Canstones speak? Can rocks make their voice to be heard? The Lord said of His people on His entrance into Jerusalem, “If these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out.” And this is very much what those very stones are now doing; for the stones of Palestine are beginning to speak with a voice so clear and decisive that it seems a perfect marvel that any thinking man should be able to resist their evidence. Now therefore, if God permit, we will study their testimony; we will put the rocks into the witness-box, and endeavour calmly to learn from them what they teach us of the truth of God. There are three subjects on which their evidence is conclusive—the geographical accuracy, the historical truth, and the prophetic inspiration of the Scriptures. Let us examine them on all three points, and may that divine Spirit who inspired the word of His own great grace bring it home to our understandings and our hearts!
We must remember that a large portion of the Old Testament consists in the history of that chosen line which connected the Lord Jesus Christ with Abraham,and that the country which we generally call “Palestine” was given to that family as their home. It was in that country that Abraham sojourned, and that his family lived for the 1,400 years between the Exodus and the Advent. It is obvious therefore that the history of that family during all those centuries must abound in allusions to the different places in that country, and as the history enters very much into social life, we must naturally expect very frequent allusions to the places in which the people lived.
It is important for us also to remember that the history was not one book written by one author at one time, but that much of it was evidently contemporary history; so that there were different books written by different authors at different times, beginning with Moses 3,300 years ago, and ending, as some suppose, with Ezra, or Nehemiah, about 2,300 years ago.
Now the question is, “Do the various allusions to places which lie scattered up and down the history agree or disagree with what we know of those places from observation on the spot?” Through the patient labours of some eminently scientific men working for the Palestine Exploration Fund, we know a vast deal more of the country than has ever been known since the dispersion of the people. We have before us the result of a most careful scientific survey, from which we may learn in perfect confidence the evidence of the rocks. What we have to do therefore is to lay side by side the evidence of the rocks and the evidence of theBooks—to compare the two carefully, and to ascertain whether or not the “witnesses” agree. The ancient rule was, that “out of the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established.” Here then there are two witnesses—the rocks and the Books—do they or do they not agree?
Let us begin with the Book of Joshua, a book recording the original invasion of the country, and the distribution of the land among the tribes. In the ten chapters, beginning with the 13th, we have a full account of that distribution, and a clear definition of the boundaries of eleven tribes, with a list of forty-eight cities assigned to the sons of Levi. This list and these boundaries have been most carefully examined by the officers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the remarkable result is that they can trace almost every place mentioned in Joshua; and what is more remarkable still, “there is scarcely a village which does not retain for its desolate heap or its modern hovels the Arabic equivalent for the name written down by Joshua 3,300 years ago.” In many cases there is nothing more than a cluster of a few wretched Arab huts, or a heap of shapeless ruins; but so complete has been the identification that there is no doubt left respecting Joshua’s boundaries; and if the Jews were to return to-morrow, and in returning were to observe the distinction of the tribes, those officers could at once point out to them their several homes, and show them exactly what portion of the country was originally assigned to them by lot.
This general fact is quite sufficient to prove the general accuracy of the geography of the Book. But the general fact does not stand alone, and there are countless details which are almost more conclusive than the close agreement which we find existing between the list by Joshua and that by scientific men. Let us consider one of these details, and examine one neighbourhood in the light of modern science. The neighbourhood shall be that of Bethel and Hai. Respecting Bethel, no one, I believe entertains a doubt. It was named by Jacob “Bethel,” or the house of God. It was afterwards called “Bethaven,” or “the house of vanity,” in consequence of the idolatry of Jeroboam; and the extensive ruins now found there are called Beitin. Now Bethel does not stand alone, for it is frequently connected with Hai; so that Abraham’s second halting-place, as recorded in Gen. xii. 8, was on a mountain “having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east.” There were two ranges of hills running from north to south, with a valley between them, and on a hill standing in that valley Abraham pitched his tent, and built an altar unto the Lord. Now, as I have just said, there is not the slightest doubt about the identification of Bethel. But what are we to say of Hai? In Joshua viii. we have an accurate description of its capture, and every detail of the attack can be verified on the spot. But we cannot find the name. There is a heap, or mound, on the slope of the hill, which no doubt marks the site. But the name Hai is completely lost. Thename given to the mound is Tell. Now Tell is the word for heap, so that Tell Ashtereh is the heap of Ashtaroth, and Tell Kedes the heap of Kadesh. But to this heap there is no such name attached, and the only name is Tell. “Tell” alone marks the spot. And now turn to Joshua viii. 28: “And Joshua burnt Hai, and made it an heap” (i.e.a Tell) “for ever, even a desolation unto this day.” The name given by the modern Bedouin is exactly that of the ancient record, and the testimony of the stones is in perfect agreement with the scriptural narrative.
But this is not all. I have already pointed out that the hill between Bethel and Hai was Abraham’s second halting-place; and if we turn to Gen. xiii. we shall find, in verses 3, 4, that after he had been down into Egypt he returned to that same spot, and there once more he called on the name of the Lord. It was there that he made Lot the generous offer of the choice of the land, and that “Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the plain of Jordan.” But at first sight this seems impossible, for between Bethel and Jordan there is a lofty range of hills running from north to south, and completely obstructing the view; and so the merely superficial observer might say that the Book was wrong. But before we come to any such decision we must consult the stones. And what will they say to us? Go up the heights above Bethel on the west, and they will tell you that there is no view of the plain of Sodom there. Go up on the eastern side to the Tell that oncewas Hai, and there is no view there. But now go to the mountain having Bethel on the west and Hai on the east, the very spot where, according to the 13th chapter of Genesis, Abraham and Lot were standing; and there through a gap in the hills you see the very sight that tempted Lot, and you look on the plains of Sodom, as Lot looked on them not much less than 4,000 years ago.
And what makes the agreement still more wonderful is that the Book was written by one who was not an inhabitant of the country, and who had never stood on that mountain-top. It is obvious from the history that Moses was never there, and accordingly it is obvious from the Book that it was written on the eastern side of Jordan. In all the Books written in Palestine the expression “Beyond Jordan” is employed to describe the eastern side. But it is not so with the Book of Genesis. In chapter l. 10 there is the mention of the “threshing-floor of Atad,” where Joseph and his company made a mourning for Jacob, and in verse 11 this place is said to be “beyond Jordan.” But Atad was on the west side of Jordan, for it was amongst the Canaanites, and is believed by learned men to have been between the Jordan and Jericho. To Moses, therefore, approaching Canaan from the east, it was “beyond Jordan.” To any pretender writing after the occupation of the promised land it would have been “on this side Jordan.” But to Moses, who died on the eastern side, and never set his foot on the western side, it was “beyond.” He may haveseen it from Pisgah, but that was all. He never set his foot there, for he never crossed the Jordan. So he never set his foot on the mount between Bethel and Ai; but he wrote with the most minute geographical accuracy. And thus we have the testimony of the stones that the Book of Genesis was not only the Book of truth, but, may we not add, that Moses was inspired by God Himself to write with such perfect truthfulness of places which he had never seen?
This one instance must suffice as an illustration ofgeographicalaccuracy, and we may hasten to consider the second point; viz.:—
To this I turn with deeper interest, because it has been denied. Voltaire, for example, describes Palestine as one of the worst countries of Asia, comparing it to Switzerland, and says it can only be esteemed fertile “when compared with the desert.” (Keith, p. 106.) There cannot be one moment’s doubt that in such statements he exceeded fact. But others have pointed to the desolate hillsides, and asked the question whether such a country could ever have supported a population as dense as that of Norfolk or Suffolk. Now let there be no mistake on this subject; for we are fully prepared most freely to admit that the hill country, as we now see it, could not possibly support a large population, and that there is a dreary, barren desolation about it which is wholly unlike the descriptionsof rich fertility which abound through the Scriptures. One of these descriptions will be sufficient; viz., Deut. viii. 7–9: “For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack anything in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.” Now I am not in the least afraid of saying plainly that such a description as that is not true ofmodernPalestine. It is not a good land flowing with milk and honey; it is not a land of vines and oil olives; it is not a land from which a large population could eat bread without scarceness. I read that there is not a vine to be seen between Eschol and Beersheba, and that there are very few olives to be found anywhere. What then are we to say? Was the historical description true, or was it not? Were the people deceived, or was God true to His Word? “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” On this point let us ask the stones, and let us take the testimony of the rocks. But in doing this we must not be content with taking a tourist’s ticket, and hurrying as fast as possible along the beaten tracks; but we must accompany our scientific men in their investigations; and if we do so, what shall we find? In the first place we shall find scattered through the country the ruins of an enormous numberof villages. The Exploration Fund have actually entered on their map no less than 2,770 names. It is perfectly clear therefore that there was once a very large and densely-packed population. Then in the next place the careful observer will perceive that those hills which are now so barren were once covered with terraces so as to preserve the soil. Dr. Keith says that on one hill he counted no less than sixty-seven such terraces one above another. Then if you examine these terraces you find a countless number of cisterns and water-courses cut in the rocks, proving clearly that there was once a careful system of irrigation; and then, in conclusion, near many of the villages there is found an olive-press, apparently used by the whole village, while up amongst the terraces there are multitudes of smaller wine-presses, apparently cut in the rocks by each proprietor for his own use. In confirmation of this evidence I have been informed by one for many years a resident in Jerusalem, that the inhabitants are dependent for firewood on the roots of the vines and the olives still found on the desolate hillsides. The roots remain, though the trees are gone, and those roots unite in their testimony with the rocks amongst which they are found. The evidence therefore of the rocks is irresistible. The people are scattered through the nations, and the rain has washed down the toil from the broken terraces; but the rocks remain; and the proof is as clear as any proof can be of anything, that there was once a teeming population and a high state ofcultivation, that the country was once a land of vines and oil olives, and that it was a land maintaining a prosperous, thriving, and painstaking people. Thus the rocks agree with the Book. Those barren hills themselves supply the evidence of their former fertility, and the stones cry out that the grand old Pentateuch is historically true.
But we have not yet done with those barren hills; for we have not yet exhausted their evidence. Some may enquire how it is that a country which was once so fertile is now become so desolate; and the answer may be given that the villages have been burned, the terraces neglected, the cisterns broken, and the water-courses choked, which is all perfectly true. But that is not enough to satisfy a real enquirer. “How was it,” the thoughtful man will ask, “that the villages were burned and the terraces neglected?” In the answer of this question the rocks can give us no assistance, and we must depend entirely on the Book; but there we find the whole mystery solved. The fact is, that the whole country bears witness to the truth of prophecy. The present state of things is exactly what God foretold in His Word. It is perfectly true that the mountains are dreary, barren, and desolate; perfectly true that it is no longer “the land flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands;” but it is equallytrue that the change which has taken place is exactly that which God foretold in the Scriptures.
What did Moses write three thousand three hundred years ago? Turn to Leviticus xxvi. 33: “And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you; and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.”
What did Isaiah say, writing about two thousand five hundred years ago? Turn to Isaiah vi. 11: “Then said I, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate.” Turn to chap. xxiv. 3: “The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled; for the Lord hath spoken this word.” Or to chap. xxxii. 12, 13: “They shall lament for the teats, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine. Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city.”
What did Jeremiah say, writing about two thousand three hundred years ago? Turn to Jeremiah iv. 26, 27: “I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.” “The spoilers are come upon all high places through the wilderness: for the sword of the Lord shall devour from the one end of the land even to the other end of the land: no flesh shall have peace.” (Chap. xii. 12.)
And what did Ezekiel, writing about the same time, predict of the condition of Palestine during the dispersion, and until the restoration of the people? Turn to his address to those hills of which we have been speaking, in Ezekiel xxxvi. 3, 4: “Therefore prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Because they have made you desolate, and swallowed you up on every side, that ye might be a possession unto the residue of the heathen, and ye are taken up in the lips of talkers, and are an infamy of the people: therefore, ye mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God; Thus saith the Lord God to the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, to the desolate wastes, and to the cities that are forsaken, which became a prey and derision to the residue of the heathen that are round about.”
Here then we have the whole mystery solved, and the whole thing explained. In His sure Word of prophecy our heavenly Father told us what He would do, and the desolate hills of Palestine bear witness that He has done it. We may long to see them clothed once more with the vine and the olive, and we may profoundly pity their lawful proprietors, who look on their lawful home—once so beautiful, but now so desolate! But yet we cannot look even on that desolation without thanksgiving, for it is an evidence to all thinking men of the certain truth of God’s inspired Word. Those who refer to those desolate hills as an argument against the truth forget that the desolation to which they refer isa conclusive proof of the truth of thepropheticWord of God. Thus we are carried by this third proof far beyond either geographical accuracy or historical truth. A book may be geographically accurate, or historically true, and yet not be inspired. But nomancan foretell the future. No man can look forward 3,000 years. No man, therefore, could span over all those centuries and tell us ages ago what would be the condition of Palestine in this nineteenth century. But God has done it. We thank God, therefore, for His Word, and we thank Him also for the testimony of the rocks. Nay, more, we may thank Him even for the sneers of such a man as Voltaire, for the very sneers are a proof to the students of the Scriptures that God’s prophecy is being fulfilled, and that God’s Holy Word may be trusted as divine.
But we must not leave the subject there, for we are taught a most solemn lesson as to the desolating power of a righteous God. He who has reduced those fertile hills to desolation, cannot He equally desolate the soul, and reduce the poor ruined heart to a similar condition of barren hopelessness? And will He not do it if His great salvation be neglected? I know that it is the fashion to believe that He is too merciful to punish; but for my own part I find it much more easy to believe that he is too true to declare that which he has no intention of performing. If the Word of God be true, “Verily there is a God that judgeth the earth,” and we cannot doubt that to the guilty sinner He must prove“a consuming fire.” But, thanks be to His Holy Name, if the warnings be true, so also are the promises. If the judgment be certain, so also is the salvation. If the minister of wrath be sure to fulfil the Word of judgment, so also is the blessed Saviour perfectly sure to fulfil the promises of life. If the law condemn with infallible certainty, so also does the Gospel proclaim that the claim of the law is satisfied in the great propitiation by the Son of God; so that any one, even the least and most unworthy of His people, may peacefully rest in the certainty of His never-failing Word, and abide in perfect peace, and perfect safety, in the perfect truth, and never-failing covenant of God.
Iproposeto call the evidence of anunwillingwitness, and to ask the scoffer himself to bear his “testimony to the truth” against which he scoffs. There is no better evidence than that which is given unwillingly—than that of a man who is put into the witness-box in order to prove one thing, and when closely examined is compelled by the force of truth to prove the opposite. Now as a general rule the scoffers desire to dishonour the Scriptures; they ridicule its statements, and deny its inspiration. But I am not sure that, if carefully examined, they will not be found to confirm the Word. Let us then carefully study their evidence, and may God the Holy Ghost bring it home to their hearts and our own!
But before we examine the modern scoffers, we must turn to what the Word of God has said respecting them. Rather more than eighteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter wrote two letters, the first addressed to scattered strangers, and the second to those who had “obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In this second Epistle he gave a divine prophecy to all such persons, and told them from God what they were toexpect in the latter days. He taught them quite clearly that when they were approaching the end they were not to expect to be like some beautiful ship (with its sails set and its flags flying) sailing gallantly into the harbour, with a bright sunshine, a flowing tide, and a prosperous breeze; but rather like some weather-beaten craft, battered by the storm, beating up against the gale, and almost overwhelmed by the breakers on the bar. And it teaches also that one of the trials of those last days will arise from scoffers. As in navigation the chart may teach that there are dangerous rocks near the harbour mouth, so the prophecy says that when we draw near to the coming of the Lord, there will arise certain persons who will not be afraid even to scoff at the revelation of God. Let us first examine the prophecy, and then we shall be prepared to compare it with the fact. It assures us then of the fact that there will be scoffers, and it gives us a fourfold description of their character.
We shall find it in 2 Peter iii. 3–5: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.”
(1.)They will scoff.
Now, as a general rule, a scoffer is not a reasoner. Itrequires some knowledge and logical power to argue, but any fool can scoff. In fact, it seems the peculiar attribute of folly; for we are distinctly told that “fools make a mock of sin.” Now in this passage it is clearly foretold that in the last days men will scoff. But when St. Peter wrote the words he must have thought it almost impossible. For let any man look around at the visible effects of sin—the ruin, the misery, the wretched homes, the miserable wives, the pitiable children, the sickness, poverty, crime, violence, and every species of abomination resulting from sin—and can any wise man scoff at sin?
Or look at the majesty of God, at His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His omniscience, His infinitude, His holiness, His sin-abhorring character, and it seems impossible that there should be anyone bold enough to presume to scoff at the Most High God.
Or look at His love in Christ Jesus; in the provision of such a salvation for sinners such as we are; in providing such a Lamb for the burnt-offering; in making to the guilty such an offer of such a salvation on such terms of magnificent generosity, and can it be possible that any man should scoff at that? Will they scoff at the love that prompted it, at the sacrifice made for it, or at the pardon and life presented through it? We might as well expect to see the condemned criminal scoffing at a free pardon from the Queen.
But notwithstanding all that, the prophecy says plainly that in the last days there shall be scoffers.
(2.) The next clause throws further light on their character; for it teaches thatthey will walk after their own lusts. Now “lust” does not mean merely the low, vicious, depraved passion of the profligate; but the word in old English expresses exactly the meaning of the Greek—the appetite or will of the natural man. A person, therefore, may be what “the world” calls a moral man, and still be walking after his own lust. Such characters are described by the prophet Isaiah in the words, “We have turned every one to his own way.” (Chap. liii. 6.) And again, chap. lxvi. 3, “Yea, they have chosen their own ways.” They make of themselves their own god. They set up their own understanding as their teacher, and their own will as their law. Their religion consists in one letter of the alphabet, that one most absorbing letter, “I.” “I know,” “I think” “I choose,” “I will,” “I am,” and “I act as I think proper;” and thus it is that their own will becomes their only god. Oh what a miserable god! Oh, what a contrast to the life of him who knows his Saviour! to the blessedness of the man whose life is hid with Christ in God, and whose daily prayer is, “Thy will be done!” But though it seem almost impossible, the words of the prophecy are perfectly clear that the rise of such characters will be amongst the anxious trials of the latter days.
(3.) But this is not all; for the next clause showsthey will scoff at the hope of the Advent, and they will say, “Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were fromthe beginning of the creation.” This does not mean, “Where shall we find the promise in the Scriptures?” but rather, “What has become of it? Everything is going on just as it always has done, and He is not come yet. The winter comes and goes, the sun rises and sets, the business of life goes on as in former days, and the Lord has not yet appeared; so what are we to think of the promise?” St. Peter points out the true answer to all this; viz., that God’s time must not be measured by man’s scale; for that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” and he might have added that prophecy of our Lord Himself, in which he taught us that everything will go on exactly the same right up to His return; viz., “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matt. xxiv. 38, 39.) It is most important that we bear this well in mind; for there is an undoubted tendency in us all to settle down into an undefined feeling that things that have gone on without a change will go on still without a change, and so to allow our hope of the Advent to grow weary, or to burn itself out through delay. There is this tendency in even the Christian mind, and in all probability there are few amongst us who have not felt the need of watching against the temptation. So in this prophecy the scoffer is predicted as availing himself of this naturaltendency in our hearts, and turning it against the promises of God; as attacking the Christian in His blessed hope; as striving to shake the faith of believers; and as endeavouring to pull down those who are looking for the Lord to the dreary level of utter hopelessness on which he finds that he himself is standing. It seems a very cruel thing, and I often think that if I were an infidel I could not endeavour to shake the faith of other men. It seems a horrible thing, that because a man is without hope himself, he should endeavour to take away hope from others; and a most especially horrible thing that he should endeavour to poison the minds of children, and so harden their young hearts against the reception of the truth of God. But though it seem so cruel, so unnatural, and so contrary to any principle of ordinary benevolence, the prophecy teaches quite plainly that so it will be in the “latter days.”
(4.) But there is one more feature in the description; viz., this, thatthese scoffers are“willingly ignorant.” The ignorance here predicted has special reference to the creation and the flood; but the point to which I would draw your most especial attention is thewillingnessof its character. Ignorance in many cases is the result of circumstances, and in some of grave misfortune. There are some who long for knowledge, but have no opportunity of obtaining it; and there are many others who, though they show no such thirst, cannot be blamed; for they have never known enough even to excite anappetite. But the prophecy describes men who are determinately and wilfully ignorant; who are ignorant, not because theycannotknow, but because theywillnot. They are like those persons described in Romans i. 28: “Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Such are the people described in this prophecy—persons who are profoundly ignorant of the whole purpose of God in Christ Jesus; who know absolutely nothing of that knowledge of the true God and of “Jesus Christ, whom He has sent,” which the Lord Himself declared to be “life eternal;” and who do not wish to know it, but had rather remain without the knowledge. The result is, that they will read no Christian evidence, will care for no books but those of infidels, and will never search their Bible, unless it be to find out something which they may make the subject of their mockery. Such is the willing ignorance most clearly predicted in this prophecy.
There are, therefore, four points clearly predicted in the character of those persons who, according to prophecy, must be expected in the “latter days.” They will scoff; they will walk after their own will; they will call in question the Lord’s coming; and they will be willingly ignorant of His inspired truth. What then should be the effect on our own minds when we see the fulfilment of this prophecy? Should it shake our faith, or strengthen it? Should it lead us to doubt our Bibles, or to rest in them as the truth of God? When we found that Noah’s great prophecy respecting Shem, Ham, and Japheth wasfulfilled, what was the effect? It assured us that the Pentateuch was true, and the Bible inspired. When we found a whole series of prophecies respecting the Jews and Palestine were literally fulfilled, what again was the effect? It assured us that the Bible was true, and those prophets inspired. So now, if we see with our own eyes the clear fulfilment of St. Peter’s prophecy, what again must be our conclusion? What but that the Bible is true, and that the apostle Peter was inspired? Thus it is that the scoffer against the truth becomes a witness for the truth, and the man who would insult our God by what he calls “profane jokes” is unconsciously and unintentionally bearing testimony to the God whom he insults. If there were no such scoffers in these latter days, then indeed we might begin to doubt the inspiration of the prophetic Word. If the Jews had remained settled in their own country, and had never been dispersed among the nations, then we might have doubted the inspiration of the prophets respecting them; and so, if there were no infidels and no scoffers, then we might call in question the inspiration of the Scriptures that predicted them. But now, as the Jews are witnesses to one class of prophecy, so are the scoffers to another; and while we grieve for the poor men, and most heartily desire to see them saved with the great salvation, we may be at the same time thankful for their evidence, and may accept their scoffing is an unanswerable testimony to the prophetic truth of the inspired Scripture.
But that is not all. For when we have such a prophecy, so full in its prediction, and so clearly proved by its fulfilment to have been inspired by God, we are bound by every principle of allegiance to Him to listen to His counsel and act on His warning. If we believe His Word, the least we can do is to be on our guard; and if God has predicted scoffers, we ought to be prepared to meet them. This is the application which the apostle Peter makes of his own prophecy, and the passage is a remarkable instance of the application of a prophecy by the prophet who was employed to give it. Turn, then, to verse 17 of the chapter, and there you find him saying, “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before” (i.e., that you are fully warned beforehand), “beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” He points to a danger against which we should watch, and a standard at which we are to aim. The danger is that, “being led away with the error of the wicked,” we should “fall from our own stedfastness.” The standard is, that we “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” But if we are to act on this advice, it is clear that we must be armed inthe understanding. It is not enough that we feel emotion; but we want to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us—to know what that hope is, and to know also the strong foundation on which it rests. Most especially would I urge this on our young men. As you go through life you are almostcertain to meet with scoffers, and when you do you do not want to be like them, willingly ignorant. Our position is perfectly impregnable! We have a rock under our feet which nothing can shake. We have facts which cannot be disproved, and an accumulation of evidence which is not to be found respecting any other book in the world. But we must not let our weapons remain locked up like old armour in some baronial hall, but we must have them out, and use them with vigour. They are made of the best of steel; but we must take care that there is no rust on the blade, and so be able to meet the scoffer; not by scoffing, but by the sword of the Spirit, remembering well the assurance of Scripture, that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.”
But it is not in the understanding only that we require to be armed, for I believe there is no armour likethe heart’s experience of the love of God in Christ Jesus. The happy, consistent, thankful believer, he is not afraid of the scoffer. He knows whom he has believed, and he is persuaded that he is able to keep that which he has committed to Him against that day. He pities the scoffer, therefore; but he is not afraid of him except for the harm that he may do to others. He has felt the strength of the rock under his feet, and he is not going to be driven from it on to the shifting sands of unsettled infidelity. Oh, may God grant to every one of us strong assurance in the grace wherein westand! May He keep us in the hearty enjoyment of an abiding union with Christ Jesus our Lord! that so, strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might, we may stand fast in Him; redeemed by His blood; born again by His Spirit; called by the Holy Ghost; justified in His righteousness; forgiven through His atonement; and made heirs according to the hope of eternal life! If that be granted, we can afford to be scoffed at; and if that be ours, we should be stirred in the very depths of our soul to fresh energy as the witnesses for Christ. The scoffer himself is a witness to Him, inasmuch as he is a living, speaking, visible proof of the fulfilment of the prophetic Word. But it is not so that we must bear our testimony. He is a witness to truth by his denial, we by our confession; he by his insult, we by our reverend faith; he by denying the coming of our Lord, we by expecting it; he by the assertion of his own will, we by the surrender of ourselves to the will of the Lord. So it is that we may realize the full meaning of the words of our Lord, “Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me.”
Itwas one of the principles of the ancient Jewish law, that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” I have already exceeded that requirement in having brought before you no less than five “witnesses” to establish the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures; but I propose, if God permit, to conclude my series with two more:
They shall be very simple witnesses, and to the eye of man quite insignificant. They shall not have in themselves any apparent power of testimony; but yet I believe they are intended to speak in words of irresistible argument to all thinking men, and I trust will carry home to the hearts of those who are not “willingly ignorant” the most conclusive evidence of the truth of God. I refer to the two Sacraments of the Lord’s appointment—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In 1 John v. there appears to be a distinct reference to the Jewish rule, and there are three witnesses mentioned as bearing testimony upon earth—“the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.” The passage is not an easy one, and it behoves us to speak with caution. But I cannot help believing that by “the Spirit” is meant the testimony of the Holy Ghost in His inspired Word; and by“the water and the blood,” the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is to the testimony of these two latter witnesses that I now propose to refer; but we must remember there is nothing in either of them of a conspicuous or ostentatious character. In neither one nor the other is there anything like a material monument, nor anything to attract the attention of “the world;” there is no erection of granite or marble, nor any inscription like those on the stones from Nineveh; but they are both simple acts of the simplest possible character. A little water is all that is visible in the one, and a little bread and wine in the other; and yet, though so simple, so insignificant, and so absolutely without any visible monument, for the last eighteen hundred years they have been bearing their testimony as “witnesses” for Christ. Let us then conclude our series by the examination of their evidence, and let us consider two points: (1) Their present position; and (2) When and how did they acquire it? May God so bless our study by the Holy Ghost as to bring home conviction to all our hearts and understandings.
(1.)Their present position.
In order to realise this we must not confine our thoughts to our own personal enjoyment of our own sacred privileges. We may come to the Lord’s table as individuals, and find in the sacred feast such “a strengthening and refreshing of our souls” as may be to us the most conclusive and satisfactory evidence ofthe certain reality of the grace of God; but our personal experience would be no evidence to others, and our own enjoyment would not be regarded by the sceptic as a proof; it would be evidence to ourselves, but not to him, nor to the world at large. We must therefore take a wider range, and consider only such evidence as lies within the cognizance of all observing men. For this reason I have selected their position in the Church of Christ at this present time. I am not about to ask you to consider past history, but present facts; facts that may be tested by every one, facts belonging to this enlightened nineteenth century; and what I ask you to do is quietly and patiently to investigate facts.
Taking then our standpoint in this year of our Lord, 1883, we find that the Church of Christ has been extending for just 1850 years, and that throughout that time it has been spread by countless agents, and in countless manners, in every direction throughout the world. Starting as it did from Palestine, it has now taken root on every continent, and it has borne the sacred Name of our blessed Saviour into every quarter of the globe.
But while there has been this world-wide spread of Christianity, and while there is at this present time this widely-extended acknowledgment of the Name of the Lord Jesus, it is at the same time perfectly obvious that there are within the Church of the baptized immense diversities both of creed and practice. There are different Churches standing aloof from each other. There is theChurch of Rome in conflict with what is called the Greek Church on the one hand, and with us Protestants on the other. What is commonly called the Greek Church consists again of many branches, or is rather an aggregate of many independent Churches not united under any one head. There is the original Greek Church, the Russian, the Syrian, the Coptic, and the Abyssinian. So in the Church of Rome there are various orders, besides the great division between the secular and regular clergy; while we all know, to our heartfelt sorrow, how those who are united in their love for the great Scriptural principles of Protestant truth are still divided into various denominations. Thus, looking at the Church of Christ as a whole, we find it spread into so many places that it encircles the world; and broken up into so many sections that it is hard to trace what we may term any visible corporate union. There is separation as to place, and divergence as to Church organisation.
But now we come to the wonderful and indisputable fact that, notwithstanding all this separation and all this divergence in all countries and many systems, wherever we find the name of Christ there we find His own two Sacraments; and wherever we meet with Christianity there we are sure to meet with Baptism and the Holy Communion, God’s two witnesses to His inspired truth.
This is sufficiently wonderful if you think merely of the geographical extension of the Church. The visibleChurch is spread amongst different nations, in different climates, and with different habits; some of which are leading the way in civilization and science, while some are sunk in barbarism; some leading the thoughts of the world, and some apparently never thinking at all; some absorbed in trade, and some so completely without trade that they have not even a currency. In some there are old churches that have existed for centuries, and in some churches of modern formation recently called into being through colonization and missions; and yet, though the two Sacraments are so perfectly simple that there is nothing in themselves to spread or perpetuate themselves, wherever you go you find them. Place and space have made no difference. Go to Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, it makes no difference; wherever you go there you find God’s two Sacraments essentially bound up with the Christianity of the people.
But what is more wonderful still, the divergences in the faith have not destroyed them. There are different Churches most earnestly opposed to each other, as the Church of England to that of Rome, and the Church of Rome to that of Constantinople; but all have the two Sacraments. So at home there are various denominations, sadly disunited, and in some cases, I fear I must say, opposed; but yet amidst them all there remains this remarkable fact, that, with one or two perfectly insignificant exceptions, they all observe these same two Sacraments. And what makes this more remarkablestill is the fact that throughout Christendom there are immense diversities of opinion on the particular subject of these Sacraments; and there is scarcely any subject around which controversy has raged more fiercely. Both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have been the subject of sharp contention; and they have both been misinterpreted, misrepresented, and misused. Desperate heresies have been attached to them both, and they have become the battle-field for most determined theological conflict; but, notwithstanding all this confusion of tongues, the great fact still remains, that after eighteen centuries of conflict, here they are still. Controversy has not destroyed them; perversion has not put an end to them; separation has not divided them; but in the midst of all disturbing forces they remain. Wherever you find Christianity, there you find them. In all parts of the world, and in all Churches on the face of the earth, they are inseparably connected with the confession of Christ; and, as a matter of fact, there is not a Church in Christendom which in some mode or other does not observe them both.
Now in the study of this fact we must remember, as I said at the outset, that they are not like solid marbles set up by some great men, and so remaining as national monuments; but they consist in very insignificant actions, and their existence depends on their being observed by millions of insignificant individuals. They are preserved, not by state authority or church councils, but by the loving hearts of millions of scattered individuals, who,though it may be in much confusion, desire to act on the bidding of their Lord. Thus they become exceedingly like the rainbow spanning the heaven. That beautiful bow, the token of the covenant, is formed by the reflection of the sun from unnumbered millions of minute drops of falling rain. Each drop is in itself a mere speck, a nothing, falling rapidly, but shining as it falls; and all these millions of falling drops combine to form the one beautiful arch, which remains perfectly still, and bridges the interval between earth and heaven. So these two Sacraments are maintained throughout the world by the faith and piety of millions of insignificant and short-lived individuals, each one undesignedly fulfilling his own little part; while the grand combination of all these millions of little individualities maintains in all places and in all ages the twofold token of the everlasting covenant of God.
(II.) Thus far I have spoken simply of facts, of facts open to the observation of all men, and, as far as I know, denied by none. I cannot imagine that even an infidel would deny any of them. I may proceed then to my next question:When and how did these two Sacraments acquire this position? As a matter of fact they are observed throughout Christendom; when then were they introduced, and how did this observance begin? To this question our answer is simple; for we believe that they were ordained by Christ Himself, the one as His last act before His crucifixion, and the other before His ascension. To us therefore who receive theScriptures the whole thing is perfectly clear, and the fact is explained by the principle that all who receive the Lord Jesus Christ must receive, in obedience to His will, the two Sacraments which He Himself ordained.
But suppose there were any one who did not receive the Scripture account, it would be extremely interesting if such an one would endeavour to explain the introduction of either Sacrament, and would tell us who introduced it, and when, and how. If any person were now to endeavour to invent a third Sacrament he would find it very difficult to obtain for it a general acceptance through the world. The Church of Rome endeavoured to establish a new dogma respecting the Pope’s infallibility, and what was the result? They split off a large body of their own people, and they totally failed to introduce their dogma amongst any of the other churches of Christendom. In this respect the divisions of Christendom tend greatly to confirm the evidence of the Sacraments; for they show the complete impossibility of the introduction of these Sacraments at a later date than that claimed for them in the Scriptures. If Protestants had invented them, Roman Catholics would never have received them; or, to go back to a later date, if they had been invented by Rome they would never have been received at Constantinople. The Church of God is like a multitude of channels, all radiating from one centre. If you pour water into one channel you produce no effect on all the others, for the water will not pass across from channel to channel;but if there be a spring in the centre itself, then they are all filled together, for they all draw from one fountain-head. Just so it is with the Sacraments. If they had sprung up in any one branch of the scattered Church, they might have remained there; but there is no power on earth that could have carried them across into the other branches. So that now, as they are found in every branch, and in every part of every branch, the only possible explanation is that they have come direct from the fountain-head; that therefore the Scriptural narrative is perfectly true; and that they were founded, as there recorded, by our Lord Himself, and none other. As they came from Christ, the original centre, they spread through Christendom; as they were founded by the Author of Christianity, they are observed wherever Christianity exists. If any one doubt this conclusion, let him tell us where, when, and by whom they were first invented, and how after that they were spread through the world.
But we have not done yet; for if we believe that the two Sacraments were founded by our Lord Himself at the time and in the manner recorded in the Scriptures, there are certain very important results which follow.
Let us confine our thoughts to the Lord’s Supper. It was clearly declared at the time of its institution to be a memorial of the death and passion of our blessed Lord and Saviour. It was founded, moreover, on the night before His suffering, and that amongst men who were eye-witnesses of all that passed. Such is the statementof the Scriptures, which we now follow up by the fact that, from that day to this, wherever the name of Christ is named, there has never been a break in the observance of that memorial. Now what is the plain, simple, and obvious conclusion from all this? Is it not surely this, that the facts actually took place? The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the crucifixion, and it was founded among persons who were eye-witnesses of the whole transaction. Now if these facts had never occurred, and if the Book recording them had not been a true Book, how could the memorial have ever got its hold on the Church? The truth of the Book is proved by the existence of the memorial. The Book and the memorial are bound the one to the other. They stand and fall together; they cannot be separated. But the memorial may be seen throughout Christendom as a visible fact. It is, and always has been, co-extensive with Christianity. It is at this present time open to the observation of any one; so, seeing the memorial, we believe the Book, and are fully, perfectly, and historically satisfied as to all the great facts of the crucifixion.
But we must not stop there; for the memorial is not merely a proof of the facts of the crucifixion, but is also a proof of the doctrine of the cross. We have found that the memorial could not possibly have been introduced at any subsequent date, but that its institution must be traced up to the fountain-head, even to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and those words of His,“Do this in remembrance of me.” But this is not the whole of the passage, and we must not forget those other words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” and, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” The memorial, therefore, is not merely a memorial of the death, but of the purpose of it, and of the great principle which underlies the whole. It is a monument of those two sentences, “given for you” and “shed for you.” If it were a granite column instead of a simple service, these would be the two sentences to be engraved upon it; or if men wished to make the inscription shorter still, they might be content with two words, and write “For you;” for these two words contain the pith and marrow of the whole matter. It is not, therefore, merely the fact that He died of which the Lord’s Supper is a divinely-appointed witness, but the fact that He died as a vicarious satisfaction for sin—“a propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” It is well for us, therefore, to look carefully at the certain and undeniable fact, that in this nineteenth century the Lord’s Supper is observed in some form or other wherever the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is known; to consider well the utter impossibility of its being introduced at any period subsequent to the foundation of the Gospel, or by any person except by Him who said, “This do in remembrance of me;” and so to accept the assurance of its testimony that the body there given was givenfor us, and the blood there shed wasshedfor us. Divine atonement then is the great truth visibly signed and sealed to us by God’s divine memorial; and when we kneel together before that table of His, we may accept for our own soul’s everlasting peace, not merely the fact that He died, but the truth that He died as a propitiation for our sins; that His body was given in our behalf, orfor us, and His blood shed in our behalf, orfor us; and that therefore, without any further propitiatory sacrifice, or any supplementary mode of reconciliation, believing in Him, we are perfectly, immediately, and eternally free.