Chapter 22: Sentiment and Emotion: The Truth of God
 It is as impossible to discuss a question scripturally with those who are guided by emotion and sentiment, as it was for Greatheart, in the second part of Pilgrim’s Progress, to arouse Heedless and Too‑bold when sleeping on the Enchanted Ground.
 Romans 4:25 plainly teaches that our Lord “was delivered in consequence of our offences, and raised again in consequence of our justification.” The preposition in each case is the same, so that just as His death resulted from His bearing our sins, so did His resurrection result from the accomplishment of that propitiation whereby we receive pardon and peace. Some speak of our sins “being buried in the grave of Jesus;” but how could they get there? The Cross was the last place where He had to do with sin: the shedding of His blood, the laying down of His life, was the payment of the full redemption price. He himself bore our sins up to the tree; but on the completion of His sacrifice, all that had to do with sin was ended; and He was laid in the grave, not as then the sinbearer, but as the Holy One who had borne the full penalty. Of this the resurrection was the full proof. If the weight of sin rested on Him when buried, how could it have been removed? It is true that our sin had laid Him in the grave, because He had died to put it away; but it was no longer on Him when He was there. On Romans 4:25, see, as to this point, Bishop Horsley’s sermon. Nine Sermons on our Lord’s Resurrection, etc., p. 249. 1822.
 If it were desirable to answer arguments in the same way as that in which they are put, it might be asked whether those who expect a secret coming of Christ are those “that love His appearing”? For this is of necessity a manifest thing. But at least let not the advocates of a secret coming speak of those who expect the appearing of Christ, as if they failed in that love to Him which should lead them to wait for Him. They love His appearing, and they do not substitute something else in the place of “that blessed hope.”
 “It is unwelcome news to the maintainer of some cherished exposition, to be told by an unsympathising critic that it is a baseless vision, a notion unsupported by the language of the text. And it is also worthy of remark, how often the supporters of extravagancies in theology have manifeted an instinctive dread of exact learning.”—Rev. T. S. Green, M.A., On the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect. Ed. 1, 1842. Introduction, p. v.
 The opposition of visionary teachers and the receivers of their teaching, to all textual criticism founded on evidence‑to all investigation, in fact, regarding what are the real words and sentences given forth under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost‑appears to be only equaled by the temerity with which, in certain cases, they accept conclusions which they desire, rather on assertion than on evidence. “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come: for men shall be lovers of their own selves, etc., etc.... Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth .... But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, etc .... All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3). So taught the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was himself an able “minister of the New Testament” (2 Cor. 2:6), for the guidance of the Church in the “perilous times.”