THE NECESSITY OF A NEW REVELATION—THE ARGUMENTS OF MODERN CHRISTIANS AGAINST IT CONSIDERED.
I shall take it for granted that those who have followed me to this point are convinced that the world has need of a new witness for God; that the Church of Christ was destroyed; that there has been an apostasy from the Christian religion so complete and universal as to make necessary a new dispensation of the gospel.
I have already remarked, in noticing the Protestant claim that the Church of Christ was re-established by the Reformers of the sixteenth century, that the gospel having once been taken from among men, and divine authority lost, the only way that either one or the other could ever be restored would be by the Lord giving a new revelation, and re-commissioning men with divine authority, both to teach the gospel and administer in its ordinances. This is a proposition so obvious to reason that I can scarcely persuade myself that it requires either argument or proofs to sustain it.
If there are those, however, who think that the plan of salvation might be clearly defined from the fragmentary documents which comprise the New Testament, without the aid of more revelation, I ask them to consider the Protestant effort to accomplish that task. The Protestants accepted the Bible as an all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and morals and church discipline. But when they undertook to formulate from it a creed that should embody the whole plan of salvation, and prescribe a government for their church, it was found that well nigh each Doctor understood the Bible differently. One saw in it the authorization of the Episcopal form of church government; another the Presbyterian form; and another the Congregational. One saw in the Bible authority for believing there was a trinity of persons in the God-head; another that there was but one. One saw authority for believing that God had predestined an elect few to be saved; another that salvation was equally within reach of all. And so on through all the vexed questions that have distracted Protestant Christendom and divided it into a hundred contending sects.
It must be remembered that to this effort to construct from the New Testament scriptures a creed which would embody all the principles and ordinances essential to salvation, and re-construct the Church of Christ, all the zeal and learning that we can hope to see brought to such a task was possessed by Protestant "Reformers," and they failed miserably; for the confusion grows greater by the constant multiplication of sects, led by men making the vain attempt to re-construct the Church of Christ and define the gospel by their own wisdom from fragmentary Christian documents.
But if the theory of salvation could be clearly defined from the scriptures, by the wisdom of man; if all the doctrines to be believed and all the ordinances to be obeyed could be formulated, where, without further revelation, is the divinely authorized ministry to teach the gospel or administer its ordinances? However distinctly the gospel as a theory might be defined from the New Testament, the dead letter authorizes no one to perform its ceremonies, or even teach its doctrines. The New Testament writers have recorded in a number of places how Jesus called his apostles and commissioned them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, saying in one place, that. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;"[1] and in another place, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world"[2] But to say this authorizes anyone else but those to whom the commission was directly given is to advocate the stealing of other men's commission, and presumptuously attempting to act in the name of God without divine appointment.
A case of this kind is related in the Acts of the Apostles, the result of which should be a warning to those who would advocate such a course now. Among the Jews who witnessed the power of God displayed through the administrations of Paul—the Holy Ghost imparted by laying on hands, the sick healed and unclean spirits cast out—were seven sons of one Sceva, a chief priest among the Jews, who took it upon themselves to call over one possessed of an evil spirit the name of the Lord Jesus saying, "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth * * * And the evil sprit answered and said: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped upon them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."[3]
Another case in point is the incident of Uzziah stretching forth his hand to steady the ark of God without authority—"And God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God."[4]
King Uzziah's presumption in this kind also points a warning. Made king when but sixteen years of age, he was wonderfully blessed of the Lord, and his fame went abroad until he was feared or honored by all the surrounding nations. In the height of his glory he presumptuously entered the temple of God and essayed to exercise the functions of the priest's office—to burn incense before the Lord. Azariah, the chief priest, withstood the king's usurpation, saying, "It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honor from the Lord God." The king was not inclined to yield to the admonition, and while he was yet angry with the priests the leprosy arose in his forehead, and he lived a leper the remainder of his life, separated from his people and from the house of the Lord.[5]
If the usurpation of authority to act in the name of the Lord in casting out an evil spirit, in steadying the ark of God and burning incense called forth such pronounced evidences of the divine displeasure, would usurpation in administering the more sacred ordinances of the gospel meet with divine approbation? If men by usurping authority could not drive out an evil spirit from one possessed through calling over him the name of Jesus, just as they had seen Paul do, would there likely be any more efficacy attend their administrations if they baptized in the name of the holy Trinity for the remission of sins, or laid on hands to impart the Holy Ghost? The reasonable answer is obvious.
"Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God; * * * and no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron."[6] Aaron was called by revelation, and ordained by one already holding divine authority.[7] It amounts to nothing to say that this particular passage relates to high priests of the Mosaic law. The principle is announced in it that those who officiate for men in things pertaining to God must be called of God by revelation through a divinely established authority; and that holds good in the gospel as well as in the Mosaic law; aye, and more abundantly is it true; for as the gospel is more excellent than the carnal law, so is it to be expected that more care will be taken to have it administered by a divinely authorized ministry. "You have not chosen me," said Jesus to the Twelve, "but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye may bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."[8] This sounds the keynote relative to an authorized ministry for the gospel. Men are not to take it upon themselves to administer in things pertaining to God. They must be called as Aaron was, as the Twelve were, as Jesus himself was; for even "Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. * * * Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek."[9]
But I must not be drawn into an argument on a point that is obviously true, namely, that the gospel of Christ having been taken from among men and divine authority lost, the only way of regaining them is by a re-opening of the heavens and a re-commitment of them to man from God. This of course would constitute a new dispensation, a new revelation; and as all Christendom, both Catholics and Protestants, hold that the volume of scripture is completed and forever closed—that divine inspiration, prophecy and revelation, together with the visitation of angels has ceased forever, I think it necessary to inquire into those reasons that are assigned for such a belief, or rather unbelief.
It is a necessity to inquire into this question; for disbelief in new revelation bars the way to a consideration of the claims of the New Witness I am introducing. The case stands thus: The Christians in the early centuries of our era having turned heathens again, thereby losing the gospel and divine authority, it seems reasonably clear that the only way these precious things can be regained is through a new dispensation of the gospel, by means of a new revelation, which shall restore all that was lost. But since all Christians have been persuaded that the volume of the scripture is completed; that God will give no more revelation; and that the Bible sustains that view of the case, it becomes necessary to investigate the reasons given for this doctrine.
I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as the an excuse offered for the absence of revelation. Ministers of apostate churches found themselves without communication with God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things.
In support of the theory that the volume of revelation is closed forever, the following passage in the Book of Revelation is usually quoted: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."[10] As this passage occurs in the last book of the New Testament—and also the last book of the Bible—in the last chapter, and the last but two of the closing verses of the chapter, it has been argued that it is a formal closing up of God's revelation to man. No more is to be added—nothing is to be taken from it, it is completed and sealed up, and therefore no more revelation is to be given after that.
Upon this it should be observed, first, that it was not by the arrangement of the inspired writer himself that the Book of Revelation was made the last book of the Bible; nor is that book the last inspired book of the New Testament collection that was written. It is the prevailing opinion of the early Christian writers that the Book of Revelation was written while the apostle John was an exile on the isle of Patmos, and that he did not write his book called "The Gospel according to St. John," until after his return from Patmos.[11] "The weight of evidence now tends to prove," says Canon Farrar, speaking of the Book of Revelation, "that it is not the last book in chronological order; that it was written nearer the beginning than the end of St. John's period of apostolic activity amid the churches of Asia; that the last accents of revelation which fall upon our ears are not those of a treatise which, though it ends in such music, contains so many terrible visions of blood and fire; but rather those of the gospel which tells us that the 'Word was made flesh,' and of the epistle which first formulated the most blessed truth which was ever uttered to human hearts—the truth that 'God is love.'"[12] And again: "Some may think it an exaggeration to say that this closing of the Holy Book with the Apocalypse has not been without grave consequences for the history of Christendom; but certainly it would have been better both for the church and for the world if we had followed the divine order, and if those books had been placed last in the canon which were last in order of time. Had this been done, our Bible would have closed as the Book of God to all intents and purposes did close, with the epistle and solemn warning of the last apostle, 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols.'"[13]
If the words in the last chapter in the Book of Revelation mean that no more scripture or revelation was to be written after the prohibitory words under consideration, then John himself became a violator of the word of God which he himself had written; for according to the testimony here adduced his gospel and first epistle were written after he Book of Revelation. Such an alternative as makes the divinely inspired writer a violator of his own supposed inhibition of further revelation is so absurd, so unlike the conduct of an inspired apostle, that it is sufficient in itself to overthrow the theory that the passage in the last chapter of the Apocalypse intended to close the volume of revelation.
Second: Since the Apocalypse had no connection with the other books of the New Testament for many years after it was written, its prohibitory clause under the most liberal construction could only have reference to itself—it forbade men adding anything more to that particular book of prophecy, the Apocalypse, not to a volume of scripture with which, at the time, it had no connection.
Third: A careful reading of the passage discloses that it is only man who is prohibited from adding anything more to that book of prophecy, not God. While man may have added to him the plagues which are written in the book if he presumptuously adds to the words of the prophecy and passes them off for the word of God, yet God would still be left free to give revelation ad infinitum. I must needs think that this is the proper view to take of the prohibition, since in Deuteronomy I find it recorded: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it."[14] To give to this passage the same interpretation that is placed by modern Christians on the passage under consideration from the Apocalypse (and it is just as reasonable to place such an interpretation on the passage in Deuteronomy as to place it on the one in Revelation) would result in rejecting all scripture that was given after the prohibitory clause in the writings of Moses—which would be the greater part of the Old Testament and all of the New. The same is true of the prohibitory passage in Proverbs: "Every word of the Lord is perfect. * * * Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar."[15] There can be no doubt that these passages mean only this: Man must not add his own words to the revelation of God and pass them off as God's word. To say that they mean that no more revelation is to be given after they were uttered is to condemn all the scripture written subsequent to that time. What those passages mean the passage in Revelation means. Man must not add to the words of Deity; but God is left as free to give more revelation as he was before this prohibition to man was placed on record. The passage in question does not in the remotest manner refer to the close of the volume of revelation.
When the last act of indignity which the wicked ingenuity of his persecutors could suggest was perpetrated on the Son of God, Jesus bowed his thorn-crowned head and exclaimed "It is finished." By some who contend against new revelation it is held that this means that no more revelation is to be expected—revelation is finished! Such a construction would exclude the inspired revelations, visions, dreams and revelations given to the apostles after the crucifixion of Jesus and abundantly testified of in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. It is so clearly evident that the exclamation, "It is finished,"[16] had reference to the suffering of the Son of God, that it is not necessary to enter further into a refutation of the claim that it means the revelation of God to man was finished.
Again it is contended that Paul predicted that prophecies should cease: "Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away."[17] Unfortunately, however, for those who see in this passage a prophecy of the discontinuance of revelation, Paul tells us when prophecy or revelation (for prophecy must needs always be founded on revelation) will cease; that it is not in this mortal life, but "when that which is perfect is come." "For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. * * * For now we see through a glass darkly, but then [when that which is perfect is come] face to face. Now I know in part, but then [when that which is perfect is come] shall I know even as I am known."[18] That this refers not to this life, where the best and purest only see in part and know in part, but is to be looked for in that future and perfect existence where men shall see as they are seen and know as they are known, is too obvious to need comment. That prophecy, and the revelation on which it is based, was designed to continue with the saints in this mortal existence is evident from the fact that in the opening verse of the succeeding chapter[19] the apostle admonishes the saints to "follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
The whole genius of the gospel contemplates continuous revelation in the church; and so far is the Bible from justifying the belief that the time will come when it will cease, that on the contrary it teaches that revelation will increase more and more, especially becoming abundant in the last days.
Revelation is the very "rock" or principle upon which the Church of Christ is founded. "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" was the abrupt question which Jesus once put to his disciples. The answers given were varied. "But whom say ye that I am?" Then Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God." "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona," was the Lord's reply, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[20] That is as if the Master had said: "Blessed art thou Simon, for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto you that I am Christ, the Son of the living God, but my Father which is in heaven; and I say unto thee, Peter, upon this principle of revelation will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.&............