Premillennial Adventism.
By James White
The term which Henry Cowles, D. D., uses to express the scriptural view of the second advent, which view he opposes in the Interior for April 26, is Premillennial Adventism. Adventists affirm that Christ will come before the millennium. Their opponents deny; but there is no definite agreement among them that the second advent will occur at the close of the millennium, or how, if ever, such an advent is to take place. Two points which Dr. Cowles makes against the premillennial second advent of Christ we briefly notice. He affirms (1) that “For the honor of God it cannot be true, and ought not to be true.” And (2) “For the veracity of God it cannot be true.” The learned doctor represents Christ and Satan on a strife for numbers; and for the honor of God, Christ should have the most. Should Christ come before the millennium, he concludes, to use his own words: “Only a most meager minority in numbers are rescued by the world’s great Redeemer.” Without doubt the Universalist would suggest that Mr. Cowles reflects dishonor unspeakable upon Christ’s work for more than eighteen centuries already past, or, as we might say, for six thousand years, in rescuing only a most meager minority. For the honor of God he would have them all saved. Why not be as jealous of the honor of God in the past as in the future? But the Son of God did not dishonor himself and the scheme of his saving grace by placing himself on a strife with Satan for numbers. If any such motive could enter into the plan of the Infinite One, he could as well save all men. This very question was up before the Master, however, in the days of his flesh. “Lord, are there few that be saved?” inquired one of his disciples. “And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:23, 24. But this question of numbers is more definitely answered in Matt. 7:13, 14: “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Christ here states that which had been true in the history of past ages, that which was true in his day, and which would be true to the close of human probation. The Son of God did not enter the strife with Satan for numbers. There are two views of this question of numbers, both directly opposed to the words of Christ, which start in differently, but end alike. They are the views of the premillennialist and the Universalist. While the premillennialist has the way so narrow that, to use Dr. Cowles’ words again, “only a most meager minority” pass over it for the first six thousand years of human probation, and then from some indefinite point widen so as to embrace a converted world, the Universalist has the way, from beginning to end, wide enough for all mankind. But unfortunately for these pleasing fables, the words of Christ demolish them both at a single stroke. The many go in the broad way; the few in the narrow way, and there is not a single intimation from Christ or his apostles of any change at any future time from this decision. “The second chief objection to this theory,” says the learned Dr. Cowles, “is that for the veracity of God it cannot be true. If God’s word is to stand, this theory must go down. Ages ago the infinite Father said through his prophet David, Ps. 2:8, to his Son: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Here Mr. Cowles stops short with David, without note, comment, further quotation, or any statement whatever showing for what purpose the heathen were to be given to Christ. And why did he stop with verse 8? He well knew that verse 9 would express his false application of verse 8. In quoting verse 8 alone, he presumes astonishingly upon the ignorance and credulity of the readers of the Interior. But the “Infinite Father” has not left this matter where Dr. Cowles has. In the very next verse the destiny of heathen lands at the consummation is given in these words: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Dr. Cowles will not, for a moment, maintain that the strong expressions—“break them with a rod of iron”—“dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel”—mean conversion. He will find less difficulty in the milder expression of Paul—“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly”—in proving the conversion of the devil, than in proving the conversion of the heathen by Ps. 2:8, 9. It is by means of partial quotations, and garbling the words of God’s prophets, that Dr. Cowles opposes the premillennial second advent of the Son of God. And it is a remarkable fact that on this division of his second paper, in laboring to sustain his position from the Bible, he does not make a single quotation from the words of Christ and his apostles.