FROM

"THE BIBLE, I SAY THE BIBLE, ONLY, IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS."--Chillingworth.
VOL. III.	PITTSBURGH, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 23, 1847.	NO. 29.

From the Advent Herald.      

      Mr. Editor:--Having read your paper for some time past, I have judged you to be sincerely desirous to promote truth. Hence, I believe that you will rejoice to see pointed out, and to retract any error into which you may have inadvertently fallen. In your paper of May 1st, the following passage occurs--

      'The great difficulty in the principles of interpretation on the part of those who contend for the Jews' return is--1st. The do not admit the full force of the New Testament expositions of the Old Testament Scriptures. 2d. They do not carefully distinguish between the conditional and unconditional promises. 3d. They limit the promises of the eternal state, to a limited and probationary state. And 4th. They do not carefully distinguish between the prophecies which refer to the Second Advent, and those that had respect to the First Advent.'

      1. This 'great difficulty' relates to 'principles of interpretation' on our part. These principles you proceed to specify. Let us look at them. I think a moment's reflection will satisfy you that you are in error. 'They do not admit the full force of the New Testament expositions of the Old Testament Scriptures.' The truth is, we differ in opinion as to what the full force is. But do you really believe, that it is a principle of ours not to admit the 'full force,' as we understand it? If so, you think very incorrectly. If not, what has the 'great difficulty' to do with 'principles of interpretation?' 'They do not carefully distinguish,' &c. We differ from you, it is true, as to what is conditional, but that this is a false principle of interpretation of ours, is not true. We 'distinguish' as carefully as you do. 'They limit,' &c. We may differ from you, perhaps, as to what promises do related to the eternal state. But that we limit any such, on 'principle,' to a probationary state, is not true. 'They do not carefully,' &c. On the contrary, there is no principle of interpretation on which we more strenuously insist. It is true, we may differ from you as to which prophecies do relate to the first advent; but this is not a difficulty of 'principle.' Hence, unless you are prepared to show, that diversity of opinion as to the particular application of principle, is equivalent to a denial of the principles themselves, you will confess, I trust, that the statement quoted above, is so far entirely erroneous.

      I will suppose, however, that you merely meant to say, that, entertaining the same 'principles' with you, we do not correctly apply them in the specified particulars. I will offer one or two brief specimens, to show what we do.

      I admit as strongly as you, that all are not Israel, that are of Israel. That the only spiritual Israel, or 'Abraham's seed' by faith, are 'joint heirs with Christ.' And that is to membership in the 'body of Christ'--in the 'bride, the Lamb's wife,' there is no difference between Jew or Gentile. So far as this is concerned, I apprehend Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, are as forcible to me as to you.

      We differ as to New Testament expositions of Old Testament prophecies, touching the 'remnant of men,' after this 'Abraham's seed by faith,' shall have been taken out. After that 'people to his name' is gathered out, election finished, the 'pleroma' of the Gentiles come in, the Son of God manifested. You think that remnant will be burnt up, without exception. We think that, though there will be great destruction of life, there will be 'those that escape of them,' and that they will be sent to nations that have not heard God's fame, nor seen his glory. Isaiah 56:12-21. And we think that that 'remnant of men,' will seek 'after the Lord.' Such as the New Testament exposition. Acts 15:14-17. Of Amos 9:9--viz:--

      When God builds again the Tabernacle of David, there must be a 'residue of men and of Gentiles' to seek unto it.

      That residue implies a previous election to have been taken out from the Gentiles.

      That taking the Apostle James, shows to be the Old Testament idea of the present dispensation.

      But when the election is thus taken out, at the end of the present dispensation, the 'building again the tabernacle of David' can mean nothing more nor less than the restoration of the Jewish 'residue.' It remains to be ascertained, then, who it is that does not admit the full force of the New Testament exposition of Old Testament prophecies.

      2. As to conditional and unconditional promises. There is a conditional promise recorded in Deut. 30:1-9, worthy of attentive consideration. In the 28th chapter, Moses had given that fearful outline of Jewish history, which comes down past the destruction of their city by Titus, and fearfully exhibits their history since, and their present condition. In this chapter he makes a condition and a promise, viz: repentance and obedience, verse 1 and 2; and the promised restoration. As to this repentance, Paul expressly informs us, that it shall happen after the 'pleroma' of the Gentiles (or the election) is come in. Romans 11:25. Now mark the promises: 'And the Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land for good: for the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over they fathers.'

      Now, either there shall be marrying and given in marriage in the resurrection, or else the 'residue,' after the election is taken out, must return to Palestine.

      Of unconditional promises, I will give you Ezekiel 44:9--'Thus saith the Lord, no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, not uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.' Now either this whole description has been fulfilled, or, there shall 'be a residue' of Jews in the flesh, after the coming of the 'glory of the Lord;' or, there will be 'flesh and blood' among the resurrection saints.

      3. As to limitation of the prophecies of an eternal state. I will give but one specimen. In the reign of the last prince of David's line, the Holy Ghost said: 'And thou profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God; remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.' Ezekiel 21:25-27. Compare Isaiah 9:7--'Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever;' also Isaiah 65:21--'And they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them;' 'They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble.' Or, as it may be rendered, 'not generate a short-lived race.'

      Now, these prophecies I contend, indicate a temporary condition, viz: a condition of flesh and blood, on the part of a portion of the earth's inhabitants. Do I therefore limit them from an eternal state? No. For under the eternal state, there will be temporary organizations; else, how can there be increase with no end? The truth is, you cannot harmonize 'all that the prophets have spoken,' without admitting the co-existence on earth of two orders (Absurd though you have pronounced it;) the one--the 'order of Melchisedec,' typified by the white-robed Aaronic family of priests; the other, the Jewish residue of flesh and blood, typified by the Levites, who were given to the priests for ministers. Thus, in the Levitical institution, you have a symbolid mycrocosm:--

      4. Finally, as to distinguishing carefully between prophecies of the first and second advents, I will give you Zechariah 14: That the 4th verse sufficiently identifies this with the second advent I presume you will not wish to deny,--'And his feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof towards the east and towards the west,' &c. Certainly nothing like this occurred at the first advent. So verse 5--'The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.' So also verse 6 and 7 can refer only to Christ's final coming. Return then to verses 1 and 2. What city is this? Here 'all nations' are gathered to battle against 'Jerusalem.' The city is taken, houses rifled, and women ravished. Half the population carried captive; the residue left in the city. Now, then, either this was fulfilled under Titus, which will be hard to show; or, it must be fulfilled spiritually; and if so so may this, and many other promises of the coming of the Lord; or, there may be a 'residue' of the Jews, and a Jerusalem in existence after 'all the saints' have been 'caught up to meet the Lord in the air,' and accompany his descent on Olives' top.

      Thus it is a question to be settled, whether it is you, or 'those who contend for the Jews' return,' who are in error in the four points specified in the application of principles equally cherished by both.

      Affectionately yours, in the patient waiting for Christ.

["Letter from Rev. Charles Beecher." The Protestant Unionist, 1 (June 23, 1847): 113.]

      Charles Beecher's "Letter from Rev. Charles Beecher" was first published in The Protestant Unionist, Vol. 3, No. 29, June 23, 1847. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from microfilm of the newspaper.

      Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 113:    give it him. [ give it him.'
            'all the saints [ 'all the saints'
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik

Created 14 January 2003.