HOW SHOULD WE TREAT A LETTER FROM HEAVEN?
By R. F. Cottrell
A LETTER from a friend we would try to read; and if we could not read it, it would be of no value to us. But men professing to receive the Bible as a revelation from Heaven, can yet speak of it as in the language following, which is taken from a commentary on the Scriptures. Of the book of Revelation this author says, “On comparing the affair of the book with Dan. 8 and 12, and Eze. 2 and 3, several things appear to be similar in both, but no exposition can be given of their meaning.” Again, “The remainder of the book has been, and continues to be, the source of controversy; and questions have been raised upon it that have distracted the Christian world. Into these we shall not enter, because we hold it to be quite impossible that mortal man can explain the mystery concealed under the apostle’s words.” Doubtless the writer of these extracts would not choose to be called an infidel. He may claim to believe that which he, or any other mortal man, cannot possibly understand; but if that is faith, it is certainly a blind faith. He might truly, and with reason, say that he does not understand it, and yet believes it will prove true and important, when its meaning comes to be developed; but to say that the great God has professedly given a revelation to mortal men which they cannot possibly understand, is so evidently an insult to the majesty of Heaven that it is truly marvelous and almost incredible that a pious person should offer it. Let us compare the words of the writer with what the Spirit of God testifies concerning this same book of Revelation. The writer says, “We hold it to be quite impossible that mortal man can explain the mystery concealed under the apostle’s words.” But the Heaven-inspired title of the book itself is, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” If we can rely upon the testimony of the book itself, it is a revelation, and not a mystery; and instead of its meaning being concealed from every mortal man, it was given for the express purpose of showing, i. e., making known, to the servants of God, future events. Moreover, the especial blessing of Heaven is pronounced in verse 3, upon those that read and hear “the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.” Now, what blessing can come from reading and hearing that which we cannot possibly understand? and how can we keep or obey the things written, when we do not know what they are? For example: How can we keep the commandments of God, and avoid the mark of the beast, of chap. 14: 9–12, while it is utterly impossible for us to know what these things mean? Yet the severest penalty is threatened against those who do not heed the warning and comply with the requisition. On the supposition that these things cannot be understood, how can the justice of God be vindicated? Will God punish men for doing or not doing things the meaning of which is “concealed,” or designedly hidden from them, so that it is “quite impossible” for them to understand the meaning? Did the writer realize that his position impeaches the justice of God? I presume not. Yet this is a logical sequence of his position. But the writer evidently takes his position to avoid taking any part in controversies and questions that “have distracted the Christian world.” And doubtless he thought his position was pious toward God, as well as charitable toward men. He does not name the questions and controversies to which he alludes; but it is most reasonable to infer that they are those questions that have arisen from the fact that the great apostasy of the church of this dispensation is described in the book of Revelation under the symbols of a wicked city and a corrupt woman, to which is applied the significant title of Babylon, because it is “the city of confusion.” Protestants perhaps might agree to refer this to the corrupt church of Rome, which is so evidently and conspicuously described as the mother of harlots, but for the unavoidable, logical conclusion that if she is the mother of harlots, she must have daughters answering to this descriptive title. Shall we, to avoid controversy, ignore the fact of the great apostasy, so plainly foretold, not only in the book of Revelation, but in the letters of the apostles? Shall we, to heal the distractions of the Christian world, caused by this apostasy, charitably throw the mantle of union over the corrupt and blasphemous mother, in order to screen her daughters? Would it not be better to own the prophecies are true; that there has been an apostasy as foretold, at the head of which stands the Roman church as the mother of abominations, and that “all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,” Protestant Christendom not being exempt from a share in her false doctrines and evil customs? Is it piety toward God to cast aside his word as useless, because a supposed charity toward men seems to demand it? And is it truly charity to the souls of men to smooth over and hide from their view the foretold and fulfilled fact of the great and world-wide apostasy of the professed people of God, flattering them that all is well, that the wound is healed, while gangrene and corruption still lie concealed at the bottom? Better to let the true state of the case be known, that the well-disposed and honest-hearted may escape. Better to let the word of God be true, though it condemn all men as liars. Better reverently read the letter from Heaven, heed its warnings, obey its requirements, and enjoy the promised blessing.