THE PROPHETIC CONFERENCE.
By L. C. Rogers
The following article from the pen of Eld. L. C. Rogers, Seventh-day Baptist, which we take from the Sabbath Recorder of Dec. 5, 1878, will be of interest to our readers:— The Prophetic Conference was, as our editor remarks in the issue of Nov. 14, “a meeting of great interest;” and he adds: “We should be glad to give our readers a full account of the meeting, including the speeches made, but the want of space forbids this.” As an abstract will surmount the “want of space,” and be at the same time the fairest exponent of the Conference, we act accordingly, availing ourselves of the files of the New York Daily Tribune. The point to be reached is, What did the Conference say and do? Let them speak for themselves. Their use of the word “imminent,” as applied to the coming of Christ, seems to be, that this event is contingent, and might have occurred before this time. “That he [Christ] will come before many years,” the Independent in an editorial claims to be an integral part of the premillennarian doctrine. This is a mistake. That some of this school, and some who are not, believe in the soon-coming of Christ may be true. The following propositions were unanimously adopted by the Conference:— 1. We affirm our belief in the supreme and absolute authority of the written word of God on all questions of doctrine and duty. 2. The prophetic words of the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ were literally fulfilled in his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension; and so the prophetic words of both the Old and the New Testament concerning his second coming will be literally fulfilled in his visible, bodily return to this earth in like manner as he went up into Heaven; and this glorious epiphany of the great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, is the blessed hope of the believer and of the church during this entire dispensation. 3. This second coming of the Lord Jesus is everywhere in the Scriptures represented as imminent, and may occur at any moment; yet the precise day and hour thereof is unknown to man and known only to God. 4. The Scriptures nowhere teach that the whole world will be converted to God, or that there will be a reign of universal righteousness and peace before the return of our blessed Lord; but that only at and by his coming in power and glory will the prophecies concerning the progress of evil, and the development of Antichrist; the times of the Gentiles, and the ingathering of Israel; the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the transfiguration of his living saints, receive their fulfillment, and the period of millennial blessedness its inauguration. 5. The duty of the church during the absence of the Bridegroom is to watch and pray, to work, and wait, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and thus hasten the coming of the day of God; and to his latest promise—“Surely, I come quickly”—to respond, in joyous hope, “Even so; come, Lord Jesus.” The first affirmation above is timely and refreshing. On this basis we ask to meet the framers of this document, to discuss the claims of the Bible Sabbath. It may be of interest to some to know who they are. The following resolution explains:— Resolved, That a committee consisting of Willis Lord, D. D., of Columbus, Ohio; A. W. Pitzen, D. D., of Washington City; D. C. Marquis, D. D., of St. Louis; Julius W. Grannerd, D. D., of Baltimore; B. B. Leacock, D. D., of Newburgh; A. M. Morrison, D. D., of Philadelphia; W. R. Gordon, of New Jersey; J. J. Miller, of Berlin; Isaac H. Holdeman, of Wilmington; Myron Adams, of Rochester, and Jesse Gilbert, of Newark, be appointed to prepare a brief paper embodying the views of this Conference on the subjects presented during this meeting, and to report at this evening's session. Professor George Duffield, D. D., of Princeton College, read a paper before the Conference. The following are the points of his argument:— Premillennarians believe that a millennial era of righteousness and peace on earth before the advent is not to be expected, for the following reasons:— Were the doctrine true, it would undoubtedly be prominent in the New Testament. It is not only not prominent, but neither Christ nor the apostles make any allusion to it. The uniform and abundant teaching as to the relation of the church to the world during the present dispensation is inconsistent with the common doctrine representing the millennium. The advent—not the millennium—is prominently presented in the New Testament as “the blessed hope” of the church, and is uniformly referred to as an event ever imminent—to be “looked for” with longing expectation. The Saviour's repeated command to “watch” for his coming, because we “know not the hour,” is inconsistent with the idea of a millennium intervening. The New Testament teaches repeatedly and unequivocally that the manifestation of the Messianic kingdom, and the advent, are synchronous events. The apostolic church was premillennarian, as was the church for more than two centuries immediately succeeding the apostles. The doctrine of a millennium before the advent is not to be found in the standards of any of the churches of the Reformation. By several of the confessions, as well as by the prominent reformers individually, it was expressly repudiated. It is a novelty in the history of the church suggested only one hundred and fifty years ago, and avowed by its authors as “a new hypothesis.” Dr. Rufus W. Clark (Reformed,) read a paper on “Christ's Coming; the Blessed Hope as a Motive to Holy Living and Active Labor.” He said:— St. Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, speaks of the Christian as waiting with joy for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. This passage may be regarded as an epitome of the exhortations, doctrines, duties, and hopes that abound in the Holy Scriptures in connection with the coming of our blessed Lord. There is not a doctrine of Christianity upon which the light of this great truth does not shine, and which it does not render more important and luminous by its radiance. There is not a duty pertaining to the Christian life that is not quickened and rendered more imperative by its power. There is not a virtue that it does not call into the highest exercise; not a motive in the human heart that it does not purify and strengthen; not a hope for the future that it does not kindle with a new and celestial fire. In view of our appearing with Christ in glory, we are required to mortify the lusts of the flesh. This doctrine is presented by the apostle Peter as the great support under trials and persecutions. Paul presents the announcement of the coming of Christ from Heaven as a source of comfort. “Therefore comfort one another with these words.” Our doctrine is a powerful incentive to fidelity in the outward activities of the Christian life. It is thus presented in several parables of our Lord. Watchfulness in connection with our Lord's coming, is presented by Christ to his church as an important duty, in language indicating the deepest earnestness and solicitude. “Watch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.” By the side of these glowing words of faith and practice, how cold and carnal appear the words of the Independent's editorial comment: “When the Lord will come, and how, is no concern of ours.” This sentence embodies the faith, undoubtedly, of very many in the dominant denominations, and of some in the smaller ones, and fully justifies the calling of the Prophetic Conference. I wonder if facts will justify the Independent's fling at the evangelists: “Some who did not take part were by their absence conspicuously present in spirit; we mean such men as Mr. Moody and Mr. Pentecost, who remained away simply because their presence might affect their work as evangelists.” And what a travesty of Scripture as well as of the Conference are the closing sentences of the Independent's synopsis: “There is a difference as to some points—as, for example, the amount of turbulence and bloodshed to follow the reappearance of Christ on the earth, and the ‘rapture’ of his saints in the sky.” What a cynical sneer is apparent in the quotation marks around the word rapture, and which is partially confessed a moment after. “We would not peer curiously into those closed leaves, into which the favorite angel dares not pry. But if others think that large thought and instruction is to be got from the prophecies, we would not seem to treat them with disrespect.” The above view and treatment of prophecy does not harmonize with my view of Scripture. See 2 Peter 1:19–21.