THE INTERNATIONAL PROPHETIC CONFERENCE.
By F. C. Gilbert
Boston, Mass., Dec. 10-15. Boston, the seat of learning, the center of culture and refinement of New England, the city of religious devotion and influence, has just had held in her midst a convention which will certainly go down into history as one long to be remembered. The Clarendon Street Baptist Church,—the walls of which for nearly three decades echoed with the sound of the beloved Dr. A. J. Gordon, that devoted servant of Christ, that conscientious Christian gentleman, that friend to everybody, the great lover of the “blessed hope” of Christ’s soon coming,—for five days successively heard from the voices of many persons some of the teachings of Jesus concerning His coming again to this earth. While we are sure, had Dr. Gordon, the beloved pastor, been alive, he would have dissented from much that was set forth by many of the speakers and writers, still he too would have been glad to witness the efforts put forth to revive the people to a more reverent study of the prophecies of the Bible, particularly those portions which relate to the coming of our blessed Lord. It was a cosmopolitan gathering, having among its speakers Henry Varley from Australia and England; Dr. Sholto Douglass from Scotland; Dr. Elmore Harris from Toronto, Ontario; several other prominent speakers from various parts of the United States; as well as a number of interesting and scholarly papers from such men as Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D., and Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, M. A., Oxford, England. One also from the learned Bishop Niles, D. D., bishop of New Hampshire. Hundreds, yes thousands, of visitors attended the conference from near and from far, some of the far Western States being well represented, as well as the Southern States. The prime object of the conference was to study prophecy; the prophecies of the past with their past fulfilment; prophecies of the future, their fulfilment yet to come; prophecies concerning the present time, which concern both the church, the world, and the nations of earth in their national and political capacity. Still the kernel thought seemed to be the prophecies which portray the coming again of the blessed Lord,—the manner, the result, the prospect. It was also the intention of the conference to have the people see the practical bearing of the truth of the coming of the Lord on the pure living of the Christian, thus making the second advent an incentive to the children of God to “live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2: 11-13. In connection with this phase of the doctrine the dogmatic truth was also to be presented, that the church might see the relation between the two; thus showing the importance of studying and believing what the Bible terms “doctrine.” While the speakers of the Conference did not contribute much toward the advancement of the former, they most certainly did their best, most of them at least, to impress the latter phase; for aside from two or three practical and spiritual discourses preached by Evangelist L. Broughton, the papers and essays, either delivered or written, were almost altogether theoretical, putting forth the ideas and theories of the different authors. While much time and study had been given by the speakers to the topics assigned each, it might be expected that every man had his own psalm, his own shade of belief, his own peculiar ideas, his own form of doctrine. And as we might expect, every one was sure and positive that his view of the prophecy on the given point under consideration, was the correct one. From the foregoing the reader will not be surprised at the statement the chairman of the meeting made, the closing evening of the conference, when giving a summary of thoughts concerning the previous few days’ work:—6 (22)There has been such blessed unity, and so much diversity; the conference was one of great certainty, as well as of much uncertainty. There were about a score of things upon which the brethren differed. While a large number of the people were much pleased and gratified at the eloquence and scholarship of the speakers and of the papers read, a great many were perplexed at the results attained. The people could not take away with them a representative thought of the conference on prophecy nor on the coming of the Lord, save that prophecy was true, and that the Lord would come sometime. To some “it was as clear as mud,” as the people were heard to remark; to others “there were so many perplexities involved.” There was one thing with which the writer was very much impressed during the entire conference, and that was the earnestness there seemed to be on the part of many to impart to others what they themselves believed to be true, and their strong and vehement desire to have the people believe those things, and know that that was what the Scriptures taught on those points under consideration. Still earnestness, nor scholarship, nor learning, nor eloquence, nor great productions, are evidences of the simple truth of the Word of God; all these may be achieved, yet the truth of the blessed Bible be left out, and error be imparted. The Jews were always in earnest, and are to this day; still their zeal did not save them from rejecting their Messiah, and crucifying their Lord. Their successors were well qualified to their own liking by their learning and scholarship of the Scriptures, still it did not save them from putting Stephen to death, and always rejecting the Gospel of Christ, ever persecuting those who would believe. As Paul says of his brethren, “They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” The particular ideas and theories of the different writers and speakers will be noticed in future articles, considered by themselves; and will be compared with the Scriptures of truth. It is one thing to divide the Word of God; another thing to rightly divide the Word of Truth. And this latter thought was evidently lacking in a great many, tho we have no doubt they presented the best they had. In all this diversity of opinions there were three things in which there was the greatest unity of sentiment, tho the writer is assured there were a few who even dissented from these, but very few, however. The three points of unison were: The second coming of Christ to this earth again; the millennial reign of Christ on this earth, or a thousand years of righteous rule in this world with the saints and Israelites as the leaders; the literal restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. Still in the application of the time and manner of these events all were not united; tho the sentiment was generally recognized by nearly all. That which would bring about the coming of the Lord was recognition of the fact that Israel would be renationalized, and the literal seed of Abraham made the world rulers. In other words, the thought which was made most prominent in the entire conference was that the coming of the Lord was so intricately interwoven with the literal restoration of Israel; that if the one did not happen the other would not occur, and the success of the one depended on the other. The basis, the foundation, the root, the subsoil, the underlying rock-bottom thought of the entire structure of the combined ideas of the conference was the “return of the Jews.” This being so, it is evident to the writer why many went away disappointed, and did not get what they anticipated. This is not the first time that people who believed in this same doctrine have been disappointed in not seeing their hopes realized. The disciples of Jesus were disappointed; Jesus was disappointed in His disciples because of their belief in it; many of the early church were disappointed by it; for nearly two millenniums the scattered, the broken, and the peeled Jews have been disappointed, and thousands more will yet be disappointed who believe or who will believe that the Jews as a nation are to be restored to the literal country of Palestine. No person loves the Jews more than the writer; few people have affiliated more with them than he has; many a prayer has he united with them that “the year to come he might be in Jerusalem;” few have hoped and prayed and longed more than he has that the weeping city might once again be turned into joy and gladness; yet when the blessed Lord Jesus opened his eyes to see the truth as it is in Him, and illuminated the blessed words of Holy Writ, he discovered that the sweets of salvation were in Jesus Christ, and in Him only; that the restoration was to be through Christ and in the “Israel of God;” and to this blessed thought and truth he felt that he must confine himself as the words of eternal truth. This was what Paul believed and taught; this is the blessed truth for the present time. When we get our eyes off from the literal Jerusalem, and place them on the Jerusalem which is above, which is free, which is the mother of us all, we shall then have larger and broader views of Jerusalem and its promises than we now have. Much more will be said on this point later. One very interesting feature of the conference was the questions and answers, considered at the morning sessions. Many answers shed light on the Scriptures; others were quite mystical; and to some no answer was suggested. It was evident that the answers of those apparently difficult questions might have been as clear as the noon-day sun, if only the Word of God had been considered from its true standpoint, instead of from the viewpoint of the literal restoration. One thing is certain—the conference must have stimulated many to a more personal study of the Word of God, and a stronger desire to know the truth as it is in Christ; to ascertain the sweet and blessed harmony on the many prophecies for these days, that the people may be prepared for the glorious appearing of the blessed Lord. We were glad for the many good things presented; we wish many more might have been; we pray that many souls may be led to see the whole truth, and thus escape the many errors which are possible from some of the views presented. More upon the papers and speeches in future articles. F. C. GILBERT.