a point has been established by full proof from Holy Scripture, it is often impossible, and in general needless, to meet each objection or difficulty which may be raised. It is often impossible, because all the modes in which different objectors will find difficulties may be unknown to those who rest on the simple warrants of the Word of God. It is commonly needless, because when we have to do with those who are subject to the authority of God in His Word, full Scripture proof of a point is enough; and also it is felt that the varying grounds taken by objectors, and their contradictions of Scripture, show that they are striving (even though at times unconsciously) against truths which cannot be overthrown.

Thus, if we have to establish the Deity of Christ, we bring forward the direct proofs, the distinct statements that He is God over all, blessed for ever, and that He is the Creator, Sustainer, and essentially the Lord of all. We do not think it needful to inquire into every cavil of every objector, and to discuss these one by one, before we regard the point as proved. We do not pretend to meet what may be called the difficulties of the case; indeed, we do wisely not to imagine that we can overcome the prejudice which is proof against the distinct words of inspired prophets and apostles. We have, as well as we are enabled, to state the revealed truth; and then its application can be made with efficacious power by the secret working of the Holy Ghost.

Although reference has been made to particular objections, to discuss them in detail has not been attempted. The reasons just stated will suffice for this: answers have been given to some of the ways in which the Scriptures cited have been set aside; but beyond this it is impossible to go without an extensive inquiry into the various modes in which advocates of the secret coming and secret rapture seek to make the theory plausible. It would be as much to the purpose to discuss all that has been written against the truth that "we are justified freely by the grace of God, for the sake of Christ’s merits, through faith," before firmly and definitely setting forth the Gospel. All the grounds of objection to the hope of Christ’s people being His glorious appearing, to which I refer, are such as really have been relied on. I do not discuss mere surmises; I notice a few points for the help (as I trust) of some; but I do not charge any one with holding anything which he rejects: different maintainers of the secret rapture have taken different grounds.

A supposed distinction has been made between the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord, as if the one could be a secret hope before the other which is manifest; but in 1 Corinthians 1:8, "the day of our Lord" is the hope of the Church: so, too, in 2 Corinthians 1:14, is "the day of the Lord Jesus;" in Philippians 1:6 and 10 believers are directed on to "the day of Jesus Christ;" in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Christians are spoken of as knowing that the day of the Lord cometh like a thief in the night, but (vv. 4 and 5) it will not come like a thief on those who are children of light; but still it is the day that they expect. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," and "the day of the Lord" (true reading) are used as co-ordinate terms. And well may this be done; for at the coming of the Lord Jesus the day begins: the only contrast that could be drawn is, that the coming is one point of time, while the day is a continuous period: to those who are in the darkness of night, however, it is the same thing to expect the dawn of the sun-light and the beginning of the day: and he who tried to distinguish these things as to time, would fail in finding intelligible language in which to express himself. In 2 Peter 3:12, believers are spoken of as "looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God;" this is the same "day of the Lord" which verse 10 speaks of as the fulfillment of "the promise of His (Christ’s) coming" (v. 4), about which the scoffer asks, as if it were a hope that had failed. The passages which speak of the day as our hope contradict all theory of secrecy. Could the Sun of Righteousness arise without the day beginning? Had a distinction been made the dawn would precede the sun-rising.

Some, indeed, ask, "Have you not overlooked how plainly the secret rapture of the Church is set forth in the Canticles?" But is it intended that we should interpret the New Testament by the Canticles? Should we not rather let the full light of the Christian Revelation shine on the ancient Scriptures? Of one thing we may be certain, that nothing in the Canticles can contradict our Lord’s words, and His promise that His elect shall be gathered unto Him by His angels at His manifest coming with power and great glory. Whatever may be the import of passages in the Canticles which speak of secrecy ("the secret[1] places of the stairs," etc.), or of the withdrawal of the bride from any particular scene ("Come with me from Lebanon," etc.), we ought to be so established in New Testament truth as not to imagine that these can set forth a secret rapture, unless such a rapture had been definitely taught in the Word-instead of its being contradicted.

To learn the distinct hope of the Lord’s coming is a far simpler thing than it is to interpret the Canticles. Many may know definitely the promises of our Lord, who can but ponder as to that book, valuing it not according to their intelligence of its contents, but because they see Christ there.[2]

Others ask whether it is not evident that the Church is seen in the Book of Revelation in heavenly glory, long before the visible coming of our Lord (See Appendix G). Now, our hopes may be known very clearly, even though we have but little ability to interpret the Apocalypse; nay, it is rather by apprehending our hopes that we shall begin to use that closing book of Scripture aright.

The teachers of the "secret" doctrine act in very contradictory ways with regard to the Apocalypse. Some of them say that it is not for our instruction, for it is given from Christ to show "His servants things which must shortly come to pass" (See Concluding paragraphs of Chapter 11); others say that the epistles to the seven churches are our portion ("the things which are"); but that when a door is opened in heaven (Chapter 4) the Church is caught up. Others maintain that the whole book is future; that the seven churches even are bodies which shall be formed (and which shall be thus taught), after the secret removal of the present Church. Now, without discussing these contradictory theories, let it be again noted that the coming of the Lord is set forth in the opening of the book: "Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him;" and to this coming, the Apostle responds, "Even so, Amen." No supposition that the Church is found in resurrection glory prior to such a conning can be admitted as capable of reconciliation with this opening expectation. Nor can any symbol be rightly interpreted as setting forth the Church as actually in resurrection glory at a point of time previous to the first resurrection of Chapter 20, and that is after the last anti-Christian persecution, in which the faithful are beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus.[3]

If the manifest coming of our Lord in glory be not our hope, it would be indeed strange that the apostles should have so habitually taught such a coming, and have said so much about it in their epistles.

If the secret advent and secret removal of the Church be true, how can the advocates of this theory show that the secret event did not take place long ago? How do they know but that they themselves are living in the supposed interval between the secret coming of Christ and His coming in glory? And thus, How can they be sure that they are part of the Church at all? In fact, if the secret rapture theory were true, they might be devoid of all knowledge of what way of salvation (amongst the confused theories) is now available; for the preaching of the Gospel may have ended with the rapture and resurrection of the Church; and, if this is a private occurrence, it may be long past, without any one being aware of it.

ENDNOTES:

[1] I could hardly give the supposed detail how “the clefts of the rock” became “the secret places of the stairs,” without going beyond that gravity and reverence for Holy Scripture that should be maintained.

[2] That this book has a holy character is what few, I trust, who read these pages, will doubt: that it must set forth Christ is what reverential readers of Holy Scripture will of course admit. The theories of Ewald and others must be abhorrent to every Christian mind; and although Ginsburg seeks to give a new turn to such theories, yet it is vain to make the subject of the book of Canticles a shepherdess, who contemns and finally rejects the addresses of King Solomon. The grounds on which Ginsburg excludes Christ, and adopts, with less irreverence of expression, notions borrowed from Ewald, etc., are of the weakest kind. Even unconverted Jews, such as Aben Ezra, could teach him better. It would be marvelous that he should find followers, except that any notion which unsettles definite thoughts as to Holy Scripture, or which would exclude Christ, is sure to be admired by some. Dean Alford has well said that he who does not find Christ everywhere in Holy Scripture, will not be able to find Him anywhere. “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”