Objections to Prophetic Studies.
IN these last days it is considered, in certain circles, a part of polite breeding to be skeptical. Prophetic subjects, more particularly, afford to the unholy and worldly an inexhaustible source of jest and merriment. It is, therefore, all the more lamentable to find among the truly pious so much dislike to the study of these departments of Revelation. Wherever this dislike is honest, it arises either from ignorance or prejudice. Such persons fear that the truth will suffer by the views of orthodox Christians becoming unsettled, and by "visionary notions" (as the phrase goes) taking the place of sound doctrine, and by "idle speculation" leading "simple souls" astray. It might be sufficient to reply that Scripture authoritatively forbids such inferences, by recommending and commanding the study. We would urgently ask all such persons before again venturing to express such opinions, founded on hearsay, honestly to examine the subject, and let it stand or fall by its own merits. Until the objector has done this—which is rarely the case with objectors—he has no right to say anything respecting the matter. There are, however, certain "standard" objections, not very definite in shape or specific in form, which yet pass for wisdom in theological schools and in the religious phraseology of the day, and which, though greatly relied upon and important in the estimation of superficial thinkers, have really no force at all. This may be seen from the following adaptations of a few extracts from a recent writer, which we commend to the candid and reflecting. For, whilst some of our readers are familiar with prophetic inquiry, and the arguments in the case, not a few, perhaps, meet with millenarian truth for the first time in our serial. "Have I any business to meddle with those parts of the word of God which relate to the future?" Strange as it may seem, this question has been agitated in the Christian church, and a great majority seem to have decided it in the negative. As, however, we must inevitably break through rules laid down by those who speak as if they had authority, and who manifest great anger when they are disobeyed, we will briefly state our reasons for paying no attention to their prohibition. We confess, considering how much of the word of God is acknowledged by all Christians to be prophetic, it seems strange that such a question should ever have arisen. Knowing that "all scripture is given by inspiration," and that all is "profitable for instruction in righteousness," we think we must admit that all ought to be read and studied by him who professes to receive the Scriptures as the word of God. This, indeed, is admitted in general terms by most Christians; and we never met with any man, professing to be a disciple of Christ, who would have taken upon himself the responsibility of marking out those parts of the Bible which a Christian should omit. But we have met with many who have so stated the matter as virtually to negative all the particulars of their general admission. The reader has probably met with persons professing religion, openly avowing that they never attempted to understand those prophecies which they consider as unfulfilled,—who told with complacency that they never studied them, and took credit to themselves for their forbearance. It is natural that such should desire to dissuade others from that which they avoid themselves. And to this end maxims have been framed, and repeated till they have become current, and which are frequently used by those who in honesty, must admit, that they have never attempted to understand a great part of revealed truth; that they consider it a very difficult business; that they have been so engaged with other matters, that, far from knowing how much might be learned on such points, they have never once seriously reflected how far it was a matter of duty or wisdom to see whether anything was to be learned or not! On some of these maxims we would offer a few remarks, because, when they are uttered with gravity, they are apt to impose on simple readers. 1. We are sometimes told that "we ought not to attempt to pry into things which are not revealed." Why, no, to be sure; we ought not to attend to do anything which common sense at once pronounces to be impossible. If anything is not revealed, we do not understand how we can pry into it; and it is a foolish waste of time to attempt it. But will the persons who deliver this maxim undertake to say what is, and what is not revealed? Unless they can do this, however magisterially they may affirm the proposition, it is altogether inconsequent; at all events, it does not apply to him who is searching the Scriptures to discover what is revealed; and who is not likely to find, or to seek what is not revealed. 2. It is urged by those who desire to dissuade from the study of prophecy, "that it is not the most important study—not the most essential—not the most profitable." Suppose we should grant this. Surely, if to ascertain the meaning of prophecies which the Spirit of God has vouchsafed to give, be not the first and most important duty of man, it is, at least, as important, and as profitable as many of the pursuits of those who use the argument. Will they deny this? Will they say that their minds are so constantly engaged in the contemplation of what they consider the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, as that they never look at secular literature; and would feel that they were committing a sinful waste of time if they gave an hour occasionally to a work on history or science, or even to a poem or a pamphlet? Nay, we must go further. We ask the reader, who may be inclined to argue in this way, we ask him on his conscience—whether he is as well acquainted with the books of the prophets, and as capable of judging what is and what is not revealed in them, or what profit may be got by reading them, as he would be if he had given to them as much time as he has given to the newspaper? We fear there is awful hypocrisy in the matter. To come to the point, however. Is it true that unfulfilled prophecies are among what may be termed the less profitable subjects for Christian discussion. Do not some of the subjects which are most frequently brought forward, and are considered as of the utmost importance, rest entirely on unfulfilled prophecy? On what ground does any preacher venture to tell his hearers that they shall rise from the dead, and that the Son of God shall come to judgment? Yet these truths, resting wholly and entirely on unfulfilled prophecy, are, and ought to be published; and if any man discourages the reader of Scripture from searching what God may have revealed on these points, by telling him that he is not to pry into futurity, not to indulge his curiosity about the fulfilment of unaccomplished prophecy, we venture to say that he does all he can to intercept the light of God's truth, and to make his79word of none effect; and he does it at his peril. Plain, obvious, and certain, as he may think these things to be, he can produce no warrant for preaching them but his own conviction that they are predicted in certain unfulfilled prophecies. The truth, then, seems to be that there are some unfulfilled prophecies which Christians in general find to be profitable; and we would suggest whether, instead of saying that they do not study other prophecies because they are unprofitable, they ought not rather to say that those prophecies are unprofitable because they do not study them. The plain statement of the word of God, is, that "all scripture is profitable;" and if any man finds it otherwise, it will be his safest way to take the blame to himself. 3. It is often said: "The prophecies were not intended to make us prophets." If these words are to be taken quite strictly, they are certainly true; and we do not know that any man ever pretended that by studying the prophecies he had obtained the gift of prophecy. If there has been any such person, he has been sadly mistaken. If, however, it is meant that prophecy was not given in order that we might foreknow and predict future events,—it is not true. Yet, from a sort of confused mixture of these two ideas, this saying has been supposed to contain much wisdom, and some wit, instead of being seen to be either a mere truism, or a barefaced falsehood. A distinguished writer on the Apocalypse has said: "The folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by this prophecy, as if God intended to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the prophecy also into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise: he gave this and the prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreter's, be then manifested thereby to the world." This passage has been quoted over and over again, whenever it has been thought fit to rebuke any interpreter of prophecy, until it has become familiar to most readers. Notwithstanding, however, our respect for Sir Isaac Newton, and for those who have supposed that what he said might be safely repeated, we must declare our conviction that this statement is false and mischievous. The desire which God has implanted in the soul of man of searching out his own destiny, especially while he seeks to gratify it at the pure fountain of revelation, is most unjustly called curiosity, if by that term we are to understand anything which it is certain that the Author of revelation could not intend to encourage by revealing himself and his counsels to man. Beside this, however, we venture to say that it is not true—nay, it is most openly and absurdly untrue—to say that "the prophecies were not given to enable men to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled, they might be interpreted by the event." Let us try the truth of this statement by one or two prophecies, fulfilled and unfulfilled. Was the prophecy of the deluge given only that after it had been fulfilled it might be interpreted by the event? Or was it given that men might foreknow the Divine purpose? When a Divine revelation had been given to Noah in order that he might be, in the true sense of the word, a prophet, were those who heard him to forbear repeating his words, under pain of being sneered at, as "prophets?" Again, were the prophecies of Messiah's first advent given only that they might be "interpreted by the event?" Did not God vouchsafe those prophecies to gratify the "curiosity" (if he it must be called) of those who waited for the consolation of Israel, and to enable them to foreknow the things belonging to their peace? Were the prophecies which our Lord uttered, only to be "interpreted by the event," in order that his own providence might be manifested; or did he mean his disciples to foreknow that they should be beaten in synagogues, and brought before kings and rulers for his sake? Was our Lord's prophecy of false prophets, only intended to show his own foreknowledge? Was not the Apocalypse given to him, that he might show unto his servants things that must shortly come to pass? To recur to what has been said, are not the various prophecies of the day of judgment given, that men may foreknow the fact and be prepared for it? If it be said that many who repeat this false assertion, do not mean to refer to such common topics as the resurrection and the judgment, but to "certain peculiar views," or to "certain particular notions," I must reply, that people should say what they mean; and that if the prophecies of God were given for our learning, he must be a bold man who undertakes to decide which are worth studying, and which are not. For our own part, we are slow to believe that God has revealed anything to man which it is not worth his utmost pains to learn.—Prophetic Times.