy and of
revelation; and indeed we are instructed by the Master himself that
except we are born of the Spirit, that is, receive the Holy Ghost, we
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [31] So clearly is receiving the
Holy Ghost a part of the plan of salvation, that, so far as I know,
there is not a Christian sect or church, but teaches the necessity
and right and duty of the Christian to possess it. But oh, strange
inconsistency of apostate Christendom! While teaching that men must
be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and must possess it, and walk in the
light thereof, they deny to it the chiefest of its powers--revelation
and prophecy! Modern Christian teachers have dared, without the
warrant of divine authority, to divide the manifestations of the Holy
Ghost into "ordinary" and "extraordinary" powers; and then have had
the further presumption to tell us that the "ordinary" powers of the
Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,
faith, meekness, and temperance, are to remain with men; but the
"extraordinary" powers, such as revelation, prophecy, healing the sick,
discernment of spirits, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues,
etc., these are to be discontinued! Unhesitatingly I pronounce such
unwarranted assumption blasphemous!
Instead of trying to excuse the absence among them of the mighty powers
of the Holy Ghost as manifested anciently in revelation and prophecy,
by falsely saying it was the design of Almighty God that the Holy
Ghost should discontinue the exercise of these "extraordinary" powers,
the proper thing for Christendom to do would be to humble itself in
the dust, and confess that it has strayed from God's ordinances,
transgressed his laws, changed his ordinances, broken the covenant of
the gospel, blasphemously denied the powers of the Holy Ghost, because
in their apostate state they received not the manifestations thereof.
How absurd to contend that part of the powers of the Holy Ghost are to
be exercised and not the others! What a denying and splitting up of the
powers of God are here! One class of his powers to be exercised in one
age, but to lie dormant in another, and man presuming to tell which are
necessary to be active and which dormant!
So far from leading us to believe in the discontinuance of the
"extraordinary powers" of the Holy Ghost in the last days, the
teachings of scripture on the contrary lead us to expect an increase
of them. Peter in the sermon already referred to above, says, quoting
the prophet Joel: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith
God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions and your
old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens
I will pour out of my spirit and they shall prophesy; and I will show
wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood and fire
and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon
into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: and it
shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved." [32]
I know that the general understanding among Christians is that this
prophecy was fulfilled upon the occasion of the Holy Ghost being poured
out upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost; because, in replying to
the accusation of the multitude that the apostles who were speaking in
tongues were drunk, Peter said: "These are not drunken as ye suppose,
seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is _that_ which
was spoken by the Prophet Joel." Then follows the quotation already
given. But that Peter meant by this that the prophecy of Joel was
completely fulfilled is out of all harmony with the facts of the case.
First, Joel's prophecy relates to "the last days"--not to the days
in which Peter was living and speaking; second, according to Joel's
prophecy, the Spirit of God was to be poured out upon "all flesh;"
on the occasion of its outpouring on the day of Pentecost, it was
confined to twelve men; third, both the "sons and daughters" of the
people are to prophesy, according to Joel's prediction; young men are
to see visions; old men to dream dreams; and on his servants and his
handmaidens the Lord promises to pour out of his Spirit "and they shall
prophesy."
This describes so general an outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord upon
his people that the conditions existing on the day of Pentecost by no
manner of means fulfill the prophecy. What then could mean the saying
of Peter--"This is _that_ which was spoken by the prophet Joel?" It
means this: The Spirit that you here see manifestations of is that
Spirit spoken of by Joel that will eventually be poured out upon "all
flesh;" doubtless in that happy time spoken of by other prophets when
"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them. * * * They shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." [33] Then and not
till then will Joel's great prophecy have its complete fulfillment.
Moreover, connected with this outpouring of the Spirit of the Lord
upon all flesh in the last days, is the fact that God will also "show
wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood and fire
and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon
into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come;" but,
"whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved." These
judgments that are to be poured out upon the earth, together with the
mercy that shall be shown to those who turn to the Lord, are so nearly
identical with those which are described as preceding or connected with
the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus in the last days, [34] that
they must be the same; and these judgments, as also the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit of God upon all flesh, look to the last days, and
not to the days when Peter preached to the people, for their complete
fulfillment.
If we contemplate the Church of Christ as having existed, without a
moment's interruption from the time it was founded by the Savior and
his apostles until now, instead of losing or having any spiritual power
discontinued the Christians ought to have increased in the enjoyment
of them more and more. And instead of saying that the "extraordinary
powers" of the Holy Ghost have been discontinued, they ought to be
able to say the circle of those possessed of and able to employ all
the spiritual gifts of the gospel to their own and the salvation of
others, has been marvelously enlarged. The spirit of prophecy and
revelation, which, as we have seen, is the Holy Ghost, is absolutely
necessary in the church to call its officers. How else shall the church
have a divinely authorized ministry? How else shall men be called of
God as was Aaron? The church today has as much need of inspired men
able to say, separate unto the Lord such and such men for the work
whereunto God has called them, as it was for the church in Antioch, in
the early days of Christianity, to have prophets and teachers who, as
they ministered before the Lord and fasted, heard the Holy Ghost say,
"Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them." [35]
The spirit of prophecy and revelation is necessary in the church
to direct the officers thereof in the performance of their duties.
It is useless to contend that the directions given by the spirit
of revelation to the ancient servants of the Lord will answer for
God's ministry now. As well might it be argued that the miller today
could grind with the water which passed his mill-wheel yesterday.
The conditions under which the Church of Christ exists in various
ages are constantly changing; and the officers of the church always
require divine direction, which can only be supplied by revelation.
The revelations given to the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham and
Melchisedek were not esteemed sufficient to direct Moses in the
management of the dispensation committed to him. Nor were the numerous
revelations given to Moses sufficient to guide his successor, Joshua,
in leading Israel; but a means for obtaining the word of the Lord
was provided for him through the use of the Urim and Thummim, in the
hands of the high priest. So also the revelations given to Moses, to
Joshua and his successors, the judges and prophets of Israel, were
not considered sufficient to direct the labors of the apostles and
seventies and elders in the dispensation of the gospel introduced by
the Lord Jesus. Nor were the revelations given to the first apostle
sufficient to direct the labors of Paul and his associates in the
constantly changing circumstances in the midst of which they found
themselves. After having gone throughout Phrygia and the whole region
of Galatia, Paul, had he followed his own inclinations, would have gone
into Asia to preach; but he was forbidden of the Holy Ghost [36]--that
is, by revelation. Afterwards he would have gone into Bithynia, but the
Spirit suffered him not [37]--that is, gave a revelation forbidding
him to go into that land. Afterwards, through an inspired vision, he
was called into Macedonia, [38] and began that wonderful missionary
career which resulted in spreading a knowledge of the gospel throughout
Macedonia, Greece and the western division of the Roman empire. In like
manner, in all succeeding generations, and no less in our own than in
any that has preceded it, the ministry of the Church of Christ stands
absolutely in need of the spirit of prophecy and revelation to direct
its labors, if those labors are to be efficient and acceptable to God.
The spirit of prophecy and revelation is necessary in the church not
only to call its ministers and direct their labors but also to teach,
correct, reprove, comfort and warn the members thereof. How else shall
they be preserved from error in doctrine, and from the strife and
division consequent upon it? Man's ways are not as God's ways; and it
seems almost inherent in human nature to wander from the ways of the
Lord, to seek out many and strange inventions. Human wisdom is not
sufficient for this work of correcting errors and reproving saints;
for "the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God;" [39]
hence the necessity of the ministry of the church having the spirit of
prophecy and revelation.
And then, for another reason should the ministry of the church teach,
"not with the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of
the spirit and of power;" that the faith of the saints stand not in
"the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." [40]
Nor is it enough for the ministry to be inspired of God, the lay
members of the church no less than the ministry have a right to it--to
the people as well as to the priests is the Holy Ghost promised;
and the people have need of it as well as the ministry; for "the
natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are
spiritually discerned." [41] Hence the importance of those who listen
being inspired by the same spirit as those who teach. "It is written,"
says Paul, that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit;
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. * * *
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which
is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us
of God." [42] If thus the saints in primitive Christian times enjoyed
the spirit of revelation and of prophecy, why should not the saints
in all succeeding ages also enjoy it, since it is promised to them as
well as unto the first Christians, and God is no respecter of persons?
[43] Why should not Christians in all ages have the spirit of prophecy
to enlighten and comfort their souls and warn them of events to come?
But the argument is interminable, and I only desired to pursue it far
enough to prove that the whole genius of the gospel contemplates the
continuance of revelation.
How long I have delayed the direct consideration of my Thesis! The
foregoing remarks, however, were necessary since the belief that the
volume of scripture was completed and forever closed; that the voice
of prophecy is no more to be heard; that the visitation of angels is
not to be expected; that revelation has forever ceased--all stood as
so many obstacles to be removed before we could consider the direct
testimony supporting the proposition that the gospel in the last days
is to be restored to the earth by re-opening the heavens and giving
a new dispensation thereof to the children of men. But now all things
are ready. I have shown that since men corrupted and lost the gospel,
together with divine authority to administer its ordinances, the only
way to regain possession of it is by receiving a new dispensation
thereof through a revelation from God; that the sectarian teaching
that the volume of scripture is completed and closed is based upon
assumption merely; that the same sectarian teaching that revelation
and prophecy had ceased forever is equally false; on the contrary we
have seen that the very spirit and genius of the gospel contemplates
the continuation of revelation both to the church and to individuals;
therefore it can be neither unscriptural nor unreasonable to expect a
new revelation that will restore the gospel.
Footnotes
1. Mark xvi.
2. Matt. xxviii.
3. Acts xix.
4. See II. Samuel vi, in connection with Numb. iv, 5-15.
5. II. Chron. xxvi.
6. Heb. v: 1-4.
7. "And take unto thee Aaron, thy brother, and his sons with him, from
among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the
priest's office." _Word of the Lord to Moses,_ Ex. xxviii: 1.
8. John xv: 16.
9. Heb. v: 5, 6.
10. Rev. xxii: 18, 19.
11. Vide Biblical Literature (Kitto), Art. Book of Revelation.
12. Early Days of Christianity, ch. xxvii.
13. This would make the 1st Epistle of John the closing book of the
canon.
14. Deut, iv: 2.
15. Proverbs xxx: 6.
16. St. John xix: 30.
17. Corinth xiii: 8.
18. _Ibid,_ verse 9-12.
19. It should be remembered that the division of the Epistle, and for
that matter the whole of the New Testament, into chapters and verses
was not made by the writers of it, but is quite a modern work. The
verse with which the fourteenth chapter opens is a direct and close
continuation of the subject with which the thirteenth chapter closes,
and ought not to have been separated from it into another chapter. It
is an instance of how clumsily the work of dividing the New Testament
into chapters and verses was done.
20. Matt. xvi.
21. St. John i: 42.
22. Footnote in the Douay Bible on Matt. xvi: 17, 18.
23. Genesis v:24; Heb. xi: 5.
24. Exodus xxxiii: 11.
25. II Peter i: 20, 21.
26. John xvi: 13.
27. John xv: 26--Jesus to the apostles.
28. I Cor. xii.
29. Rev. xix: 10.
30. Acts ii: 38, 39.
31. John iii: 5.
32. Acts ii.
33. Isaiah xi.
34. See Matt. xxiv.
35. Acts xiii.
36. Acts xvi:6.
37. Acts xvi:7.
38. Acts xvi:9, 10.
39. I Cor. ii: 11.
40. I Cor. ii: 4, 5.
41. I Cor. ii: 14.
42. I Cor. ii: 9, 10, 12.
43. Rom. ii: 11.