Believersenter Robert Govett

7/29/2019 Believersenter Robert Govett

1/44

WILL ALL BELIEVERSENTER THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM?

by Robert Govett

Used by permission and published by Schoettle Publishing Co., Inc.Fourth Edition, 1989

Mr. Purdon and myself agree in so many points, that it seems a pity we should fallout by the way. It is only because the subject on which we are engaged is somomentous, that I care to defend myself. In so doing, I shall have to discuss the greatquestion, which is now attracting much attention, and which will attract still moreWILL

ALL BELIEVERS OBTAIN PART IN THE MILLENNIAL GLORY?

Mr. Purdon, in his LAST VIALS, April, 1865, states principles of the utmost

importance: principles in which I cordially accord with him.

1. We agree, that all believers are assured of salvation: they have eternal life.2. We both believe, that when Christ speaks to disciples, He means believers.3. That there will be a judgment of the saved; not an inquiry whether they are foes, or

friends, but an investigation concerning their recompense.4. We own that the pardon of a believers sins after Isis conversion is no barrier to his

being thus judged.5. That there will be a reward of each according to his works, both for quantity and

quality6. That we may obtain our recompense for good works, either here or hereafter.

7. That while the standard of Christian conduct is exceeding lofty, the actual state ofmany believers is verylow. Every one, says Mr. Purdon, must have met withprofessors of Christianity whose shameless worldliness has been the ridicule ofthe neighborhood; and shall THEY receive a FULL reward? Some believers areover-delicate, over-sensitive, impatient, self-indulgent: Tract IV, pp. 11 15.

8. We both agree too, that death does not in a moment perfect the character. Thecrooked stein retains its crookedness after it is removed from earths soil. And suchpersons are not fitted for the millennial glory.

I. Our grand point of difference is thisMr. Purdon thinks that everybeliever, in spite of every imperfection or sinfulness of temper or practice, will

still enter into the millennial kingdom. I believe that Scripture teaches theexclusion of some believers; as the result, either ofno good works at all, or of thecommission ofsinful ones. Here are the lines of battle; now for its shock!

It is in his tract for June 1865 that this question is argued by him. He hascontrived to make me look very foolish by two points of tactics, which I cannotrecommend to others.


2/44

REWARD ACCORDING TO WORKS by Robert Govett Page 2Chapter 3: Will All Believers Enter The Millennial Kingdom?InTheBeginning.org

_____________________________________________________________________

(I). He has stated in many cases my views; but has omitted the proofs fromScripture by which I substantiate them. No one, I feel persuaded, after reading his tract

would imagine, that my writings on these points, especially on the Parable of theVirgins, are argument from Scripture throughout. To those who would see forthemselves the evidence, I will just notice the places in which that Parable is treated of.The Prophecy on Olivet";and the Saints Rapture to the Presence of the Lord Jesus,pp. 124152.

Almost every new view seems strange when divested of its proofs. How wild andabsurd seemed Columbuss notion of the New World! How foolish appeared the theoryof the circulation of the blood ~ And Galileos imagination too, that he, in looking atthose heavens which innumerable eyes for ages had been perusing, could see somenew stars! Come and look through my telescope, said he to the professor of

philosophy. But no! He would not.

(2). Mr. Purdon has in some cases added to my views what I do not hold and outof these additions spring the absurdities for which he makes me responsible. Of this byand bye.

I now proceed to discuss his theory. He saysAn effort is being made by a fewpersons to do away almost entirely with free grace, and to introduce into Protestantismsome of the worst and most dreary fictions of the Church of Rome: (Purgatory) TractVI, 1.

How can Mr. Purdon say, that there is an attempt to do away with grace? Has notgrace its appropriate sphere in Gods electing, renewing, and preserving His peopleunto eternal life? Is not the question on which we differ, one between millenariansalone? Can he show that the entrance into the kingdom is a thing decided by grace?Has he not himself taught that it is according to works?which is a principle opposite tograce. (Rom. xi, 5, 6.) How can he accuse those with whom he agrees in principle, asdesirous of destroying free grace? He allows that offending believers will suffer loss. Ithink, that the loss will be severer than he is willing to admit. That is the amount of thedisagreement.

We can see, (he continues) no necessity for this Romancing tendency, for it

appears to us, that the difference of REWARDS, and the difference in glory, will besufficient punishment for the saintsif such a word as punishment can be admitted; andthat along with these distinctions in eternity there are also worldly trials proportioned tothe transgressions of the saints living on earth. If they do wrong, they suffer for it here,in actual and positive trialand also suffer for it hereafternot in positive evil, but inpositive diminution of reward and of glory. Is not all this enough, without addingseclusion from the millennial kingdom, and something like the fire of purgatory?


3/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Now the ideas that (1) trials here, and (2) diminution of glory hereafter, are allthat is needed, form a compact little theory, which has recommended itself to several.

But we have not to decide whether we would have it so, or not; but whether this is Godsplan?

Is it Scripture? That is the great question. But Mr. Purdon does not adducepassages in proof of it, as he was bound to do. Are our religious views to be wreaths ofgossamer, floating on the air; or are they to be solid structures, based on the oracles ofGod?

I add, that Mr. Purdon sentenced this his progeny to death from its very birth. Forhe holdsthat in spite of trials here, and the diminution of glory hereafter, there areChristians whose tempers are unfit for the kingdom.

He says well: --

The mind that has become warped and crooked by some unhappiness of temperwill not be as well fitted for the grand occupations of eternity as the mind that hasgrown up through this life straight and symmetrical. The saint, impetuous almost tofury--fond of power--overbearing in temper--unyielding in self-opinionwillnot surelybe fitted for the same heavenly occupations as the meek, the peaceable, and thecompliant: IV, p. 7.

Such believers do not suffer under an outward crookedness, but an inwardly bitter

sap. Mr. Purdon does indeed suppose that after the resurrection, there will be no moreevil fruit. How that should be, with evil internal tempers, I cannot tell. Of this I am sure,that if Jesus is to judge such according to their words and works (and words come intonotice too, Matt. xii, 36; Luke xii, 13), he must exclude them from the kingdom; first, fortheir unchristian speeches and deeds; and secondly, for the sake of the mild and gentleones who enter the glory. Or else, wherever the two come into contact, the burs andprickles of these rose-trees will wound and pain the gracious ones of tender spirit. Andstrife cannot be allowed there. But that Jesus will exclude such we know from His words,which will be given presently.

It is granted by me, that God uses trial as an educational means in this life to fit His

people for glory to come. But there are cases not a few, where these evil tempers arenot overcome. Shall not then the Lord, in such cases, continue correction beyond thislife? If there be any texts which prove that no chastisement will be applied in the age tocome, they should be brought forward by all means. What mean such passages as Matt.v, 2132; xviii, 19, 2335, &c. They are addressed to disciples; and are meant forbelievers.


4/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Let us now glance at his second false principle.

II. He holds, that every believer, as a member of Christ, has a fund ofblessing, which may be diminished by his sins to an unlimited extent, and stillsuffice to admit him to the thousand years reward, and to eternal blessednessbesides. Tract IV, p. 9. His proof is founded on Luke xvi, 13.

Our Lord is addressing disciples those safe foreternity. v. 1.

Those who were sure of mere salvation are warned, that it they were notfaithful, God might withhold from them that which was their ownthat which iscalled, in another verse the true riches. Does not this decide the wholequestion? Worldliness or unfaithfulness in this life may strike out of our hands

half the honors of the life to come! Who shall give you that which is your own?What is meant by our own? That which was designed for us in eternity, in virtueof our union with Christ.

Every believer, as a member of Christ, has a special rank, station, or officeassigned to him in eternity. These privileges are what is called OUR OWN.They are the proper results and consequences of our membershipthe

ABSTRACT right of every member of the Bride. Yet, it appears from our Lordswords, these privileges may be forfeited. That, which by abstract right, wasaltogether his own, will for his unfaithfulness be partially kept back: IV, pp. 9, 10.

Now is it not strange, that there is not, in the entire parable, one word about that

which is supposed to be the foundation of the whole matter, membership with Christ,or a portion in the Bride? (In all Lukes Gospel, the Bride is not once mentioned.) Butbelievers are spoken of in quite another relation; as stewards. The rich man, to whomthe steward of the parable belongs, is God. v. 13.

The lessons derived from the parable by our Lord7 are chiefly two (I). That weare responsible to God for our use of money, and moneys worth; and that according toour faithfulness or unfaithfulness we shall receive or forfeit possessions in the time tocome. (2). That we are set as prudent men to act for our best interests; and that ourinterests are best consulted by using the false riches of this world to raise us up friendsin the coming eternity.

So far then we pretty well agree. But the argument turns on what is to besupplied before the words your own. Our translators have inserted is. And on that Mr.Purdon builds his view. But there is no necessity that the ellipse should be thus filled up.


5/44


_____________________________________________________________________

The argument of our Lord would lead us to a different supply of the ellipsis.

If you have been unfaithful in the false wealth of this world, who will bestow onyou the true riches of eternity? Not God: for He is displeased with yourunfaithfulness.

If in that which is anothers you are faithless, who shall you give possessionswhich shall be your own? For the wealth ofthe world to come is a real possession,not given in trust, but bestowed in full sovereignty.

It seems clear then, from the scope of the parable, that the Savior is speaking of afuture possession, which may or may not be ours, just as we are faithful or faithless in theuse of our possessions now, and is not speaking of a possession, which is ours in virtueof a relationship neither named nor hinted at. The idea of a station, dignity, or possession,

which is ours by abstract right, is something which needs clearScripture proof.

It is of future riches, I believe, (not honors,) that our Lord is speaking; and thesemay be utterly forfeited, as the argument of our Lord supposes. In Mr. Purdons words,which follow, I entirely agree. They grant the principle for which I am contending.

Perhaps all glorydenied to himperhaps, nothing may be left but simplesalvation. But this will be a non-natural state.

Just what I believe. He will have no reward: and therefore no place in the day ofreward. He loses everything but that which grace retains for him, againsthis deserts; and

that is eternal life, after the millennium is past. John iii 15, 16.

I now proceed to inquire into the Scripture evidence on the subject of entrance into,or exclusion from, the millennial glory.

Mr. Purdon grants that Christ will judge believers according to their works. Hiegrants too that the works and tempers of some believers are evil.

On what grounds then will any enter the kingdom?

I. CERTAIN POSITIVE EXCELLENCIES ARE REQUIRED.

1. Good works are demanded.

(1) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdomof heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven:Matt. vii, 21. Areall believers observing Christs precepts in the Sermon on the Mount? Are there nobelievers who are soldiers, judges, takers of oaths, prosecutors? Matt. v, 3848; vii,15; v, 3337.


6/44


_____________________________________________________________________

(2) The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and that

have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment: (Greek) John v, 29.

(3) When thou makest a feast call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind;and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt berecompensed at the resurrection of the just:Luke xiv, 13, 14.

Jesus declares that those who do not exceed, both inprinciples andpractice, theunconverted, shall have no reward. For if ye love them which love you, what rewardhave ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, whatdo ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Matt. v, 46, 47.

Take heed that ye do not your righteousness (margin) before men to be seen ofthem; otherwise ye have no rewardof your Father which is in heaven: VI, 1. See alsoMatt. xxv, 3440; 2 Cor. v, 3.

2. THERE MUST BE SIMPLE FAITH IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE MILLENNIUM.

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a littlechild, shall in no wise enter therein.Luke xviii, 17; Mark x, 14, 15.

That by the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, the millennial kingdom ismeant, seems to me proved by such texts as Dan. ii, 44; iv, 26; vii, 21, 22; Matt. xix, 23,

24, 27, 28; xx, 2023; viii, II, 12, &c. Those who would see the proofs of this traced out,will find them in my worksEntrance into the KingdomFirst and Second Series.

But if so, this will exclude many believers. Do all admit the doctrine of theSaviors reign as Son of Man? Do not many deny some even ridicule it? Can theseenter it when it comes? If Moses had said by Gods decree, Whosoever shall notbelieve in the land flowing with milk and honey shall not enter it, should we not haveunderstood the words clearly enough? Then those of the spirit of Dathan (Num. xvi, 14)would not enter it. If any had said'This land of promise and its milk and honey are all amythwe are to dwell in the wilderness always'would these not have been justlyexcluded from the land? But the Holy Ghost tells us, that Israels position and conduct

are a mirror of ours, and that their history teaches us what Gods judgment of us will bein the day to come. 1 Cor. x; Heb. iii, IV.

3. POVERTY OF SPIRIT, MEEKNESS, PURITY ARE REQUIRED, WITH OTHERGRACES.

(I). Blessed are thepoor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven: Matt. v, 3.(2). Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth: 5.


7/44


_____________________________________________________________________

(3). " Blessed arc thepure in heart; for they shall see God: 8, &c.

Do all believers possess these graces? Mr. Purdon admits that they are not.Then those who have them not will be excluded. The beatitudes are exclusive: that is,while those who are merciful will enter the kingdom, those unmerciful will be shut out.James ii, 13.

This is drawn out distinctly for us in Luke vi.

He lifted up His eyes on His disciples and said,

(I.) Blessed are ye POOR (disciples) for yours is the kingdom of God:20. But woeunto you RICH(disciples) for ye are receiving (Greek) your consolation: 21. And,

we may add, Your woe is, that yours is NOT the kingdom of God.It is easierfor a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into thekingdom of God:Mutt. xix, 24.(2.) Blessed are ye (disciples) when men shall hate you, and when they shallseparate you from theircompany, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name asevil for the Son of Mans sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy; for behold,your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner did their fathers unto theprophets: 22, 23.

Woe unto you (disciples) when all men shall speak well of you; for so did theirfathers to the false prophets: 26.

Now in this, I have Mr. Pardon going along with me to a considerableextent.

It seems clear, that when a Christian takes up too much with the presentworld, he must expect that God (as some one has said) will keep him to hisbargain; and will strike on a proportionate quantity from the glories of the nextworld:" Tract IV, p. 10

Jesus says, that the part struck off will be the kingdom of God altogether. AgainMr. Purdon says:

Even to the heirs of salvation this choice is given. Will you have so much ofthe present world) and so much less of the next? Will you have part of yourreward here, or wait for your FULL reward wholly in the life to come? IV, p. 10.

Jesus says, that those who have their consolation here, and nowas richdisciples have, will obtain no consolation in the kingdom; for they will have no part in it.

Have you had, or have you not had, some part of your reward upon earth?


8/44


_____________________________________________________________________

That is a deep question, and requires a deep answer. Or again, Have you notbeen an actual loser by your good works while upon earth: and gained by them

less than nothing ii the present life? Many have lost all for Christs sake,especially in times of persecution. Many have lost something for His name. Somehave lost next to nothing; and some have even gainedby their religion. In thepresent times, Christianity walks on silver, and breaths ambrosial air. Peoplemake their livelihood of Christianity. Others get on in the world by it. Others getinto good society by their religion. p. 13.

Quite true; and Jesus says, that there is a woe upon the gainers by theirreligion now. How can that be? This doctrine tells us.

Paul was found on one occasion Confirming the souls ofdisciples, and exhorting

them to continue in the faith, and that through much tribulation we must enter thekingdom of God:Acts xiv, 22.

What then will there be for those who have received either much gain instead? --Or no trouble from this source? Surely, no entrance into the kingdom at all! It is a time ofconsolation for the troubled; but these have not been troubled. 2 Thess. i, 57.

I. Inquire next: WHAT SAYS SCRIPTURE ABOUT EXCLUSION FROM THE KINGDOM?

1. The entrance into it is to be according to works. But there are somebelievers who have no good works. They put off repenting all their life till the close, and

God had mercy on them at the last. They just believed, were saved, and died. If rewardwere according to works, can these enter who have none? It is the Coronation day ofher Majesty, Queen Victoria. All are pressing to enter Westminster Abbey. Admission isaccording to tickets; some tickets admit to the body of the place; some to the reservedplaces near the throne: some admit to one of the doors, some to another. A personcomes without a ticket. Can he enter? Of course not! If tickets admit, no ticket excludes.The doers of the Fathers will alone are to enter. Matt. vii, 21. He has only just believed:has done no good works.

2. But there are besides, believers guilty ofevil works. On this point I am veryhappy in having Mr. Purdon for my antagonist; for on this road he sees much furtherthan most. Opponents of the doctrine in general affirm, that every believer is what heought to be; in spite of ten thousand facts around proving the contrary. But Mr. Purdonowns the mighty perturbations effected in the orbit of the Christian by those disturbingspheres the world, the flesh, and the devil. He acknowledges, (what any eye may see,and what the world is keen to notice,) that most Christians are either ahead of theircalculated place, or lag behind it.


9/44


_____________________________________________________________________

I shall therefore have only to apply to Mr. Purdons true representations of thecharacter and actions of many believers, what the Scripture says about the destiny of

such; and we shall see that their exclusion is certain.

(1.) Mr. Purdon has a good deal to say on the worldliness of Christians.

Is a believer who has courted the world far more than many a heathen, fittedto stand at the head in the great arrangements of that kingdom which is to RULEthe world? Is the worlds humble SERVANT fitted to be the worlds MASTER?

Be assured at least, that no true believer will ever be permitted to graspworldly gain with an avidity that shocks all who see him, and that scandalizeseven the world, and yet I e allowed hereafter the FULL REWARD, and glory ofeternity. We have seen such persons; and we have seen them dare to take the

lead in the religious world; while the ungodly looked on with scorn. We think theywill find themselves losers a hundred-fold in the day of reward: IV, pp. 1115.

What varieties of separation from the worldfrom the world crucified to themand they unto the worlddown to the lowest level of spirituality, on which abeliever so often dwells, and where he can reach out his hand and embrace theworld!Tract IV, p. 3.

What says James of these? Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that thefriendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be (wishes to be)a friend of the world is the enemy of God: James iv, 4.

Is the kingdom for the enemies of God? No: for His friends alone. These thenmust stand outside.

(2.) How manyTRIMMERS [are there) who will sacrifice their conscience ratherthan their worldly interest? .... Do you think that such varieties will not be found amongthe saints? Or that trimming and worldly-wisdom are confined to the ungodly? You aremuch mistaken: ibid.

What then does Scripture say shall be the lot of the trimmer? Of the man whodares not confess Christ? Of him who lives in a sinful position, because of his worldlyinterest?

Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I also confess beforemy Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will 11 alsodeny before my Father which is in heaven: Matt. X, 32, 33. These do not confess Christnow: they will not therefore be owned as His in the day when each reaps the fruit of his

works. Andifnot owned as Christs, they cannot enter the kingdom.


10/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Look again! Lest there be any fornicator, or profane-person as Esau, who forone morsel of meat [a single meal] sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterwards,

when he would have inherited [he wished to obtain] the blessing, he was rejected; for hefound no place of repentance, though he soughtitcarefully with tears:Heb. xii, 16, 17.

Esau made his bargain, selling away the spiritual and future blessing for apresent material good. He hoped when the day of the blessing came, to enjoy it; butthough he was a son, aye, and the favoredson, he was excluded. God and his fatherfirmly rejected him, in. spite of his cry and tears. This example, does it not loudly speakexclusion ~ The day of glory is not forthose who make so profane a choice.

(3.) The saint, impetuous almost to furyfond of power-overbearing intemperunyielding in self-opinionwill not surely be fitted for the same heavenly

occupations as the meek, the peaceable, and the compliant: p. 7.

What will become of such in that day? Scripture utters no doubtful sentenceconcerning them.

The apostles of our Lord had been at strife among themselves, which should bethe greatest in the kingdom? Ambition spurred them on, and no doubt some unadvisedwords were spoken, and evil tempers manifested. Mark ix, 33, 34; Luke ix, 46. They atlength refer their dispute to Jesus. They inquire Which of them, in Messiahs comingkingdom, should be the greatest? Jesus repliedthat he who was the most lowly andchildlike here would be greatest in that day of glory. But He adds too, Verily, I say

unto you. Except ye turn (Greek) * and become as little children, he shall not enter intothe kingdom of heaven. Matt. xviii, 14. What a startling reply!

To you, apostles and converted men though you be, who are questioning whichshall have the highest place in my millennial kingdom, I sayyou shalt not enter at all,unless you become very unlike what you are now, and lose your angry, ambitious,proud, obstinate tempers.

Is not that proviso very necessary to the peace of our Lords kingdom? Shall themillennium be a time of strife and jostling, as the day of His church has been? No:Christ will prevent that, by keeping out the men of hot spirits. Such Christians are harsh

and unripe: they need keeping, ere they will be mellow enough for the city of God andthe company of the meek and gentle.

Observe the following words of Mr. Pardon,

(4.) Some one has wall remarked, that St. Paul writing to the Ephesians, whowere most eminent believers, found it necessary to warn them not only against inwardtempers, but even against outward crimes. Not only does he say, Be ye angry and. sin


11/44


_____________________________________________________________________

notbut he adds Lie not one to another. Let him that stole STEAL no more. Now, ifa true believer requires to be warned against lying and stealing, it would be absurd to

imagine that a true believer must of necessity be free from faults of temper, even of anexternal kind; or from inward harshness of disposition: p. 7.

It is possible then that a Christian may lie and steal. Now we find Ananias andSapphira both cut off out of the church and out of life, with their sins unrepented of. Canthey enter the kingdom?

What shall be done to him who steals?

Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not thoseunrighteous (persons) (Greek) shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers ofthemselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, norextortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God:1 Cor. vi, 810.

Here it is put as simple exclusion: but Jesus says something much stronger; onwhich a word by and bye.

(6.) Hear Mr. Pardon again,

Some believers are over-delicate, over-sensitive, impatient, self-indulgent.

What says scripture about these? The impatientgenerally show their impatienceby murmuring, and bitter words.

Of the murmurers Paul says, that what happened to Israel in the wilderness is alesson to us. God brought them out of Egypt led them, fed them. But with most (Greek)of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Neithermurmur ye, as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the Destroyer: 1Cor. x, 110.

(7.) For the self-indulgentPaul has also a word,

And every man that striveth for the mastery is of temperate in all things. Nowthey do it to obtain a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not asuncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air. But I keep under my body, andbring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have acted the herald to others, Imyself should become rejected:(Greek) I Cor. ix, 2527.


12/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Here is exclusion again. Mr. Purdon admits, (pp. 4, 5,) that it is possible to losethe proffered crown. Rev. iii, 11. But he thinks it will be replaced by oneof inferior

brightness. I can find nothing about that.

Or they will be left uncrowned altogether, like the Roman citizens, who were allequally free of Rome, but not all equally eligible for civil honors.... The case of theRoman citizen indeed exactly represents the position of the church, both as tosalvation and as to reward. An idle, careless Roman would not be degraded andreduced to slavery, but he would be excluded from civil honors, because not fit tosustain them, as well as not deserving of reward.

But this supposition does not go far enough. Might not a Roman be more thanidle? Would not a Roman citizen who had run into debt, or committed an assault, be

imprisoned? If he committed theft, would he not be punished as well?

And this leads me to the question which stumb1e~ Mr. P. and which he seeks toget rid of by his theory of a diminished reward. I can quite sympathize with him in such adesire. I shudder at the thought ofpositive infliction. Nevertheless what saith thescripture? Let us consult it!

1. And that servant which knew his lords will, and prepared not himse1f, neitherdid according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, anddid commit things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes:Luke xii, 47, 48.

Stripes are positive infliction of personal evil, are they not? Not deduction from abook of credit, but strokes laid on the back.

2. What says Jesus to the unforgiving disciple? His lord was wrath, anddelivered him to the tormentor till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise

shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, ifye from your hearts forgive not every onehis brother their trespasses:Matt. xviiii, 21, 31, 35.

3. What says Jesus to the openly criminalas for instance to the thief?

If thy right eye cause thee to stumble (Greek) pluck it out and cast it from thee;

for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy wholebody should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand cause thee to stumble (Greek) cut itoff, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members shouldperish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

This is a word to disciples that is, believers. Matt. v, 1, 2, 29, 30.


13/44


_____________________________________________________________________

4. What says our Lord about the bitter word of anger? I say unto you, Thatwhosoever is angry with his brother [without a cause] shall be in danger of the

judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of thecouncil; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire: Matt. v, 22.

5. What says our Lord concerning those who in days of persecution deny thetruth to save life?

I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them which kill the body, and afterthat have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: fear1dm, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell: yea I say unto you, Fear him:Luke xii, 4, 5.

6. What is told us of those who do not abide in Christ?

If a man abide not in me, he is cast firth as a branch and is withered; and (men)gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned:John xv, 6.

7. What is taught us concerning believers, doers of evil works?

For land which has drunk in the rain frequently coming on it, and brings forthplants fit for those on whose account also it is tilled, partakes of blessing from God: butif it bear thorns and thistle (it) is accounted worthless, and nigh unto cursing, of whichthe end is unto burning:Heb. vi, 7, 8. This is Alfords rendering, with which I almost

entirely coincide. See also Matt. xviii, 69; Luke xvii, 1, 2.

(8.) What is the threat against false teachingby a believer, who yet is sound on thegreat question of justification?

The fire shall try every ones work of what sort it is. If any ones work shall beburned (up) he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved: yet so as through fire:(Greek) 1 Cor. iii, 13, 15.

There are not a few other cases that might be adduced; but these will suffice.

I will now consider the special objection, which Mr. Pardon has urged againstwhat I consider to be the true view of the PARABLES of Matt. xxiv, xxv.

And first I observe, that since writing the Rapture of the Saints, my belief hasbeen confirmed by extended examination of the scripture; and to those who wish to seemy views on the subject, I beg to suggest that they look into Entrance into theKingdom, first and second series; as containing a variety of proofs derived from manypassages of the New Testament.


14/44


_____________________________________________________________________

I confess myself as liable to errors as my brethren in Christ; and I desire for myown sake and for Christs, to confess, and abandon every erroneous doctrine. Better be

humbled here for our false teaching, than before our Lord in the day of fire.

I proceed to notice Mr. Pardons words. He is here contending with passagesdrawn from the Saints Rapture.

One of the most triumphant arguments on the question is that drawn from thecase of the servant who hid the talent in a napkin. From this Mr. Govett hasdrawn the astonishing conclusion, that anything short of eternal condemnationmay befall a true believer, if he should prove to be negligent:vi, 2.

I beg Mr. Purdons pardon. I have not said, I have not thought, that for simple

negligence the extremist penalties may descend on a believer.

Mr. Purdon proceeds His words are these: If the principle of rewardaccording to works be true, then every degree of disgrace and punishment short ofeternal woe, may take effect in the kingdom.

I do say so. But how does the passage run on?

For it is matter of sad observation, that every species and degree of crime iscommitted, and has been committedby believers after their conversion. So thatthere may be positive and entire forfeiture of the kingdom; and only the lowest

position in eternal life after it. Sovereignty guarantees indeed, that the elect shallnot be lost forever. But the sin of man enables us to suppose anything short ofthis. Look at Aaron, Lot, and Solomon. The land of promise must be given to thesons of Abraham. Sovereign mercy had pledged it. But anything short of thatmight take place. All but Moses might have been cut off, and he might have beenmade a great nation. In point of fact, all that generation which came out of Egypt,save Caleb and Joshua, were so cut off. The Saints Rapture,p. 177.

It is evident then that I am speaking not of sins of omission, but of sins ofcommission.

But, surely this is not reward according to works, but punishmentaccording toworks.

This objection is merely verbal, and is set aside at once by observing, that the oldEnglish word reward, like our word recompense takes in the award made to evilconduct, as well as to good. Take an instance, 0 daughter of Babylon who art to bedestroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee, as thou hast served us: Psalmcxxxvii, 188.


15/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil: 1 Sam.xxiv, 17; also Deut. xxxii, 41.

The Greek words employed by the Savior and His apostles on this point have thesame neutral signification. And our translators use the word reward in reference to thedouble adjudication of good and evil. The Son of Man shall come in the glory of HisFather with His angels, and then He shall rewardevery man (each) according to hisworks: Matt. xvi, 27.

Mr. Purdon seems to see the weakness of this objection; for he adds,

However that may be, this opinion is built on the case of the servant with theone talent, and of course it all turns upon the point, whether the servant be a true

believer or not.

I beg his pardon again. The case of the one-talent servant is not the wholefoundation of my views, but only one stone of it. If Mr. Purdon has read my two seriesof comments in Entrance into the Kingdom,he must know it is not so. If he have not,he is a very unprepared antagonist. He has not surveyed yet the fortress he is to attack;and mistakes a single bastion for the whole circuit of the walls. The Saints Rapturedoes not discuss this great question as being at all its main subject.

Mr. Purdon adds, Mr. Govett asserts that he [the one-talent servant] is a be-liever. We assert that it is almost certain that it is not. He is a false professor, a man

who bears the name of Christian, and who has been brought up like millions to make aprofession of Christianity, but who has never had true saving faith.

What is the proof of this assertion? Nothing!

His being called a servant is no proof whatever that he is a true believer. Every one

who calls himself a Christian professes to be a servant ofGod; lie takes the name ofservant when he takes the name of Christian; and he takes even a higher name, and heis judged out of his own mouth, as the Lord indeed says.

In answer to this I observe,

1. That he ever so calls himself. Will the reader look through the parable and see?Six times does the word servant occur in the parable of the Talents, and never oncedoes the slothful one apply it to himself.

2. Is it not a goodproof, aye, the best of proofs, that a man is a servant, ifhismaster calls him so? Jesus four times in the parable calls him servant; and Jesus is hislord: 18, 19. Twice he acknowledges the slothful one in company with the other two; twice, in

passing sentence, he so calls him: 26, 30. May not the infallible Master be trusted to know


16/44


_____________________________________________________________________

his own servants? The Holy Spirit foreseeing this objection has presented especialevidence to destroy it. The Mastercalls HIS OWN SERVANTS v. 14. Three are singled out

for especial notice. The Master returns. The lord ofthose (three) servants cometh: 19.Then the servants are called before him in order, according to the number oftalentsentrusted. Here is another proof. When a master commits his goods to the keeping of aninferior, lets him know what he is to do with them, and gives him to understand he shallrequite him according to his obedience, does not that prove the person so trusted to be aservant? John, bring me the casket I gave you to keep, and the key. The words wouldprove, (would they not?)Not the false profession ofservice by a man that never wasowned as servant by the master, but a real recognition, by the master, of the mans post as

servant? But the proof is far strongerhere. For the goods entrusted to the servants, in thiscase, are bestowed only after they are owned as servants. As a man travelling into afar country he called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.The delivery

of goods comes after their recognition as servants. And this proves, that the goodsentrusted are not the mere natural gifts of memory, strength, health, and great abilities,&c., which all possess in different degrees, whether converted or not. And thereforethese talents answer to the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost, communicated afterfaith. That this point is so to be regarded is proved by v. 27, where the slothful one isblamed, because he did not transfer to others the gift he would not use himself.

Now this, in the case of natural gifts, could not be done: but in the case of supernatural

gifts, it may: Rom. i, 11. Acts viii.

All three are servants in the same sense. The Lord draws no distinction between

them, but that between a good and a bad article of the same kind.

The lord ofthose servants cometh. To the two first he says, Well done, goodand faithful servant. Then came he also who had received the one talent, (Greek).Thou wicked and slothful servant. Cast ye the unprofitable servant into the outerdarkness.

He calls himself, (says Mr. Purdon,) a Christian, and then a servant of God,and he shall be taken at his word, and judged as if he were a servant indeed. Buton trial he is found to be a pretender, he is found never to have been a servant atall, and therefore he is cast out.

God calls him a servant; he never calls himself so. His title to the name ofservant is never called in question, though Jesus generally exposes the falsepretender.

(1.) Thou hast tried them which saythey are apostles and are not, and hast foundthem liars:": Rev. ii, 2.


17/44


_____________________________________________________________________

(2.) I know the blasphemy of them which saythey are Jews, and are not, bat arethe synagogue of Satan:9, and iii, 9.

(3.) That woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess:20.(4.) Thou sayest, I am rich' . . .and knowest not that thou art . . . poor: iii, 17. See

also I Tim. vi, 20.

Especially would this be the case in the day of Lord tells us, all deceits will bejustice, when, as our Lord tells us, all deceits will be exposed. Of this we have an instancegiven, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? I never knew you, departfrom Me, ye that work iniquity: Matt. vii, 23.

Where is it said, that this servant is a pretender? Where, that he is cast outbecause not a servant at all? This is as contrary to the text as well can be. Even when

sentence is passed, the name of servant is twice applied to him. He is dealt with, notas one of the foes, whom the nobleman slays before him, because refuse to have himreign over them; but as a servant, one ofhis own servants,that has been slothfuland useless; and that, to shield himself, accuses falsely his master. His offence is notthat being a toe, he falsely professed to be a servant; but that being a servant, he neverdid his work.

We can judge then with what truth Mr. Purdon adds, We have not the slightestevidence to prove that the unprofitable servant is a believer.

Compare with this the parable of the Wedding-garment. There the false professor is

presented to us. He comes in his own righteousness, having refused the righteousnessprovided by God: (Matt. xxii.) That parable was spoken to the disciples and the multitude;this to the disciples alone. The ill-clothed guest is cast out by the king, before the kings soncomes in to the feast. He is guilty against warning, and is speechless. The king addressesthe offender not as a servant, but as a man, by the lowest title he could well use. He had

entered the banquet hall, but was not a guest. When the king came into see the guests, hesaw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment, and he said unto him, Comrade *how camest thou in hither?

But some one may say Does not his offence manifest him to be no servant? Ianswer, Yes, if you may exclude from any class whatever is not a good specimen of

that class. But it would be justly accounted a proof of want of common sense, if youwere to refuse to call a leaky ship a ship; or a sick soldier a soldier.

It is granted that the man is idle. But is every converted man working for Christ?Or is every one, who is not working, unconverted?

May we say those are no servants who are not good servants?


18/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Take an actual case, recorded by a well-known man,

Wolff hired two Persian servants both of them tremendous rogues; for Wolffnever had the good fortune to meet with a good servant, except on his second

journey to Bokhara, in the year 1843, when he took a Russian with him fromConstantinople to Tabreez, who actually behaved very well the whole journey. Butwhen they arrived at Tabreez, he became so drunk that he thrashed his master andwould have most seriously injured him, if Mr. Bonham had not knocked him down.Wolff, however, would still have taken him on to Bokhara after he became sober, ifhe would have promised not to get drink again. But he said, he would neverpromise such a thing, as he was determined to get drunk whenever the feast of theHoly Virgin Mary was celebrated. So Wolff dismissed him: Dr. Woffs Travels vol.i, p. 465.

Here are two tremendous rogues, yet they are owned to be servants.And in thethird case, there is a far greater offence against the master; and yet that master callsthe man a servant still.

I put this objection, not that Mr. Purdon could make it with any good grace; butbecause others might, and doubtless would, insist upon it. For Mr. Purdon has alreadygranted principles which, rightly weighed, will decide this case. He admits, nay, himselfteaches, that Jesus at His coming will judge believers according to their works. Thatwhere any of our Lords sayings are addressed to disciples they apply to believers.

And the whole of the Prophecy on Olivet was spoken to disciples: Matt. Xxiv, 1, 3.

None but disciples were present on the occasion. Mark xiii, 3.

Mr. Purdon owns too, that there are great varieties of open failure and sins on thepart of believers; sins far greater than appear in the one-talent servant. Some are self-indulgent, and that was the characteristic of this servant; lie was slothful. Mr. P.teaches too, that death does not destroy the evil temper, which has long abode in thebeliever. And accordingly, he who was slothful while his master was away, is slothfulstill at his return. And we have seen that Jesus owns the man a servant, even when hissentence is passed. The effect of that sentence then is loss, not of salvation, but ofreward, during a definite timethe thousand years day of justice, as long as men aredestined to eat the fruit of their own doings.

We proceed.

A believer who has mismanaged these [Gods gifts] while upon earth will hereafterbe called to a reckoning; the waste which h has made, the neglect of which he hasbeen guiltythe loss of opportunitiesthe postponement of the Lords interests,while he was courting the worlds favorall this will be charged against him, and afull deduction will be made according to the assessmentof his unfaithfulness: iv, 9.


19/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps all glory will be denied to himperhaps nothing: may: be left but simplesalvation: 10.

Just so. Here is a case in point. Others, the diligent, enter their Lords joy, andthe lighted banquet room: he is to be kept in the darkness outside, not (as Mr. P. wouldkindly provide) to take the lowest station in the hall of the feast.

2. We come next to the case of the Unfaithful Steward. Matt. xxiv. On which Mr.Purdon observes: The same thing applies to the Unfaithful Steward in the 2fth ofMatthew. Mr. Govett asserts that he is a true believer, cut in sunder, and sent to a longprobation among the hypocrites in some place of future misery. Is not this purgatory anddownright Romanism? It is really nothing else, arid a most unjustifiable assertion, when

we consider the lightness of the foundation.

Mr. Govett not only asserts that he is a believer, but he gives proof of it.The sentence of our Lord is unlike Romish purgatory, in most of its features. Thatbegins only after death, lasting till the Day of Judgment, helped by the moneyand prayers of the laity and priests. This begins at Christs coming, lasting duringthe Day of Judgment, and admits of no priestcraft. But if any scripture truth leadsus into obloquy, we must not be ashamed of it, but boldly testify, and bear thereproach. Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and My words, of him shall theSon of man be ashamed, when. He shall come in His own glory : Luke ix, 6.

Saul and Judas Iscariot settle the whole question. They were sent,appointed, and anointed from above. The Lord gave His COMMISSION to both.They were both commissioned officers of the Lord, and yet neither of them hadsaving grace, neither of them was a real servant of God.

Saul was set over Gods fleshly people. In order to rule them, it was enough tobe of Abrahams fleshly seed. Judas Iscariot was sent out with some messages ofChrist to the lost sheep of the house of Israel:" Matt. x. 5. 6. But neither of themoccupied a place in the Church of Christ, which began by the Holy Ghosts descent atPentecost. Of neither could it be said, that he was the faithfuland wise servantwhomhis lord made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season: Matt. xxiv,45. Christs household now is a spiritual household, a building of living stones; and

Jesus could not set an unspiritual man over such a household, nor a dead stone assubordinate corner stone over living ones. Much less could one dead in soul be eitherfaithful or wise. Such a one would be a stranger, whom the sheep should flee from.John x, 5, 8, 10.

Mr. Purdon asserts that the steward here is no better than those twounconverted persons are. But he gives no proof. He supposes that I must establish thefaith of the steward here beyond question, or it is nothing. I only desire to give evidence


20/44


_____________________________________________________________________

satisfactory to my own mind: to ask me to adduce evidence which none will question, isin a high degree unreasonable. Even mathematical evidence would be gainsaid in a

subject so unpleasing as this. Even the being of a God is not established to this daybeyond question of some. The Lord gave the disciples sufficient evidence of Hisresurrection; He did not establish it even to their minds beyond question; for theyridiculed the proofs as idle tales. But He rebuked them for hardness of heart andunbelief; because they spurned good and sufficient evidence. Mark xvi, 9, 14.

Both Judas and Saul (Mr. Purdon says) were employed as Gods stewards. Ideny that either was a steward over his household the Church. Nor is either, I believerever called, as the steward here is, a servant at all. Mr. Purdon must give somepassage in which each of his champions is called a servant, ere the cases are parallel.Even then to be a servant in the dispensation of the flesh, and a servant in the dis-

pensation of the spirit, would suppose very different standings.

Mr. Pardon thinks I must assert that both Saul and Judas were believers andsaved men. I do not: neither I believe is called a servant; and even if s~, a man mightbe a servant in the days of the fleshly people without being saved. But he could not be aservant in the church-dispensation; in which, service is that of the spirit. Romans i, 9.

Let us look at the evidence, which proves that the faulty steward is a believer.

1. This is one of the parables addressed to disciples, and spoken to believersonly, by our Lord.

2. It stands in intimate connection with our Lords call to watch, v. 42; a callwhich supposes spiritual life, and which cannot be properly addressed to unbelievers.The call to them is to repent and believe.

3. Therefore be ye also ready; for at such an hour as ye think not, the Son ofman cometh. Who then is the faithful and wise servant whom his lord made ruler overhis household, to give them meat in due season?

Be ye ready is a word to believersis it not? Among the believers then towhom this is addressed, there would be found one, the chief, and the ruler appointed by

Christ to watch over his household.

Blessed is that servantwhom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. VerilyI say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Can this be supposed of any but a believer? Most will admit that this partsupposes faith.


21/44


_____________________________________________________________________

But and if that evil servantshall say in his heart My lord delayeth his coming,and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, but shall eat and drinking with the drunken,

the lord ofthat servantshall arrive (Greek) in a day when he looketh not for him, and inan hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and I appoint his portion withthe hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now if the first part supposes a believer (and who but he could be placed inmillennial glory over all the Lords goods?) then I cannot see by what legitimate processit can be denied, that the steward found unfaithful and dealt with as such, is anythingbut a believer.

Jesus seems to me carefully to connect the two pictures. He calls the stewardwhen faithful that servant: 46. He calls the steward found unfaithful that servant too.

48. He adds evil to show the justice of His sentence. He supposes the believers of thechurch over which ho presides to be his fellow-servants. He is called a servant evenwhen his sentence is passed. 50. He is not an unbeliever; for we are taken to his mostsecret thought, and it is only a deferring of his lords coming. Can no converted personbe guilty of unfaithfulness up to the point supposed? Mr. Purdon has admitted thatworse sins are actually or possibly found among believers.

If we think, that no true Christian is furious in spirit, overbearing in temper, orunyielding in self-opinion, we know little of the perversity of mans heart.

And he goes on to note that Christians are, not without reason, warned, against

both lying and stealing. iv, 7.

At page 11 of the same tract, my opponent observes:

Mr. Govett has said a good deal upon one textthe appointing the unfaithfulsteward his portion among hypocrites. This says Mr. Govett, proves that he wasno hypocrite, but a true believer for otherwise he would have been among thehypocrites without the necessity of an appointment. But can we build asmomentous a doctrine upon so slight a foundation?

I should prefer greatly, if when Mr. Pardon criticizes my views he would quote my

own words, and give the page, as I do with his. Lot me observe too, that of the sixarguments which I use on this point, Mr. Pardon notices but one. If persons then trust tosuch representations without examination, they will go away with wholly inadequate andmistaken ideas. There are about a hundred and fifty passages of Scripture upon which Ibuild my momentous sentiments on this topic.

Mr. Pardon proceeds


22/44


_____________________________________________________________________

The meaning of our Lord is this You call yourself a true believerbut I knowyou to be a hypocrite, (m i.) and to prove that I will appoint you a portion with the

hypocrites, while you expected a portion among the saints. Now in oppositionhereto, I deny that the steward calls himselfa believer; and I ask, where does theLord say? I know you to be a hypocrite.

Passages addressed to disciples, Mr. Purdon, apply to believers; as you confess.Then this parable of the Steward is a word to believers. Twice it is given, and in bothcases it is spoken to disciples. I have given the first reference: the second is Luke xii,4 146. In. this second case it takes up the case of apostles, in consequence of Petersquestion about the previous parable of the servants left waiting. Lord, is this parablemeant for Christians in general, or specially for the twelve? The Lords reply is to thiseffect If you wish a parable which shall refer specially to you apostles, Who then

is the faithful and wise steward?The steward, from internal evidence, is certainly abeliever; he expects his masters return; although his heart says, he is slow about it.

And as found acting like an unbeliever, the lord will appoint his portion with theunbelievers.

Cutting in sunder is a punishment which implies and which causes the totaldestruction of a man as to the present life; He therefore cutting in sunder whenapplied to a man in a future state implies total destruction, and not a temporaryloss. It implies something final, total, and perpetual in the next life, as it certainlydoes as to this life.

I answer, the cutting asunder means Jesus depriving the unfaithful one of bodilylife. The man is living in the flesh at the time when the Saviour comes; and finding himguilty in the way named, Jesus takes away his life by the stroke of judicial vengeance.

As I said in the Saints Rapture,His- natural life is violently taken away, p. 166. Afterthat begins his appointed portion with unbelievers and hypocrites.

Mr. Purdon goes on to saythat if the steward and servants in the talents arecaught up to meet Christ, my case is proved. But he denies that it is so.

The parable of the Talents is supposed by Mr. Govett to be so confined to asingle moment, to the time when the church shall stand before the Lord in the air,

and before the Lord has come sown upon the earth. There is not the leastauthority for believing such a thing.

Mr. Purdon is not cautious in his language: his scythe sweeps the full circuitwithout a check. If the sentiment does not please him, there is not the least evidence inits favor; or it is the greatest error ever known. I will endeavor to remind him of some ofthe evidence given in the book whence he derives these subjects of criticism.


23/44


_____________________________________________________________________

The taking and leaving (Matt. xxiv, 40. 41.) is the result of Christs descent fromheaven into air, as foretold 1 Thess. iv. The taken and the left are both believers of the

church of Christ; as is proved in the Saints Rapture.The taking and the leaving are thesign to the Jews of the Saviors presence in secret. The apostates asked for a sign of it,

(v. 3) and here it is given.

But after our Lord has given to the Jew the outside view of His secret presence,He proceeds to apply to His people of the church the full meaning of it. He shows firstthe effect of His presence, in regard of those unready for it, and therefore left behind,in the parables of the Householder and the Steward. He then utters the two parablesof the Virgins and Talents, which exhibit the results of that presence to those caught upto meet the Lord Jesus. His giving a sign of his Presence proves that it in secret: andtherefore it is for His church. When He is seen openly, it is in fulfillment of His promise

to Israel that His presence shall be like the lightning. That is to be their security againstbeing deceived by the false Christs. All the four parables after the taking and leaving arePresence-parables. And then comes the parable of the Sheep and Goats, when the Sonof man is seen by the living nations of earth sitting on His visible throne of glory.

With the presence -parables are connected the commands to the church that itbe watchful and ready for the Lords advent. 42, 44. The same command ofwatchfulness given to the church of Christ in the epistles relates to the time of our Lordspresence. l Thess. iv, v. 6; Rev. iii, 2; 3; xvi, 15. That too is the time when Christshouse is to give account. And we are that household. 1 Tim. iii, 15. There is evidencethen that the parable of the Steward belongs to the time when the Lord has left the

heaven, and before he has come visibly to earth.

The parable of the Talents relates to the Lords dealings with thePROFESSING CHURCH, as the parable of the Goats relates to His dealing withthe world at large. The professing church is called a servant, because itpretends to be a servant. vii, 4.

There are loud calls for proofs from me, but Mr. Pardon thinks it quiteunnecessary to give them himself. How does it appear that the Talents refer to the

professingchurch? Do I admit of it? No. Nowhere, that I know of, is the idea of theprofessing church found in the New Testament. I need not say that the expression is

not to be found there. But, stranger still, the professing church is called a servant! Theone-talent servant is a symbol of the whole multitude of mere professors. Will Mr.Purdon prove that?

While then my antagonist admits, that the first part of the Talents relating to thetwo first servants occurs in the air after the Lords descent, his theory is, that the

judgment of the one-talent servant takes place, years (it may be) after that day, whenour Lord has come down to earth. Is there not in some prophecies a long break, where


24/44


_____________________________________________________________________

at first none appears?' Yes: but the break must beproved, not assumed. Mr. Purdonadmits that the first part of the Talents is transacted, ere the Lord appears to earth. The

whole of it therefore occurs then, unless he can show proof to the contrary. It is on himthen, not on me, that the obligation lies to show proof.

Mr. Govett has asserted that the children of God (m.i.) may be cut insundercast into outer darknessshut up in prison foran unknown time(In i.) and other things both terrible and NEW. Mr. Govett builds hisstrange and formidable opinion on one single point alone (m.i.) namely,that the unfaithful steward and the idle servant, are all of them truebelievers. If they are not true believers, Mr. Govetts structure falls, like abuilding in the air.

1. Will Mr. Pardon be more accurate when he represents my belief? Mr. Govetthas asserted that the children of God may be cut in sunder. Do I assert this of thepeople of God in general? No, but of certain special offenders among them in particular.Would not he be thought greatly to misrepresent Englands position who should sayDont go live in that country! Why the English are always liable to imprisonment, thetreadmill, and the gallows!

2. Believers are not liable to imprisonment for an unknown time,but during thekingdom; and the duration of that is for a thousand years.

3. The view is not founded on a single point: it rests far less on the parables than

on express passages of our Lords discourses, and on the epistles. If Mr. Purdon hasnot received papers containing some of the unfigurative texts on which the belief isbased, he can obtain them on application to me. But at any rate, if he have read, (as Isuppose he has, by Tract iv, p. 10). Entrance into the Kingdom,he must know, that Irest on clear and express assertions of the Holy Ghost.

To say you may be cut asunder and cast into outer darkness, though all thewhile you are a member of Jesus Christ, of His flesh and of His bones! This isan awful assertion, a dismemberment of the body of Christ I an awful subject! YetMr. Govett has ventured on it, and finished the dismemberment on no betterproof, than that a man who is punished so and so MAY be a child of God, when

there is not the least evidence (mi.) that he is any such thing.

Here again Mr. Pardons scythe is in full swing. The proofs, which have beengiven of the faith of the steward, will show that there is evidence that he is a child ofGod, while there is no evidence adduced against it. Only (Mr. Pardon holds) that thepunishment is so terrible, that it must overbear all proof ofhis being a believer.


25/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Can such a blow be dealt on a member of Christ? Can one who is part of Hisflesh be severed from Him?

Yes! During the time when each eats of the fruits of his own doings. Yes! If wewill trust what our Lord says. I am the true vine, and my Father is the Husbandman.Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit, He taketh away.If a man (any) abide not inMe, he is cast out as a branch, and is withered, and they gather them, and cast them intothe fire, and they are burned:" John xv, 2, 6. (Greek).

Does not Mr. Pardon observe that there is no future judgment of the Church as acorporate body? We are told simply, that each believer is to be judged. Here lies thefallacy which is continually being put forward by opponents. They would make theprivileges of the body corporate aproof, that there shall be no judgment or penalty on

each individual. But the Holy Ghost testifies to the individuality of the judgment, and ofthe penalty; and we must not make one part of truth to clash with another.

But perhaps some will say But you have given no proofs that believers will bedealt with singly. Here they are then. Matt. xvi, 27; Rom. ii, 6, xiv, 12; 1 Cor. iii, 8, 10,13, &c.

What we are now considering is not the general question, but Mr. Govettsassertion, That every degree of disgrace and punishment short of eternal woe,may take effect in the kingdom. These are Mr. Govetts precise words; and it isagainst this that we are at present contending.

Mr. Purdon has quoted only a part of the sentence, and has left out that on whichits evidence depends. If the principle of reward according to works be true, then everydegree, &c." Those words suggest that is the truth (admitted in great degree by Mr.Purdon), that sins of a deep dye may be committed by believers; and therefore, ifrecompense is to be in proportion to the evil of the work, the penalty will be severeindeed.

Mr. Purdon proceeds to use an argument derived from Rom. viii, 30, 32.

Whom He JUSTIFIED them He also GLORIFIFD, says St. Paul: and again

Who shall lay ANYTHING to the charge of Gods elect? Rom. viii. We askattention to these two passages, Whom He justified them He also glorified.Observe, here there is no interval whatever between grace and glory: there is nochasm or interruption in the process; (m.i.)justification ends in glory, without anyproviso whatever being alluded to. But could this be said, if it were possible thatany degree of punishment short of eternal woe, may take place in thekingdom?


26/44


_____________________________________________________________________

In a previous passage Mr. Purdon asserted, that there was a long intervalbetween two points of a description, where no evidence of such chasm was to be found.

Here he asserts, that there is no interval, where the work spoken of requires manifestlythe interval of ages between some of the links.

Whom He did predestinate, them He also called.

Between these two events there is necessarily a gap of ages untold. Some ofGods elect come not into being till centuries after the earths foundation; and Godspredestination took place ages unnumbered before earths creation.

Whom He called, them He also justified.

Between the first call to a soul and its faith, there is generally some interval. Here isa second gap.

That there should be a third interval between justification and glorification wouldbe only in harmony with the previous two cases. But there must be such an intervalhere. Is each glorified now? No: but many are justified. Many of the dead are justified,but there is a gap of ages ere they will be glorified.

But no condition is stated here, all is spoken of as certain. Most true: the HolyGhost keeps apart and distinct truths, which are of different characters. He is herespeaking of the effect, which follow on. Gods sovereign purpose, and therefore glory

shall infallibly follow on grace. But how does the silence here about the kingdom andreward according to works, contradict what is said on those topics elsewhere? Why thisvery chapter, to which the opponents of reward according to works naturally betakethemselves this chapter, which speaks so beautifully of Gods electing, persevering

love, tells us too of the issues our conduct in that day of justice. For ifye live after theflesh, ye are about to die, (Greek) but if ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of thebody, ye shall live:" 13. Compare Gal. vi, 7, 8; v, I 9-21.

Still less could it be said, Who shall lay anything to the charge of Godselect? This would be impossible to assertit would be a downright untruth, ifwhole ages of disgrace and punishment might be the lot of Gods elect in a

future life. -Would this be laying NOTHING to their charges? On the contrary itwould be laying EVERYTHING to their charge, except only what was necessaryfor eternal condemnation.

Here Mr. Pardon himself steps in to rescue me from his own artillery. Is the roarof his guns very terrible? But at this point his cannons fire into the muzzles of a formerbattery of his, and silence them.


27/44


_____________________________________________________________________

We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every onemay receive the things done in his body. But if God were extreme to mark

what is done amiss, who could abide it? All would be condemned, nonecould be saved. The ordinary preaching of the day gets over this immensedifficulty in the very rudest manner. It tells you, that your sins are forgiven,and there is an end of them. But this explanation is unscriptural andimpossible. St. Paul tells us the very reverse, he tells us that we must givean account, and to give an account of a sin already pardoned is anabsurdity. You might as well speak of having to pay a debt that has beenalready paid. Here is a difficulty that is absolutely insurmountable excepton the principle of rewards, allowances, and compensations. You are togive an account, in order to measure out your REWARD. Your sin, as asin, has been pardoned through the blood of Christ; but your sin, as

detracting so much less or more from your REWARD, is still to beaccounted for.

Here Mr. Pardons two battalions are firing on each other; and himself; likeStonewall Jackson, is struck down from behind by a shot from his own ranks. Heconfesses that the pardon of sin does not prevent our having that sin afterwards laid toour charge, nor its taking effect on us in Christs presence.

For myself I should explain the difficulty more simply and correctly, I think, bysayingthat faith in. Christs blood puts away all a believers sins, considered asoffences against the Great Governor of all. You are thenceforward no longer an enemy

of God, but a servant. Luke xix, 1127. Then, when the Matter comes, you have to giveaccount before Him of how you have behaved yourself since you believed. Give anaccount of thy stewardship. Now in this matter of service many are guilty, not only of.not doing Christ service, but of damaging His cause in a way that no unconverted mancould do; and of stumbling both the world, and the young of the flock to a fearful extent.But what does our Lord say of such? Does lie tell usthat such shall enter the kingdomindeed, but that they shall be set in its lowest place? Naylie launches a woe againstthem, and assures us, that the man had better have died by a violent death, such asthat which the Romans inflicted on the parricide, than be guilty in such sort.

But whoso shall offend (cause to stumble) one of these little ones which believe

in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that hewere drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! For itmust needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it isbetter for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feetto be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it fromthee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes t. becast into hell fire: Matt. xviii, 6-9.


28/44


_____________________________________________________________________

We come next to consider the Parable of the TEN VIRGINS.

Mr. Govett has fallen into some great errors which render it impossiblefor us to give implicit credit to his judgment. In the first place he makes theTen Virgins represent the BRIDESMAIDS, and then asserts that the TenVirgins with two more added to them, represent the WHOLE CHURCH.But this is absolutely impossible. The Ten Virgins are all applying foradmission to the marriage-supper, and at that marriage-supper surely thebride herself must be present. It is impossible, that the Bride can be sittingat the feast and applying at the door for admission at the same moment.

And it is just as much impossible, that PART or the Bride can be in thistwofold predicament. The whole idea is inconceivable.

Now what will the reader say, when he finds that the whole absurdity is of Air?Purdons conjuring up, contrary to the express words of the commentary, which he iscriticizing? I have endeavored in the book in question to prove, that the Ten Virginswho are all asleep, answer to the dead in Christ: and that the two men who are on theearth represent the case of those who are alive and remain unto the Presence of theLord. The ten and the two make up the perfect number twelve, which includes the wholechurch, as it is the number also of the tribes of Israel. But do I suppose the bridesmaidsto be the Bride? Or a part of the Bride? I expressly guard against any such idea: I say

Thus an objection frequently made to the present view is easily answered.This cannot be true; for you make a part of the Bride to be absent from the

supper, by supposing that the five foolish virgins constitute a portion of thechurch, and yet are shut out. The reply is obvious; the parable does not exhibitthe whole church; it takes up only the case ofthose departed in the faith. And theBride here is not the church, but the city of God. Rev. xx, 2, 9, 10. Where bridesrepresent a part of the church-maids, the whole church cannot be representedby the Bride. Again, if the bridesmaids be only the sleepers in Christ, (and weshall not all sleep, while all the virgins did) then the virgins cannot be the church,nor can Jerusalem be the Bride, as one has suggested: The Saints Rapture, p.129.

Mr. Purdon then gives, without any proof his own. Views of the case, which I am

sure, are wrong. He proceeds.

Mr. Govett actually asserts, that the oil in the LAMPS (torches) is theordinary saving grace of God; but that the oil in the VESSELS is theextraordinary gift of miraculous works. This is the most singularmistake ofwhich we have ever heard.


29/44


_____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Pardon is not intended for a controversialist; for he uses language in a veryloose and inaccurate manner. An anecdote will exhibit this. One of the band of ringers at

Staines was an uneducated man, who had high ideas of his own information, lie wasonce walking in the churchyard, showing a stranger the church, when, looking up at theold tower, he said, . There, sir, that tower was built by Inigo Jones; the same man, byall accounts, as built the pyramids of Egypt! That was a mistake, if you please. It wasan error in regard of matter of fact. But an erroneous interpretation of Scripture is amatter of opinion, and improperly called a mistake, however unsuitable it may be.Besides, it must beprovederroneous, which Mr. Purdon forgets to do.

But I am charged with another absurdity; woe is me!

Mr. Govett admits, as he must, that the oil in the vessels is used for pouring

into the lamps, in order to keep the lamps from going out; so that according toMr. Govett, the oil of miracles, as soon as it is poured out into the lamps, istransformed into a new kind of oil, and becomes the oil of saving grace. (m. i.)

Who aver heard of such a thing before? Who ever heard of a man carrying onekind of oil burning in his lamp, and oil of quite a different kind in a vessel, for thepurpose of keeping that lamp from going out? Or how is it possible that the oil ofmiracles in the vessels should be changed into the oil of saving grace themoment it is poured into the lamps?

This absurdity is not of my making. I neither say, nor imply, that the secondsupply of oil, when used in the torch, becomes saving grace.

The whole scheme is impossible and incredible, and yet Mr. Govett is soconfident of its correctness, that he declares it to be quite unanswerable.

Will Mr. Purdon, when he states any of my views is good enough to give theplace whence the quotation is taken? The passage to which I suppose my opponentalludes, refers to the interpretation of the whole parable, and is as follows: --

To the views of the parable expressed in my former work, (The Prophecy onOlivet) I still adhere with increasing assurance. Conviction has deepened withincreasing light, with the perception that no new Theory has been brought forwardwhich can explain the text, and from the power to answer the objections broughtagainst the former interpretation: p. 126.

Ought not ones confidence in the strength of the fortification to rise with everyattack on it that is repulsed?

We see therefore, that Mr. Govett is not infallible, and we also perceive thathe is too much wedded to any opinion which he has once adopted, however


30/44


_____________________________________________________________________

untenable it may be. To make the ten bridesmaids a part of the Bride is no smallmistake; but to make the oil of miraculous gifts change into the oil of saving grace

is a far greater one.

Far be it from me to clutch tenaciously what is false, because I have once held it!My belief that we shall give account of our doctrines makes me fearful of retaining whatis untrue. I had rather endure the humiliation of confessing myself wrong now, than beconvinced of it by and by, by the burning up of my work.

Whose the two mistakes are, on which my want of judgment standsdemonstrated, the reader now knows as well as I.

Believing as I do, that the second supply of oil is the gift of the Spirit, I of course

maintain that the foolish Virgins, as not procuring the supply in time, are excludednotfrom the millennial kingdom, but from the marriage supper, which precedes itwhichprecedes too our Lords coming forth from the sky to take His kingdom. Rev. xix, 7-11.

This assertion is made on his own authority; it is founded on the suppositionthat the oil in the lamps and the oil in the vessels are of two distinct kinds, whichis impossible.And as it is founded on an impossibility, it falls to the groundaltogether, and is not even deserving of any further consideration.

It is impossible that the two supplies of oil should be of different kinds. Is thereany proof? Not a hint at it! Reader, is it impossible?

The mistake as to the two kinds of oil is the greatest we have ever met withupon any question whatever.

Here is the former inaccuracy about mistake. If Mr. Purdon would but have thegoodness to prove it a mistake, and apply his two-foot rule to it, to show how muchgreater it is in length, breadth, and thickness than any other he ever met with, I shall feelobliged. I, who have been in the habit of believing that there are various kinds of oil;indeed that they can be procured from the mineral, animal, and vegetable kingdoms, amslow to discover how two kinds could not be used in. The same torch at different times,or even together.

I give several proofs in support of my belief, that the second supply of oil (I do notcall it, two kinds) is the supernatural gift of the Holy Ghost. Mr. Pardon gives none insupport of his denial. That I do not suppose the second supply to turn into converting grace,the following paragraphs will show: --

The foolish, now discovering their waning lights, petition for oil. They areprudently requested to procure some for themselves, and accordingly set out in questofit. Now, neitherthe hypocrite nor the true believer could fall into error so gross as


31/44


_____________________________________________________________________

is supposed, if we make the oil to signify the converting grace of God. Who knowsnot, that his fellow cannot grant it? Who of the lost will not awake to the full

conviction that his opportunity is gone forever, when once he arises from the dead?And that it is no mere rising from sloth is clear, because there is no possibility ofrecovering the ground lost before the sleep.

Again, ifone of the virgins had possessed oil enough forherself and a friend, andhad been willing to share it, what would have been the result? Must not both haveentered the feast? Assuredly. But has any one of the saved power to impart to anotherwhat shall suffice to attain eternal life? It is supposed possible here, that one or all mighthave had more than sufficient oil for their own purposes: Saints Rapture,144.

Mr. Pardon proceeds

But more than this. What becomes (under Mr. Govetts teaching,) of the gloriousliberty of the children of God? What become of those words As FREE, yet notusing your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness? Those two texts must be at onceblotted out.

Let the reader judge! What either of the texts has to do with the case, it would behard to say.

1. The first, taken from Rom. viii, is speaking about the redemption of the animalcreation, no less than of saved man, from death and the corruption of the grave.

Creation is waiting till the sons of God are manifested in their risen bodies.

For the creature was made subject to vanity, pain, and death, not willingly, [notby its own fault, but Adams] but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption intothe liberty of glory (belonging to) the sons of God: 19-21. (Greek.) As the animalcreation has felt pain and death through the fault of another race, so shall it partake ofthe effects of Christs redemption; and when the sons ofGod are delivered in resurrectionfrom the slavery of death and of putrefaction, into the freedom of endless life and intothe glory of the risen body [for our bodies shall shine like the sun, Matt. xiii, 43] they tooshall partake of such liberty and glory.

2. What says the context of the second text?

Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speakagainst you as evildoers, they may by yourgood works, which they shall behold, glorifyGod in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lordssake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors as unto them that are sentby him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise ofthem that do well. For so is


32/44


_____________________________________________________________________

the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: asfree, and not using yourliberty for a duke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king:" 1 Peter ii, 12-17.

It appears then, that Peter is directing believers how to conduct themselves inreference to civil government. They were Christs freemen, yet were to be obedient tothe commands of kings and subordinate governors. What has this to do with thequ

Documents

Believersenter Robert Govett