When proofs have been asked for the doctrine of the
secret advent and secret removal of the Church, certain supposed analogies have
been sometimes presented instead, which were thought to bear on the subject.
But as analogy is a resemblance of relations, it is needful that the facts
should be first known and demonstrated instead of their being merely supposed.
It has been asked if the crossing of Jordan by the children of Israel was not a
thing known to them only at the time, and not heard of by the Canaanites till
afterwards? Whether Elijah is not to be taken as a type of the Church, and
Elisha as that of “the Jewish remnant”? Whether the ascension of the Lord from
the Mount of Olives, seen by the disciples only, does not intimate a second
advent only to be known by the Church? This last consideration, if it had any
force, might seem to avoid the expectation of any coming of the Lord in the
clouds of heaven in manifested glory. But not only are supposed analogies
wholly insufficient to prove facts, but they are shown to be groundless, so
soon as they are seen to be in opposition to any demonstrated point. When a
truth has been proved from Scripture, then analogies may illustrate it; but
they never can be the ground on which an elaborate system of teaching can be
based. The teachers of the secret coming have first to show that the Word of
God sets forth such a doctrine, and that the Church is not called on to look
for the coming of her Saviour in the clouds of heaven, when every eye shall see
Him.
A negative
endeavour has been made to prove the secret removal of the Church. It has been
said, that “in certain Scriptures, which speak of future events, no mention is
made of the Church being on earth; therefore, of course, it has been
removed in the manner in which we teach”. But in this it is assumed, that
persons spoken of in any Scriptures referred to are not the Church, or part of
the Church; secondly, the absence of all mention of the Church would not prove
that it had been removed by a secret rapture; for, as this secret transaction
is not mentioned in Scripture, it is a mere assumption of the point to be
proved, to say that a silence respecting the Church at a particular time is a
decisive reference to it. [11] We might as
well argue, as certain Romanists have done, that when we are told in Acts 12:17, that Peter “went into another
place”, he went to Rome to establish his See; asking (as they do), if he
did not go to Rome, where else did he go? and, if this cannot be answered, then
assuming that it must teach that he then commenced his (supposed) primacy of
twenty-five years in that city. [12] To connect a negative
fact with a supposition, does not add to the probability of the latter.
Differences of names and designations do not prove
differences of classes; and this is especially the case when there is some
figurative expression used, or some collective term for a corporate body. Thus,
in Ephesians 1:22,23, the Church
is Christ's “body”, and, in the same epistle (5:25-32), it is His spouse, the bride for whom He gave himself, “that
He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He
might present it to himself a glorious Church”. The
Thus, when the Revelation is said to be given “to show
unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass”, it has been
said that the term “servants” shows that it is not intended for us, who are not
servants, but sons of God, and brethren of Christ. This argument has
been used by those who would evade the testimony of this book. But have such
never read how the apostles of the Lord use and claim the term servant
as pertaining to themselves?
“Paul, a servant
of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle” (Romans 1:1).
“James, a servant
of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1).
“Simon Peter, a servant
and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).
“Jude, the servant
of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1).
And Christ sent the
Revelation itself “unto His servant John” (1:1); who also is addressed by the angel, “I am thy fellow-servant” (Revelation 22:9).
Whoever, then, thinks of taking some essentially
higher standing than that of those who in privilege are sons, but who can
rejoice in being also servants, shows that his thoughts on this subject have
not been formed from the teaching of the Word of God.
---------------
[11] See Appendix B.
[12] When questions were raised in the Jewish schools, by the Sadducean party apparently, as to where Daniel was when his companions refused to worship the image of Nebuchadnezzar and were, in consequence, cast into the burning fiery furnace, a reply was given (on the principle, apparently, of answering a fool according to his folly), "He was sent to Alexandria to purchase swine"; when the questioners treated this as wholly irrelevant, they were told to prove the negative, and if they could not show to what other place he was gone, to admit that he had been sent to Alexandria.
