There is sternness in the truth of God, which might almost seem like
harsh severity, when it is regarded by those whose thoughts on the subject of
revelation have been formed in a great measure from sentiment and emotion. An
imaginative feeling may exist; and this may be so cherished that even the
Scripture is only used for sentimental purposes; and thus the force of definite
truth is by no means felt, because the mind has sunk into a kind of spiritual
reverie: indeed, there is a disposition to avoid definite truth, from a
contrast that has been formed between it and that which is supposed to be
spiritual. Thus when the details of revealed promises and purposes are stated
from the Word of God, there is a feeling that there is but little, if anything,
in them that is really edifying, or that can afford nourishment for spiritual
life. And thus dreamy indefinite thoughts of God's love are cherished, and such
a view is taken of the person and work of Christ, and of His coming glory, as
may stir up spiritual emotions, or what are supposed to be such. But it must
never be forgotten that holiness is not the only thing taught us respecting the
Holy Ghost: He is the Spirit of Truth as well as the Holy Spirit of God; and
the two things should be combined, and not set in contrast.
We are not to accredit any supposed holiness irrespective of truth; we
are not to regard truth as rightly held unless it be connected with holiness:
and as truth is found in the revelation given in Holy Scripture, this must be
our standard by which we must judge whatever professes to be either holiness,
such as God would approve, or truth, that His people should accept.
Emotional religion has always a tendency to make feeling the standard of what should be received as truth, and what
rejected. A certain kind of high wrought feeling (approaching to mysticism, or
amounting to it) is that which is allowed to rule the judgment as to whatever
God has revealed; and sometimes these indefinite claims to spirituality are
accepted by others, so that the doctrines of such teachers are supposed to be
worthy of all acceptance, not because they are found in Holy Scripture, but
because they are said to be true by such holy and devoted men. But if we would
judge according to God, we must test all claims to holiness and devotedness by
means of truth, and not merely do the reverse. Asceticism is not Christian
holiness; the zeal of Francis Xavier is not Christian devotedness.
It is very manifest that the doctrine of a secret coming of Christ, and
a secret removal of the Church to be with Him, is peculiarly suited to those
who cherish the religion of sentiment.[15] What more cheering (they say) than
the thought that the Lord may take His people to Himself at any moment? What
more animating than the belief that this may take place this very day? And when
any one brings them to Scripture, and tries to point out the revealed hope of
the Lord's coming, it seems as if there were nothing but coldness in the
teaching, and as if the Lord were put far off from them. They ask sometimes if
such chilling doctrines can be consistent with love to the Lord, and whether
love to His person does not exclude the thought of a revealed interval, and of
events that will take place first. It is thus that truth is judged by sentiment
and emotion, instead of true emotions, which are according to God, being formed
by truth in all its definite severity. Whatever makes the feelings sit in
judgment on Scripture, and whatever thus leads to the avoidance of the force of
that Scripture teaching which is not in accordance with such feelings, must,
however, apparently sanctified and spiritual, be of nature, and not of God. Are
we to seek to be guided by other hopes than those which animated the Apostolic
Church? They knew that days of darkness would set in before Christ's coming;
they were instructed respecting the many Antichrists and the final Antichrist,
but so far from their hope of the coming of the Lord and of resurrection being
thus set aside, they were able to look onward through the darkness to the
brightness of the morning.
It may freely be owned that those who think it right to expect the Lord
at any moment, and who sternly condemn others who maintain that His appointed
signals shall take place first, have often in their hearts much real love to
Him; and love towards His person is never to be regarded lightly. But let such
remember the prayer of the Apostle, “That your love may bound yet more and more
in knowledge and in all judgment” (Philippians 1:9). It is not only of
importance that love should be rightly directed as to its object, but also that
there should be in the soul real spiritual intelligence. If a wife has the
promise of her husband's return from a distant country, and she has his written
directions for the rule of the house during his absence, and part of these
directions includes a statement how his return shall be expected, that a letter
will first arrive to say by what ship he will come - there would be no want of
love (and that, too, intelligent love) on her part, if she sought to be
occupied day by day as he directed, and if she showed that she believed his
word that the promised letter should come, and that then he would himself
arrive by the appointed vessel. She would be waiting according to his word and
will; and no one could reproach her for want of love to her lord from not being
on the tip-toe of momentary expectation. But if the wife were to say that the
part of her husband's directions respecting the promised letter related to the
servants of the house, and not to her, and if she were to be constantly on the shore,
expecting her husband's landing in a way that he had not promised, and if she
refused to be brought to attend simply to what her husband had said - she
would, while professing to do this out of love to him, show that she was a
visionary, and not one whose love was guided by the simple intelligence of her
husband's mind as distinctly expressed: feeling would have led away from true
obedience.
There are, indeed, those who say that love can allow of nothing as
between their souls and the coming of the Lord; they avoid any real scriptural
inquiry on the subject; and when events prophesied by our Lord are pointed out,
they say that their views are directed upward, that there they find their
strength, in contrast to “men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking
after those things which are coming on the earth” (Luke 21:26). And thus they
avoid the force of even our Lord's words, through a supposed spirituality.
Men's hearts may be dismayed, but this will not apply to believers, who would
see in that which caused dismay to others the bright prospect of deliverance to
themselves, for the coming of the Lord would be at hand.
The dreamy ethereality, which assumes the name and the garb of
spirituality, avoids the apprehension of facts;
they appear to unrefined, and there is too little in them for the exercise of
mere sentimental feeling. But is it not by facts, and facts too occurring on
this earth, that God works? The incarnation of the Son of God, the reality of
His meritorious obedience, of His vicarious sufferings, the atonement of the
Cross - all, indeed, on which we depend for salvation, has to do with facts in all their literal truth, on
which the forgiveness of sins, and the acceptance of our persons, depend. Why,
then, avoid the contemplation of those facts which are yet before us, in all
their definiteness of detail?
Sentimental religion often approaches very nearly to mere ideality: the
ideal Christ takes in part the place of the Christ of revelation, and although
it cannot be denied by any one professing to be a Christian that the literal
blood of atonement was shed here on the literal Cross, yet so far from seeing
that the redemption price was paid to the full when Christ said, “It is
finished”, and died, they speak of the real atonement having not been made
until Jesus, risen from the dead, presented His own blood on the mercy seat
above. Thus (with various modifications) they speak and write about salvation
and justification in “the risen Jesus”, not seeing that His work in connection
with sin was completed for ever on the Cross.[16]
But real love is no mere ideality: it is an active thing. God's love was
shown in providing the salvation wrought out by His blessed Son; and if we have
true Christian love in our hearts it will be found an active principle also,
both towards God and towards the brethren for His sake. Yet how often have we
seen sentimental love fail altogether: it has been much set forth in word, but
the moment that it has been tested, its merely emotional character has been
proved. The false principle of mysticism as to the love of God is, that He
loves His own image which His grace and Spirit work in us: this is much the
same as saying that He loves us so far as He sees us worthy of His love, or as
He sees some congruity in us. If the love of God be so regarded, the love to
the brethren may well be of the same character: love not for the Father's sake,
not for Christ's sake, but for the sake of some inwrought fitness in the
object. Those who make sentimentally the secret rapture the centre of all their
thoughts, have habitually shown how utterly their love fails towards any
Christians who object to this theory. They often speak of them as if such were
devoid of love to Christ, and they treat them as if that were the case. It
might seem as if they had made that one point (in which they are led by
feeling, not be Scripture) the very test of Christian profession. They ask,
indeed, with earnestness of manner, how those who deny the secret advent can “love
His appearing”,[17] and they refer to the passage (Hebrews 9:28), “Unto them that
look for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation”, as if
it included only those who hold a peculiar expectation. To these it is that they
extend their mystical love, which has so much taken the place of what is truly Christian.
But “they that look for Him” does not mean a part of the Church, but the
whole; not those who expect in a particular manner, but those who know that as
He died, rose, ascended, so surely He will come again, as has been promised. It
does not depend on the intelligence of believers, or the reverse. The fact has
been embodied in the common expressions of Christian belief: “He shall come
again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: whose kingdom shall have
no end” (Nicene Creed); “Thou sittest
on the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father. We believe that thou
shalt come to be our Judge” (Te Deum).
Such, even in the darkest ages, has been the profession of the nominal Church;
such has been ever the solemn acknowledgment of true believers. If they inquired
but little about the circumstances of that coming, or the connected events, who
would dare, even in thought, to exclude them from the number of those who love
the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ? Who would say that they are not of “those
that look for Him?”[18]
Such sentimental feeling, when allowed full outflowing in connection
with the doctrine of the secret advent, works this, amongst other evils - the
narrowing, both in practice and in principle, of that Christian love which
should be directed towards all who are in Christ, and which should include all
living believers, and all who from the beginning have obtained a good report
through faith.
It is almost impossible to overstate the evil effects of sentimental and
emotional opinions and practices when young unconverted persons are exposed to them.
The stern facts by which conviction is brought to the conscience are all but idealised;
the true character of sin, and God's wrath against it, is overlooked or obscured;
and while the death and resurrection of Christ are indeed spoken of, the full
character of His work and His definite fulfilment of God's holy law for us in His
life, are lost in a dreamy notion which in part at least puts His resurrection in
the place of His death, as that by which the full atonement is made. In this manner
devotional feelings are often stirred up; but without the primary ground having
been cleared; without the question of sin and its forgiveness through the blood
of the cross having been settled; and without the acceptance of the righteousness
wrought out in the living obedience of Christ when on earth, as that in which
the sinner can stand before God. Apparent devotedness is thus at times excited:
there is the endeavour, on emotional grounds, to do much for God, but without
the preliminary truth having been grasped of what, in the gift of Christ, God
has done for us. There is in all this the endeavour to show good fruit from the
tree which is still in its natural corruption. This, too, is often fostered by the
misuse of devotional books, as if they could be substituted for coming to Christ
in heart and conscience; and by the injudicious tone of “good books”, which touch
the feelings only, even when they are not replete with error of doctrine and principle.
The religion of sentiment and emotion often leads to mere asceticism: a
very different thing from the practical holiness in which the believer is
called on to walk. Any unconverted sentimentalist may assume an ascetic garb as
a substitute for the Gospel.
It has been remarkable to notice how the sentimental expectation of the Lord's
coming has led away from the close and reverential study of Holy Scripture. Indeed,
it has been painful to hear earnest and real desire definitely to study the Word
of God regarded and termed by some, as being “occupied with the letter of Scripture”.[19] But do those
who say this know what they mean? They speak of principles, and of having their
minds occupied with Christ; but how do we obtain true principles except from
God's revelation in the Word? And how does the Spirit lead the mind to be
occupied with Christ, except from the definite truth of Holy Scripture? In
fact, those who thus speak, putting the spirit
in contrast to the letter, appear not
to know what they are discussing; and as to Scripture itself, by paying but
little heed to what they call “the letter”, they really disregard so far what
the Spirit has there set forth. “But Oh! (they say) this head-knowledge, this intellectual study of truth… How it leads our
minds away from Christ!” It is true that there may be mental intelligence with
but little spirituality; but it is equally true that if we obey God we shall
never neglect the words of His Scripture.
Of course, with this tone of feeling, all critical study of Scripture is decried; it is deemed a waste of
time. Even the study of the Word of God in the original Hebrew and Greek is
spoken of as if it were a secular occupation. The English Bible is thought to
be enough for teachers and taught alike; and thus they remain alike uninstructed.
And if the original languages are looked at, exact scholarship is deemed
superfluous. How different is this from the real study of God's Word; from
using and valuing each portion, however minute, as being from Him, and as being
that of which He can unfold to us the meaning by the teaching of His Spirit.
How different from the practical application of the most definite rules of grammar,
which lead to absolute persuasion that apostles and evangelists wrote nothing
at random, but that even as to the most delicate shades of thought they used
the right cases, moods, and tenses.[20] All diligent and careful inquiry, and laborious
examination of authorities, so as to know what were the very words in which the
inspired writers gave forth the Scripture, is regarded as merely intellectual
and secular. But is this a healthy tone of thought? Should not those who
believe in the Divine authority of Holy Scripture know that they ought not to neglect
its critical study? And if it be truly inspired, ought they not to feel that it
is of some importance to inquire what is its true text - what, as far as existing
evidence can show, were the very words in which the Holy Ghost gave it forth?[21]
Most difficult is it to arouse Christians in general to a sense of the full importance of critical study of
Scripture; and especially is this the case when dreamy apprehensions are
cherished, and where vague idealism has taken the place of truth, and
sentimental asceticism is the substitute for Christian holiness.
There may be an external knowledge of Scripture where there is no
spiritual life or light; but that is no reason for cherishing what is supposed
to be spiritual in contrast to the words of inspiration. Such a contrast cannot
really exist. He who truly loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and is guided by His
Spirit, will be the most subject to that which is written in the Word. True acquaintance with Scripture is the
best check to mere sentimental emotion.[22]
-----------------
[15] It is as impossible to discuss a question scripturally with those who are guided by emotion and sentiment, as it was for Greatheart, in the second part of Pilgrim's Progress, to arouse Heedless and Too-bold when sleeping on the Enchanted Ground.
[16] Romans 4:25 plainly teaches that our Lord “was delivered in
consequence of our offences, and raised again in consequence of our justification”. The preposition in each case
is the same, so that just as His death resulted from His bearing our sins, so
did His resurrection result from the accomplishment of that propitiation
whereby we receive pardon and peace. Some speak of our sins “being buried in
the grave of Jesus”; but how could they get there? The Cross was the last place
where He had to do with sin: the shedding of His blood, the laying down of His
life, was the payment of the full redemption price. He himself bore our sins up
to the tree; but on the completion of His sacrifice, all that had to do with
sin was ended; and He was laid in the grave, not as then the sin-bearer, but as
the Holy One who had borne the full penalty. Of this the resurrection was the full proof. If the weight of sin rested on Him when
buried, how could it have been removed? It is true that our sin had laid Him in
the grave, because He had died to put it away; but it was no longer on Him when
He was there. On Romans 4:25, see, as to
this point, Bishop Horsley's sermon. Nine
Sermons on our Lord's Resurrection, etc., p. 249. 1822.
[17] If it were desirable to answer arguments in the same way as that in
which they are put, it might be asked whether those who expect a secret coming
of Christ are those “that love His appearing”?
For this is of necessity a manifest thing. But at least let not the advocates
of a secret coming speak of those who expect the appearing of Christ, as if they
failed in that love to Him which should lead them to wait for Him. They love
His appearing, and they do not
substitute something else in the place of “that blessed hope”.
[18] See Appendix H.
[19] See Appendix J.
[20] “It is unwelcome news to the maintainer of some cherished
exposition, to be told by an unsympathising critic that it is a baseless
vision, a notion unsupported by the language of the text. And it is also worthy
of remark, how often the supporters of
extravagancies in theology, have manifested an instinctive dread of exact
learning”. -Rev. T. S. GREEN, M.A., On
the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect. Ed. 1, 1842. Introduction, p.v.
[21] The opposition of visionary teachers and the receivers of their
teaching, to all textual criticism founded on evidence - to all investigation, in fact, regarding what are the
real words and sentences given forth under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost -appears
to be only equalled by the temerity with which, in certain cases, they accept
conclusions which they desire, rather on assertion than on evidence.
